A Systematic Review of Heterotopic Ossification Following Shoulder Arthroplasty: Is There a Clinical Value?

This systematic review aims to assess the contemporary literature on the incidence rate, functional scores, and clinical outcomes of heterotopic ossification (HO) following shoulder arthroplasty. We conducted a thorough literature search on EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Ortho Search to identify studies that directly compared patients with and without HO following hemiarthroplasty, anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA), or reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA). We included studies with a minimum follow-up period of one year published from January 2000 to March 2023. We excluded case reports, editorials, and reviews. We performed the systematic review in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Of the 297 studies initially identified, seven met our inclusion criteria. These studies evaluated a total of 1,134 arthroplasties (212 hemiarthroplasties, 376 aTSAs, and 546 rTSAs). The mean follow-up period was 30.52 (12-120) months and the mean age was 68.69 (20-92). The overall incidence rate of HO was 26.8% (304/1,134). Male gender was associated with a higher incidence rate of HO in three studies. No statistically significant difference was noted in symptoms at follow-up or in Constant-Murley score at two years of follow-up (HO vs. non-HO: 70 vs. 75, p = 0.081). Only one study reported a significant difference in the post-arthroplasty range of motion, specifically in forward elevation (121° vs. 133°, p = 0.0087) and external rotation (19° vs. 25°, p-value = 0.0266). We conclude that HO after shoulder arthroplasty does not display a significant impact on postoperative symptoms or functional outcomes in the majority of patients. To fully comprehend its effect, further research and consensus among experts is necessary.

Emotional Intelligence and Good Medical Practice: Is There a Relationship?

Emotional intelligence (EI) is defined as the ability to perceive and manage the emotions of oneself and others. Despite being one of the most highly used psychological terms in popular nomenclature, its understanding in the context of clinicians remains poor. There is a dearth of literature on this topic, and this submission examines the relationship between a clinicians' EI and the key domains of "Good Medical Practice" guidelines from the General Medical Council, United Kingdom. It aims to review and critically analyse the existing literature on EI and Good Medical Practice while attempting to establish a relationship between the two. This submission thus examines the relationship between emotional intelligence and a clinician's on-the-job performance. The findings demonstrate how emotional intelligence can aid the clinician in all aspects of their working life in the context of practising in line with General Medical Council (GMC) guidance. The authors also recommend exploring the possibility of inclusion of EI within a modern medical curriculum, as it may lead to improved practice in clinicians.