RESUMEN
PURPOSE: To determine whether range of motion (ROM) varies with the location and extent of labral tear seen in patients undergoing arthroscopic anterior shoulder stabilization. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing arthroscopic anterior shoulder stabilization who were enrolled in the Multicenter Orthopaedic Outcomes Network Shoulder Instability database underwent a preoperative physical examination and intraoperative examination under anesthesia in which ROM was recorded. Intraoperatively, the location and extent of the labral tear was recorded using conventional clock-face coordinates. Patients were grouped by combinations of quadrants involved in the labral tear (G1-G7): G1 = anterior only, G2 = anterior + inferior, G3 = anterior + inferior + posterior, G4 = all quadrants, G5 = superior + anterior, G6 = superior + anterior + inferior, and G7 = posterior + superior + anterior. Statistical analyses were performed with the Kruskal-Wallis rank-sum test. When P < .05, a post-hoc Dunn's test was performed. For categorical variables, the χ2 test was performed. We performed a series of bivariate negative binomial regression models testing pairwise combinations of ROM parameters predicting the count of labral tear locations (possible: 0-5) within each quadrant. RESULTS: A total of 467 patients were included, with 13 (2.8%) in G1, 221 (47.3%) in G2, 40 (8.6%) in G3, 51 (10.9%) in G4, 18 (3.9%) in G5, 121 (25.9%) in G6, and 3 (0.6%) in G7. Multiple statistically significant differences were noted in ROM, specifically active internal rotation at side (IRS) (P = .005), active abduction (P = .02), passive IRS (P = .02), and passive external rotation in abduction (P = .0007). Regression modeling revealed a positive correlation between passive abduction and predicted count of labral tear locations in the superior quadrant and between passive IRS and predicted count of labral tear location in the inferior quadrant. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing arthroscopic shoulder stabilization for anterior instability, ROM varies with location and extent of labral tear. However, the clinical relevance of such small ROM differences remains undetermined. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II, prospective comparative study.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Approximately 20% of all geriatric patients who sustain low-energy hip fractures will die within 1 year of the injury, and approximately 3% will die during the initial inpatient hospital stay. Accordingly, the event of a geriatric hip fracture might be an apt prompt for discussing end-of-life care: in light of the risk of death after this injury, the topic of mortality certainly is germane. However, it is not clear to what degree physicians and patients engage in end-of-life planning even when faced with a hospital admission for this potentially life-threatening condition. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We assessed the frequency with which end-of-life care discussions were documented among a sample of geriatric patients admitted for hip fracture surgery. METHODS: We studied 150 adult patients, 70 years and older, admitted between September 2008 and July 2012 for the care of an isolated low-energy hip fracture, who did not have documented evidence of end-of-life care planning before the time of admission. For each patient, the medical record was scrutinized to identify documentation of end-of-life care discussions, an order changing "code status," or a progress note memorializing a conversation related to the topic of end-of-life care planning. RESULTS: Of the 150 subjects who had no documented evidence of end-of-life care planning at the time of admission, 17 (11%) had their code status changed during the initial hospitalization for hip fracture, and an additional four patients (3%) had a documented conversation regarding end-of-life care planning without a subsequent change in code status. Accordingly, there were 129 (86%) patients who had no record of any attention to end-of-life care planning during the hospital stay for hip fracture surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that physicians may be missing a valuable opportunity to help patients and their families be better prepared for potential future health issues. End-of-life care planning respects patient autonomy and enhances the quality of care. Accordingly, we recommend that discussion of goals, expectations, and preferences should be initiated routinely when patients present with a fragility fracture of the hip. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic study.