Arthroscopic Pectoralis Minor Release After Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Novel Consideration for Postarthroplasty Pain.

CASE: A 74-year-old male patient presenting with chronic radiating shoulder pain, paresthesias, and weakness had previously undergone reverse shoulder arthroplasty and anterior cervical discectomy and fusion for an irreparable cuff tear and cervical radiculopathy, respectively. After being diagnosed with neurogenic thoracic outlet syndrome and undergoing physiotherapy, the patient's recalcitrant condition was surgically managed with arthroscopic pectoralis minor tenotomy, suprascapular nerve release, and brachial plexus neurolysis. CONCLUSION: This ultimately led to complete pain relief and improved function. By sharing this case, we aim to shed light on this overlooked pathology and help prevent unnecessary procedures for others suffering from similar conditions.

The Effect of Immobilization Position on Functional Outcomes and Complications Associated With the Conservative Treatment of Distal Radius Fractures: A Systematic Review.

Purpose: We evaluated the literature on complications associated with different positions used for immobilizing the upper extremity during conservative treatment of distal radius fractures (DRF). Methods: A search of PubMed, Embase, and Medline was conducted to identify original research on the effects that upper extremity positioning during the treatment of DRFs has on complication rates. Treatment groups were categorized by wrist positioning in flexion, extension, or neutral, as well as forearm positioning in pronation, supination, or neutral. The primary endpoints examined included the loss of reduction, recasting/refabricating an orthosis, and functional limitations. Results: A total of 1,655 articles were identified through an initial database search. Ultimately, 8 studies, with 786 total patients, met the inclusion criteria for this systematic review. A qualitative analysis determined that immobilizing DRFs with the wrist in extension results in better functional and radiographic outcomes with lower rates of complications, such as pain, recasting, and the need for operation. The 2 studies that compared forearm pronation versus supination revealed contradictory results regarding which position was associated with superior outcomes. A meta-analysis comparing the various wrist and forearm positions failed to demonstrate statistically significant differences in the rates of loss of reduction or recasting/refabricating an orthosis between the groups. This analysis was limited by considerable heterogeneity in the data from the different studies. Conclusions: Despite the high incidence of DRFs, there is limited research on the optimal position of immobilization for conservative treatment of them. Available evidence suggests that the wrist should be immobilized in extension, as these patients had improved functional and radiographic outcomes. No conclusion can be drawn from the existing literature on ideal forearm position during immobilization. This review also suggests better data reporting practices for studies researching DRFs, so that future meta-analyses can be more comprehensive. Type of study/level of evidence: Therapeutic II.

Telemedicine in the Evaluation and Management of Neurosurgical Spine Patients: Questionnaire Assessment of 346 Consecutive Patients.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective questionnaire study of all patients seen via telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic at a large academic institution. OBJECTIVE: This aim of this study was to compare patient satisfaction of telemedicine clinic to in-person visits; to evaluate the preference for telemedicine to in-person visits; to assess patients' willingness to proceed with major surgery and/or a minor procedure based on a telemedicine visit alone. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: One study showed promising utility of mobile health applications for spine patients. No studies have investigated telemedicine in the evaluation and management of spine patients. METHODS: An 11-part questionnaire was developed to assess the attitudes toward telemedicine for all patients seen within a 7-week period during the COVID-19 crisis. Patients were called by phone to participate in the survey. χ2 and the Wilcoxon Rank-Sum Test were performed to determine significance. RESULTS: Ninety-five percent were "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with their telemedicine visit, with 62% stating it was "the same" or "better" than previous in-person appointments. Patients saved a median of 105 minutes by using telemedicine compared to in-person visits. Fifty-two percent of patients have to take off work for in-person visits, compared to 7% for telemedicine. Thirty-seven percent preferred telemedicine to in-person visits. Patients who preferred telemedicine had significantly longer patient-reported in-person visit times (score mean of 171) compared to patients who preferred in-person visits (score mean of 137, P = 0.0007). Thirty-seven percent of patients would proceed with surgery and 73% would proceed with a minor procedure based on a telemedicine visit alone. CONCLUSION: Telemedicine can increase access to specialty care for patients with prolonged travel time to in-person visits and decrease the socioeconomic burden for both patients and hospital systems. The high satisfaction with telemedicine and willingness to proceed with surgery suggest that remote visits may be useful for both routine management and initial surgical evaluation for spine surgery candidates.Level of Evidence: 3.