Trends in Shoulder Arthroplasty in Israel.

BACKGROUND: The number of patients undergoing shoulder arthroplasty is increasing yearly. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the results of a consecutive series of patients who underwent shoulder replacement for a variety of indications in a single medical center in Israel. METHODS: All shoulder arthroplasties performed in our institution between 2006 and 2015 were retrospectively reviewed. The functional outcomes and satisfaction of 180 shoulder arthroplasties were evaluated for objective and subjective parameters using the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Shoulder Score (ASES), the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) outcome measure, and the Short Form Health Survey (SF-12). RESULTS: The indications for surgery were osteoarthritis (n=35), rotator cuff arthropathy (n=32), fractures (n=99), and other reasons (n=14). The mean follow-up was 52 months. The scores improved markedly among the patients who underwent surgery later in the study period. The mean DASH score before 2012 was 48.8 and improved to 37.2 after 2013. The respective ASES also improved from 54.2 to 68.6. The use of hemiarthroplasty decreased from 85% to 33% as of 2013, while the use of total shoulder arthroplasty increased. CONCLUSIONS: Shoulder arthroplasty represents an effective treatment modality with satisfactory functional outcomes. Our current study demonstrates a shift from hemiarthroplasty to total shoulder arthroplasty, with the number of procedures increasing yearly. Surgeon experience and the expanding volume of operations had a direct positive effect on the functional outcomes of shoulder arthroplasties.

Rotator interval closure has no additional effect on shoulder stability compared to Bankart repair alone.

PURPOSE: Arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR) provides satisfactory results for recurrent anterior shoulder instability, but the high recurrence rate post-ABR remain a concern. One of the adjunct procedures proposed to improve ABR results is arthroscopic rotator interval closure (ARIC). This study prospectively evaluated the outcomes of ABRs alone compared to combined ABR + ARIC and identified risk factors related to failure of each procedure. METHODS: Thirty-nine consecutive patients (mean age 23.1 (18.3-37.5) years; 37 males) underwent arthroscopic stabilization for recurrent anterior traumatic shoulder instability. Twenty patients underwent ABR alone and 19 underwent ABR + ARIC. Remplissage was added when glenoid engagement was observed during surgery. All patients were prospectively followed, and their postoperative courses were reviewed and functionally assessed at the last visit. RESULTS: The re-dislocation rate was higher in the ABR + ARIC group compared to the ABR only group at a mean follow-up of 4.2 (2-5.6) years (3 vs. 0, P = 0.06). More subluxations were found in the ABR only group (2 vs. 1, respectively; P = 0.58). The final limitation of range of motion (ROM) compared with the preoperative ROM was similar in both groups. Remplissage procedures were performed more often in the ABR only group [12 (60%) vs. 4 (21%), P = 0.013]. CONCLUSIONS: ARIC performed as an adjunct to ABR showed no superiority in attaining value-added stability compared to ABR alone. Adding a remplissage procedure may achieve better stability. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 2.

Mortality and reoperations following lower limb amputations.

BACKGROUND: Above-the-knee amputations (AKA) and below-the-knee amputations (BKA) are commonly indicated in patients with ischemia, extensive tissue loss, or infection. AKA were previously reported to have better wound-healing rates but poorer rehabilitation rates than BKA. OBJECTIVES: To compare the outcomes of AKA and BKA and to identify risk factors for poor outcome following leg amputation. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study comprised 188 consecutive patients (mean age 72 years, range 25-103, 71 males) who underwent 198 amputations (91 AKA, 107 BK 10 bilateral procedures) between February 2007 and May 2010. Included were male and female adults who underwent amputations for ischemic, infected or gangrenotic foot. Excluded were patients whose surgery was performed for other indications (trauma, tumors). Mortality and reoperations (wound debridement or need for conversion to a higher levelof amputation) were evaluated as outcomes. Patient- and surgery-related risk factors were studied in relation to these primary outcomes. RESULTS: The risk factors for mortality were dementia [hazard ratio (HR) 2.769], non-ambulatory status preoperatively (HR 2.281), heart failure (HR 2.013) and renal failure (HR 1.87). Resistant bacterial infection (HR 3.083) emerged as a risk factor for reoperation. Neither AKA nor BKA was found to be an independent predictor of mortality or reoperation. CONCLUSIONS: Both AKA and BKA are associated with very high mortality rates. Mortality is most probably related to serious comorbidities (renal and heart disease) and to reduced functional status and dementia. Resistant bacterial infections are associated with high rates of reoperation. The risk factors identified can aid surgeons and patients to better anticipate and possibly prevent severe complications.

Anxiolytic medication as an adjunct to morphine analgesia for acute low back pain management in the emergency department: a prospective randomized trial.

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, single-blinded, and randomized clinical trial. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates the added benefit of promethazine administration as an anxiolytic adjunct to morphine analgesia in reducing acute low back pain (LBP) compared with morphine alone. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Acute LBP is one of the most common reasons for emergency department (ED) visits. The optimal analgesic treatment for acute LBP remains controversial. Anxiety relief has been shown to improve pain management in the ED setting. We hypothesized that administration of the antihistamine promethazine as an anxiolytic adjunct to morphine analgesia will improve LBP management compared with morphine alone. METHODS: Fifty-nine adults, who were treated in our ED for severe acute LBP (visual analogue scale ≥ 70 mm), were randomly enrolled in the study. Thirty patients received slow infusion of intravenous (IV) morphine 0.1 mg/kg in normal saline and 29 patients received an analgesic regimen of IV morphine 0.1 mg/kg with promethazine 25 mg administered similarly. Pain and anxiety levels were subjectively assessed by the patients on a 100-mm visual analogue scale before and after treatment. Adverse event related to analgesia were recorded in real time. RESULTS: After analgesia administration patients' pain rating decreased by 43 mm in the morphine group and by 39 mm in the morphine/promethazine group (P = 0.26). Similarly, patients' anxiety decreased by 19 mm in the morphine group and by 13 mm in the morphine/promethazine group (P = 0.37). The average ED stay was 78 minutes longer in the morphine/promethazine group (P = 0.01), due to the strong sedative effect of promethazine. Patients' satisfaction and the rate of adverse events were similar in both groups. CONCLUSION: IV administration of morphine-promethazine regimen for pain and anxiety relief associated with acute LBP showed no advantage compared with IV morphine alone and significantly lengthened the overall ED stay. Thus, we think that promethazine has no place in acute LBP management in the adult ED setting. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1.