Publicly Available Anatomic Total Shoulder Arthroplasty Rehabilitation Protocols Show High Variability and Frequent Divergence from the 2020 ASSET Recommendations.

Background: In 2020, the American Society of Shoulder and Elbow Therapists (ASSET) published an evidence-based consensus statement outlining postoperative rehabilitation guidelines following anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). Purpose: The purpose of this study was to (1) quantify the variability in online anatomic TSA rehabilitation protocols, and (2) assess their congruence with the ASSET consensus guidelines. Methods: This study was a cross-sectional investigation of publicly available, online rehabilitation protocols for anatomic TSA. A web-based search was conducted in April 2022 of publicly available rehabilitation protocols for TSA. Each collected protocol was independently reviewed by two authors to identify recommendations regarding immobilization, initiation, and progression of passive (PROM) and active range of motion (AROM), as well as the initiation and progression of strengthening and post-operative exercises and activities. The time to initiation of various components of rehabilitation was recorded as the time at which the activity or motion threshold was permitted by the protocol. Comparisons between ASSET start dates and mean start dates from included protocols were performed. Results: Of the 191 academic institutions included, 46 (24.08%) had publicly available protocols online, and a total of 91 unique protocols were included in the final analysis. There were large variations seen among included protocols for the duration and type of immobilization post-operatively, as well as for the initiation of early stretching, PROM, AROM, resistance exercises, and return to sport. Of the 37 recommendations reported by both the ASSET and included protocols, 31 (83.78%) were found to be significantly different between groups (p\<0.05). Conclusion: Considerable variability was found among online post-operative protocols for TSA with substantial deviation from the ASSET guidelines. These findings highlight the lack of standardization in rehabilitation protocols following anatomic TSA. Level of Evidence: 3b.

American Shoulder & Elbow Surgeons Perspectives on Political Advocacy.

BACKGROUND: Physician involvement in political advocacy has become increasingly important in recent years. This study aims to explore the types of involvement and barriers to involvement in political advocacy among American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) members, identify issues considered most important by ASES members, and assess demographic factors that might correlate with involvement in political advocacy efforts among ASES members. METHODS: This survey was conducted by the ASES Political Advocacy Committee over a two-week period in June 2021. The survey collected demographic information including sex, ethnicity, years in practice, practice type, political affiliation, and level of current involvement in political advocacy. Additional questions consisted of thoughts regarding current health care policy issues and the role of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS)/ASES regarding such policy issues. RESULTS: We received 297 responses for a total response rate of 27%. Of those who responded, 24.6% identified as Democrat, 33% identified as Republican, and 42.4% identified as Independent. There was no difference in political affiliation between membership groups. Physician Reimbursement (82%), Medical Liability Reform (50%), and Physician Ownership (50%) were the most important issues identified among respondents. Physician Ownership, Physician Reimbursement and GME and Student Loan Reform were most important to those in early practice, while Quality and Research was most important to those with greater than 25 years of practice experience. CONCLUSION: There is strong agreement among surgeons regarding the most important political advocacy issues. The efforts of the AAOS and ASES should focus on these areas. Additionally, the vast majority of respondents felt that advocacy efforts had a positive impact on patients and surgeons.

Publication rates of abstracts presented at American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons annual open and closed conferences: 2015-2019.

Background: The annual meetings hosted by the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) present the latest prepublication literature in shoulder and elbow surgery, facilitating early dissemination of novel findings that impact clinical decision-making. Evaluating the publication rate of presented abstracts at ASES conferences becomes crucial in assessing the quality of research showcased, as these presentations often precede the peer-review process. Methods: The ASES conference programs from 2015-2019 were reviewed to identify presented abstracts. For each abstract, the title, author(s), conference year, and meeting type (open vs. closed) were recorded. The names of the author(s) of each abstract were searched in the PubMed and Google Scholar databases to determine if there was an associated published manuscript. For each identified manuscript, the title, author(s), date of publication, publishing journal, impact factor of the publishing journal, level of evidence, and number of citations were recorded. Results: A total of 316 abstracts were presented as podium lectures at ASES open and closed meetings between 2015 and 2019. Within 3 years of presentation, 240 (75.9%) of the presented abstracts resulted in publication. There was an increase in the proportion of abstracts resulting in publication within 3 years of the presentation from 2015-2019 (R = 0.8733, P = .053). Overall, the proportion of presented abstracts that went on to publication in peer-reviewed journals also increased (R = 0.8907, P = .043). Manuscripts of abstracts presented at open meetings had a shorter time to publication (8.78 vs. 11.82 months; P = .0160) and were cited more often (40.89 vs. 30.11, P = .0099) than those presented at closed meetings. Conclusion: There has been an increase in the publication rate of abstracts presented at ASES annual meetings in the study period. Published manuscripts of abstracts presented at ASES open conferences were published faster, and were cited more often, than closed conferences. ASES conferences allow for the presentation of high-quality prepublication literature in shoulder and elbow surgery.

ChatGPT performance on the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons maintenance of certification exam.

BACKGROUND: While multiple studies have tested the ability of large language models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, to pass standardized medical exams at different levels of training, LLMs have never been tested on surgical sub-specialty examinations, such as the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) Maintenance of Certification (MOC). The purpose of this study was to compare results of ChatGPT 3.5, GPT-4, and fellowship-trained surgeons on the 2023 ASES MOC self-assessment exam. METHODS: ChatGPT 3.5 and GPT-4 were subjected to the same set of text-only questions from the ASES MOC exam, and GPT-4 was additionally subjected to image-based MOC exam questions. Question responses from both models were compared against the correct answers. Performance of both models was compared to corresponding average human performance on the same question subsets. One sided proportional z-test were utilized to analyze data. RESULTS: Humans performed significantly better than Chat GPT 3.5 on exclusively text-based questions (76.4% vs. 60.8%, P = .044). Humans also performed significantly better than GPT 4 on image-based questions (73.9% vs. 53.2%, P = .019). There was no significant difference between humans and GPT 4 in text-based questions (76.4% vs. 66.7%, P = .136). Accounting for all questions, humans significantly outperformed GPT-4 (75.3% vs. 60.2%, P = .012). GPT-4 did not perform statistically significantly betterer than ChatGPT 3.5 on text-only questions (66.7% vs. 60.8%, P = .268). DISCUSSION: Although human performance was overall superior, ChatGPT demonstrated the capacity to analyze orthopedic information and answer specialty-specific questions on the ASES MOC exam for both text and image-based questions. With continued advancements in deep learning, LLMs may someday rival exam performance of fellowship-trained surgeons.

Utility of Superior Augments in Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty (Exactech, Equinoxe GPS) without Significant Glenoid Deformity.

INTRODUCTION: Superior augment use may help avoid superior tilt while minimizing removal of inferior glenoid bone. Therefore, our goal is to compare superior augments versus no augment baseplates in RSA for patients with rotator cuff dysfunction and no significant superior glenoid erosion. METHODS: A multicenter retrospective analysis of 145 patients who underwent RSA with intraoperative navigation (Exactech, Equinoxe GPS) and three-year follow-up (mean 32-month follow-up, range 20 to 61 months) who had preoperative superior inclination less than 10 degrees and retroversion less than 15 degrees. Patient demographics, radiographic measurements, surgical characteristics, patient-reported outcomes at preoperative and postoperative visit closest to three years, and adverse events at final follow-up were obtained. Operative time, planned inclination, and planned version of the baseplate were obtained. Chi-square test used to compare categorical variables and student t-test used to compare augment and no augment cohorts. RESULTS: The study population consisted of 54 superior augment patients and 91 no augment patients. The augment cohort had lower BMI (27.2 vs. 29.4, p-0.023), higher native superior inclination (5.9 vs. 1.4 degrees, p<0.001). No difference between the augment and no augment cohorts was found regarding age (p=0.643), gender (p=0.314), medical comorbidities (p>0.05), surgical indication (p=0.082), and native glenoid version (p=0.564). The augment cohort had higher internal rotation score (4.6 vs. 3.9, p=0.023), all remaining ROM and PROs preoperatively were not significantly different. At final follow-up, active ROM in all planes was not different between the cohorts. Regarding PROs, the postoperative SAS score was significantly higher (78.0 vs. 73.6, p=0.042), and ASES score trended towards higher (83.6 vs. 77.5, p=0.063) in the augment cohort. The augment cohort had significantly lower proportion of patients planned to have superior baseplate tilt (1.9% vs. 14.3%, p=0.012), and had greater mean inclination correction (6.3 vs. 1.3 degrees, p<0.001), compared to no augment cohort. Adverse events were rare, and there was no significant difference found between the augment and no augment cohorts (5.6% vs. 3.3%, p=0.509). DISCUSSION: Superior augmented baseplate in RSA with minimal superior glenoid erosion is associated with similar ROM and adverse events with somewhat improved postoperative PROs compared to non-augmented baseplates at 3-year follow-up. Additionally, superior augments resulted in a greater proportion of baseplates planned to avoid superior tilt, and trended toward shorter operative times. Further investigation of long-term glenoid baseplate loosening is imperative to fully understand the cost-effectiveness of superior augments in the setting of minimal glenoid deformity.

Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair in patients over 65 years of age: successful functional outcomes and a high tendon integrity rate can be obtained after surgery.

Background: Although interest in studies evaluating the outcomes of rotator cuff repair is steadily increasing, the results and tendon integrity after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair in elderly patients have only been minimally investigated. The aim of this study was to evaluate clinical outcomes and repair integrity in patients over 65 years of age who underwent arthroscopic repair of full-thickness rotator cuff tears. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted with the following inclusion criteria: (1) elective shoulder arthroscopy for rotator cuff repair for full-thickness posterosuperior tears; (2) age over 65 years at surgery; and (3) participation in 24 months of follow-up. Preoperatively, the range of motion (ROM) and the Constant-Murley Score (CMS) and at follow-up, the ROM, the 12-Item Short Form Survey, the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, and the CMS were evaluated; an ultrasonographic assessment of tendon integrity was performed according to the adapted Sugaya classification. Results: The final sample consisted of 110 patients with an average age of 69.2 ± 3.5 years. The mean duration of nonoperative management before surgery was 2.6 ± 0.8 months. The mean period of preoperative physical therapy was 0.6 ± 0.9 months. ROM and CMS showed statistically significant improvement (all P < .001) after a mean follow-up time of 54.5 ± 22.3 months. The ultrasonographic assessment showed tendon integrity (types I and II) in 75% of cases; 21% were type III repair, and rotator cuff retear (types IV and V) was recorded in 4% of cases. All scores directly correlated with the integrity of the tendon. In the multivariate analysis, higher postoperative CMS was associated with male sex (P < .001, ß = -6.085) and lower age (P = .004, ß = -0.533). Higher postoperative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons were associated with lower age (P = .020, ß = -0.414). Higher postoperative 12-Item Short Form Survey physical component score and mental component score were associated with lower age (P = .013, ß = -0.550 and P < .001, ß = -0.520, respectively) and shorter preoperative physical therapy period (P = .013, ß = -2.075 and P = .006, ß = -1.093, respectively). Conclusion: A significant ROM and CMS recovery and a rotator cuff integrity rate of 75% can be expected in patients over 65 years of age who undergo arthroscopic repair for full-thickness rotator cuff tears. Better functional, physical, and mental health outcomes correlate with rotator cuff integrity and are predicted by male sex and a shorter period of preoperative physical therapy.

Stemless anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty is associated with less early postoperative pain.

Background: Improvements in pain control after shoulder arthroplasty with a reduction in narcotic use continues to be an important postoperative goal. With the increased utilization of stemless anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA), it is relevant to compare between stemmed and stemless arthroplasty to assess if there is any association between this implant design change and early postoperative pain. Methods: Patients from a multicenter, prospectively-maintained database who had undergone a stemless aTSA with a minimum of two year clinical follow-up were retrospectively identified. Patients who underwent aTSA with a short stem were identified in the same registry, and matched to the stemless aTSA patients by age, sex and preoperative pain score. The primary study outcome was the Visual Analog Scale pain score. Secondary pain outcomes were the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons shoulder pain subscore, Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder physical symptoms subscore, and the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation score. Finally, the percentage of patients who could sleep on the affected shoulder was assessed for each group. These pain-related clinical outcomes were assessed and compared preoperatively, and postoperatively at 9 weeks, 26 weeks, one year and two years. For all statistical comparisons, P > .05 was considered significant. Results: 124 patients were included in the study; 62 in each group. At 9 weeks after surgery, statistically significantly improved pain control was reported by patients undergoing stemless aTSA, as assessed by the Visual Analog Scale (stemless: 1.5, stemmed: 2.5, P = .001), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons pain subscore (stemless: 42.4, stemmed: 37.3, P < .001), Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder Physical Symptoms (stemless: 80.3, stemmed: 73.1, P = .006) and Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (stemless: 58.1, stemmed: 47.4, P = .011). Patients who underwent a stemless aTSA were significantly more likely to be able to sleep on the affected shoulder at 9 weeks (29% vs. 11%, odds ratio 3.2, 95% confidence interval 1.2-8.4, P = .014). By 26 weeks postoperatively, there were no differences in all pain-specific outcomes. At two years postoperatively, patient-reported outcomes, range of motion, and strength measures were all similar between the two cohorts. Conclusion: Stemless aTSA provides earlier improvement in postoperative shoulder pain compared to matched patients undergoing short-stem aTSA. Additionally, earlier return to sleeping on the affected shoulder was reported in the stemless aTSA group. The majority of these differences dissipate by 26 weeks postoperatively and there were no differences in pain, patient-reported outcomes, range of motion or strength measures between stemless and short-stem aTSA at 2 years postoperatively.

Measure what matters: Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) score as the critical measure for shoulder outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Implementation of a system anchored in patient outcomes is challenged to gain widespread adoption required to demonstrate the value of care provided for shoulder conditions. This is in large part because of the administrative burden created by current tools and clinical implementation barriers that limit practical use and therefore leave most clinicians, administrators, payers, and patients without a measure of what matters most: Are patients improving? Thus, we must ask ourselves, How do we accurately and efficiently measure and report quality of care in a simple, reliable, and easily communicated manner? We propose that the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) score is the best solution to measure patient improvement and can be used universally for all shoulder conditions. The measure is simple, valid, reliable, and sensitive to change and has the lowest implementation barrier compared with all other outcome measures. METHODS: We synthesized the available literature (11 studies) that demonstrates strong psychometrics comparable to legacy measures across >4000 patients with a wide range of shoulder conditions. RESULTS: SANE scores range from 40% to 60% at baseline for most patients before treatment and range from 75% to 85% at 1 year after therapy depending on the condition, similar to legacy scores such as the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score. Additionally, the SANE score shows similar baseline and post-care measures across conditions that can be used to guide clinical care. This finding shows that the observed baseline and improvement scores can provide valuable patient assessment and can be used in aggregate for quality improvement and other value-based purposes. CONCLUSION: We strongly recommend the SANE score as the primary patient outcome measure for patients with all shoulder conditions, given the value of measuring every patient's progress and growing pressure to quantify patient outcomes.

Job satisfaction and practice characteristics of shoulder and elbow surgeons: a survey of American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons society members.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to assess the current trends in fellowship training, career satisfaction, practice characteristics, and surgical case volume among shoulder and elbow surgeons. METHODS: A web-based, anonymous 25-item survey was sent to the membership of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) in October of 2022. Questions posed included respondent demographics, fellowship training, career satisfaction, practice characteristics, and surgical case characteristics. Descriptive statistics were performed to report demographic information, assess job and training satisfaction rates, and evaluate practice characteristics. Chi-squared and independent samples t-tests were performed to analyze satisfaction rates, job applications, and surgical case volume with regard to years in practice and practice setting. RESULTS: Twenty percent (243/1248) of ASES members satisfactorily completed the survey. Of the 243 ASES member respondents, 97% (236/243) stated that they would pursue their fellowship training again. Ninety-eight percent (239/243) of respondents were satisfied with their specialty choice. One-hundred percent (242/243) were satisfied with their training in shoulder. Seventy-two percent (176/243) were satisfied with their training in elbow. Seventy-four percent (179/243) were satisfied with their job availability and 85% (207/243) were satisfied with their job location. The mean total number of orthopedic surgical cases per year was 393 ± 171. The mean total number of shoulder cases per year was 253 ± 149. The mean total number of elbow cases per year was 41 ± 41. Physicians who have been in practice for 11 years or more were comparatively more satisfied (90% vs. 80%) with their job location (P value = .008) and job availability (81% vs. 64%, P value < .001). Additionally, senior surgeons completed more orthopedic (431 vs. 347, P value < .001) and shoulder (279 vs. 220, P value = .002) cases annually than surgeons earlier in their careers. Satisfaction rates, job applications, and surgical case volume did not associate with practice setting. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of ASES member shoulder and elbow surgeons are satisfied with their training, their case volume and complexity, and their specialty choice. Fewer surgeons are satisfied with their elbow training and overall elbow case volume remains low among shoulder and elbow surgeons. Shoulder and elbow surgeons earlier in their careers perform fewer surgical cases, are less satisfied with their job availability and location, and completed more job applications for their first job after fellowship when compared to more senior surgeons.

American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score: what does it tell us about patients selecting operative treatment of a rotator cuff injury?

Background: As shared decision-making rises in importance and minimum clinically important differences become benchmarks for treatment success or failure based on the increased usage of patient-reported outcomes, it is important to understand the breadth of starting points for patients as that should affect the interpretation of individual postoperative score changes. Methods: This is a retrospective data review of prospectively collected American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score of patients electing to undergo rotator cuff repair with 1-year follow-up. A residual improvement: possible to achieve ratio (RIPAR) was calculated to demonstrate what percent of maximal possible improvement was gained at 1 year. A minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of 12 was used. Results: Three hundred thirty-five patients with an age range of 32-79 years form the population. Baseline ASES score ranged from 0 to 97.5, with a mean of 47.8. At 1 year, the mean was 84.7 (range, 30-100). There was no statistical difference by age, but men reported more overall preoperative dysfunction than women (50.3 vs. 44.1, P < .001). The RIPAR was on average 67%. Seventy-eight percent of the population demonstrated RIPAR scores >50% which showed improvement of over half of their preoperative deficit. Eighty-nine percent of patients achieved a positive MCID and 3% achieved a negative MCID. Conclusions: The ASES scores showed a broad range of baseline scores for patients choosing to undergo rotator cuff repair highlighting the need for individual patient rather than population review of patient-reported outcome measures. As shared decision-making is taking on a larger role in clinical care, it is important to counsel patients accurately. Evaluating the ASES score by MCID and maximal possible improvement provides different population perspectives with the concept of RIPAR allowing for personalization of decision-making on the individual patient level.

No difference in abstract publication rates between the open and closed American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons meetings from 2013 to 2019.

BACKGROUND: The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) society has advanced the practice of shoulder and elbow care through the exhibition of research at academic meetings. The ASES annual meeting is a closed (member-only) conference annually held in October, while the specialty day is an open (non-members included) event that takes place during the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) meeting week in March. This study aims to compare the rate of publication for abstracts presented at the open and closed ASES meetings from 2013 to 2019. METHODS: The ASES website was searched to obtain the annual meeting and specialty day program agendas from 2013 to 2019. A standardized search protocol was employed to identify conference abstracts that went on to be published. Publications associated with an ASES abstract were analyzed through several variables including the time to publication, journal impact factor (JIF), and level of evidence. RESULTS: There was no difference between the rates of publication of the open (76.5%, 121/158) and closed (75.3%, 223/296) meetings (P = .904). The median time to publication significantly differed between the open (7 months, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.0-10.0) and closed (11 months, 95% CI: 9.0-13.0) meetings (P = .02). There was no difference between the median JIF between the open (2.69, 95% CI: 2.41-2.81) and closed (2.73, 95% CI: 2.41-2.81) meetings. The distribution of the level of evidence in published articles comparing the open and closed meetings did not differ significantly (P = .446). DISCUSSION: The overall quality of academic research presented at orthopedic subspecialty conferences can be objectively evaluated through abstract publication rates. Our analysis demonstrates that there is not a single significant difference among the publication rates, median JIF, and level of evidence distribution between the ASES open and closed meetings from 2013 to 2019. Impactful research is showcased at both the open and closed meetings. Societies that limit submissions from members only at annual meetings can consider soliciting research from non-members. While the quality of research would not decline if non-ASES members were invited to participate, the presence of a closed annual meeting may be a valuable tool for societies to expand their reach through member-exclusive benefits.

Can Patients Accurately Recall their Preoperative Pain and Functional Scores Following Rotator Cuff Repair and Total Shoulder Arthroplasty?

Objectives: Accurate analysis of preoperative shoulder pain and function is important for understanding treatment efficacy and producing high-quality research. Oftentimes, preoperative patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are missing. Therefore the accuracy of recalled preoperative PROs may be important. We investigate the ability of patients who underwent rotator cuff repair (RCR) or shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) to recall their preoperative PROs. Methods: We identified 145 patients who underwent either RCR or TSA and had preoperative PROs. All patients completed the ASES, SANE, SST, and VAS surveys within 3 months prior to surgery. Patients were contacted between one and four years after surgery and asked to recall their baseline pain and shoulder function prior to surgery. The mean difference was calculated by determining the difference between the mean recalled score and the mean actual score. Intraobserver reliability analysis was performed, comparing recall and actual score for each using the 2-way mixed-effects intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) model. The ICC values > 0.75 were considered excellent, values between 0.4 and 0.75 were considered moderate, and values of < 0.4 demonstrated a weak agreement. Results: For patients who underwent RCR, the mean differences between actual and recalled ASES, SANE, SST and VAS pain were 6.3 (P=0.004), 2.0 (P=0.155), -0.04 (P=0.625) and - 1.0 (P<0.001), respectively. In patients who underwent TSA, the mean differences between actual and recalled ASES, SANE, SST and VAS pain were 4.5 (P =0.038), -3.9 (P=0.262), -1.2 (P=0.001) and -1.5 (P<0.001), respectively. ASES, SST, and VAS show moderate reliability, and SANE reliability was weak in both RCR and TSA populations. Patients had a tendency to recall higher pain scores than actual preoperative pain scores. Conclusion: In patients who underwent RCR or TSA, there was too much variability between individual patient's ability to accurately recall preoperative pain and function to reliably use recall data for research purposes.

Assessment of Safety, Efficacy, and Functional Outcomes After Rotator Cuff Repair Using Ceptre® Titanium Screw Anchor: A Retrospective Study.

Background Rotator cuff tears (RCTs) are the most common cause of shoulder disability. RCT is characterized by progressive wear and tear of the tendon tissue over time. The incidence of cuff tears ranges from 5% to 39%. With increasing advancements in the surgical sector, an upward trend has been observed in repair surgeries where torn tendons are repaired arthroscopically by inserting surgical implants. With this background, this study aimed to assess the safety, efficacy, and functional outcomes after RCT repair using Ceptre® titanium screw anchor implants. Methodology This retrospective, observational, single-center, clinical study was conducted at Epic Hospital in Gujarat, India. Patients who underwent rotator cuff repair surgery between January 2019 and July 2022 were recruited and followed up in December 2022. Baseline characteristics and surgical and post-surgical details were collected from patient medical reports and post-surgery progress data were documented through telephonic follow-up. The functional outcomes and efficacy of the implant were assessed using the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) form, Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) score, Simple Shoulder Test (SST), and Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) score. Results The mean age of the recruited patients was 59.74 ± 8.91 years. Among the recruited patients, 64% were females and 36% were males. About 85% of patients had a right shoulder injury and 15% of patients (n = 6/39) had a left shoulder injury. Further, 64% (n = 25/39) of patients had supraspinatus tears, whereas 36% (n = 14) of patients had both supraspinatus and infraspinatus tears. The mean ASES, SPADI, SST, and SANE scores were observed to be 81.43 ± 14.20, 29.41 ± 12.6, 75.41 ± 12.96, and 94.67 ± 7.50, respectively. No adverse events, re-injuries, or re-surgeries were reported by any of the patients during the study period. Conclusions Our findings suggest that arthroscopic rotator cuff repair using Ceptre Knotted Ultra-High-Molecular-Weight Polyethylene Suture Titanium Screw Anchor resulted in favorable functional outcomes. Thus, it could be a considerable implant for a successful surgery.

Approaching Artificial Intelligence in Orthopaedics: Predictive Analytics and Machine Learning to Prognosticate Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Surgical Outcomes.

Machine learning (ML) has not yet been used to identify factors predictive for post-operative functional outcomes following arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR). We propose a novel algorithm to predict ARCR outcomes using machine learning. This is a retrospective cohort study from a prospectively collected database. Data were collected from the Surgical Outcome System Global Registry (Arthrex, Naples, FL, USA). Pre-operative and 3-month, 6-month, and 12-month post-operative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores were collected and used to develop a ML model. Pre-operative factors including demography, comorbidities, cuff tear, tissue quality, and fixation implants were fed to the ML model. The algorithm then produced an expected post-operative ASES score for each patient. The ML-produced scores were compared to actual scores using standard test-train machine learning principles. Overall, 631 patients who underwent shoulder arthroscopy from January 2011 to March 2020 met inclusion criteria for final analysis. A substantial number of the test dataset predictions using the XGBoost algorithm were within the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) thresholds: 67% of the 12-month post-operative predictions were within MCID, while 84% were within SCB. Pre-operative ASES score, pre-operative pain score, body mass index (BMI), age, and tendon quality were the most important features in predicting patient recovery as identified using Shapley additive explanations (SHAP). In conclusion, the proposed novel machine learning algorithm can use pre-operative factors to predict post-operative ASES scores accurately. This can further supplement pre-operative counselling, planning, and resource allocation. Level of Evidence: III.

Factors associated with humeral stem revision in anatomic to reverse total shoulder arthroplasty revision.

BACKGROUND: Recent advances in implant technology have allowed for modular or platform humeral stem insertion during initial anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). These systems allow for humeral stem retention during conversion to reverse TSA (RTSA). However, some patients still require humeral stem revision when undergoing revision to RTSA. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the association between patient-specific factors and radiographic parameters with humeral stem revision vs. retention during conversion from TSA to RTSA. METHODS: Retrospective chart review was conducted for patients who underwent a revision TSA to RTSA between January 2010 and May 2022 at a single institution. Patients were included if their prosthesis included a convertible humeral stem. Patient demographic information, surgical details, and postoperative outcomes and complications were collected. Radiographic parameters were measured by 2 graders on radiographs taken prior to the revision procedure. The need for humeral stem revision and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form (ASES) scores (preoperative and 2 years) were also noted. Statistical analysis was performed using chi-square test for categorical variables and t test for continuous variables. RESULTS: One hundred seven patients were included, with 52 undergoing humeral stem revision. Patients were revised an average of 51.0 ± 54 months after primary TSA. Younger patient age (63.6 vs. 68.5 years, P = .017) and use of a lateralized glenosphere (1.6 mm vs. 0.4 mm, P < .001) were significantly associated with need for humeral stem revision. Glenoid to humeral head cut distance (28.3 mm vs. 26.3 mm, P = .076) approached significant association with the need for humeral stem revision. All other measurements were not associated with the need for humeral stem revision. Improvement of ASES scores at 2 years' follow-up was higher in the nonrevised group (increase of 33.4 points) than the revision group (23.3), but this did not reach significance (P = .149). Estimated blood loss and surgical time were significantly higher in the stem revision group than the non-revised group (P = .048 and P < .001, respectively). CONCLUSION: Younger patients and those receiving a lateralized glenosphere were more likely to undergo humeral stem revision during conversion from TSA to RTSA. Glenoid to the humeral head cut distance should be studied further as a potential indication for humeral stem revision, as it correlates with the space available for a revision implant. This information can guide surgeons with preoperative planning for a revision arthroplasty.

Higher preoperative expectations predict better outcomes in shoulder surgery patients.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to determine if preoperative expectations (PE) are an independent predictor of greater 2-year outcomes and greater improvement from baseline in shoulder surgery patients. METHODS: Two-hundred and sixteen patients who underwent shoulder surgery at one institution were studied. Patients completed both preoperative and 2-year follow-up questionnaires including PROMIS (Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System) computer-adaptive testing in six domains, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, shoulder numeric pain scale (NPS), and the Marx Shoulder Activity Rating Scale (MARS). PE were measured using the Musculoskeletal Outcomes and Data Evaluation Management System (MODEMS) expectations domain, and satisfaction was measured via the Surgical Satisfaction Questionnaire (SSQ-8). RESULTS: The mean PE score was 86.2 ± 17.8. Greater PE were associated with significantly better 2-year scores for ASES, NPS, MARS, SSQ8, and PROMIS domains of Physical Function, Fatigue, Pain Interference Fatigue and Social Satisfaction. Multivariable analyses demonstrated that greater PE were an independent predictor of both better 2-year scores and greater improvement for PROMIS SS (p < 0.001), ASES (p = 0.007), and shoulder NPS (p = 0.011). CONCLUSION: Greater PE are positively associated with numerous patient-based outcomes 2 years after surgery. With regards to pain relief, shoulder function, and social satisfaction, higher PE are also predictive of better outcome scores and more improvement. This study suggests that preoperative assessment of shoulder surgery PE is important, and that counseling patients to optimize realistic expectations may lead to superior outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Agreement between the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Society Standardized Shoulder Assessment score (ASES) and the Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) in patients presenting with shoulder pathology: A cohort analysis of the Clinical Quality Registry for Outcomes in Shoulder and Elbow Pathology (CROSEP) registry.

Background: The choice of patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) used in shoulder studies varies based on clinician's preference and location. This creates difficulties when attempting to compare studies which have used different PROMs as their outcome measure. This study aims to assess the agreement between the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (ASES) and the Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS), and identify factors associated with agreement. Methods: Patients with shoulder pathology were identified from a multi-cohort observational practice registry. 1050 paired ASES and OSS pre-treatment scores were prospectively collected. Linear regression was performed to assess the agreement between the PROMs. Mixed-effects analysis of variance was performed to assess the influence of factors associated with agreement. Results: Regression for mean total and mean function ASES and OSS demonstrated good fit (adjusted R2 57.7%, P < 0.001; and 63.9%, P < 0.001). Mean pain subscore demonstrated a poorer fit (adjusted R2 39.4%, P < 0.001). Crosswalks to convert between mean scores were produced with reasonable precision. Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey score, age and diagnosis cohort influenced agreement. Conclusion: Mean total and mean function ASES and OSS scores agree well with each other. This allows for a more informed comparison of studies using either PROMs as their outcome measure.

Two-year outcomes with a bioinductive collagen implant used in augmentation of arthroscopic repair of full-thickness rotator cuff tears: final results of a prospective multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Full-thickness rotator cuff tears (FTRCTs) represent a common shoulder injury that, if untreated, can progress in size, become increasingly painful, and inhibit function. These lesions are often surgically repaired, with double-row arthroscopic repair often preferred for larger tears. Biological augmentation technologies have been developed to improve rates of postoperative radiographic retear and enhance patient-reported outcomes after surgical FTRCT repair. This study sought to confirm that augmented repair with a bioinductive bovine collagen implant results in favorable retear rates and patient outcomes with follow-up to 2 years. METHODS: A prospective multicenter cohort study was undertaken to determine the efficacy and safety of augmenting single- or double-row arthroscopic repair of FTRCTs with a bioinductive bovine collagen implant. Of 115 adult patients participating, 66 (57.4%) had medium (1-3-cm) tears and 49 (42.6%) had large (3-5-cm) tears. Magnetic resonance imaging and patient-reported outcomes (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form [ASES] and Constant-Murley Score [CMS]) were performed and recorded at baseline, 3 months, 1 year, and 2 years. RESULTS: Mean duration of follow-up was 2.1 years (range, 1.5-2.9 years). Between baseline and 2-year follow-up, mean total thickness of the supraspinatus tendon increased by 12.5% for medium tears and by 17.1% for large tears. Radiographic retear was noted in 7 of 61 available patients (11.5%) with medium tears, and in 14 of 40 patients (35.0%) with large tears. In both groups, these tears primarily occurred before the 3-month follow-up visit (13 of 21 [61.9%]). Radiographic retear with the supplemented double-row (DR) repair technique was 13.2% overall (12 of 91 DR patients; 11.3% for medium tears and 15.8% for large tears). The minimal clinically important difference was achieved by >90% of patients with both medium and large tears for both ASES and CMS. There were 2 serious adverse events classified by the treating surgeon as being possibly related to the device and/or procedure (1 case of swelling/drainage and 1 case of intermittent pain). Nine patients (7.8%; 4 medium tears and 5 large tears) required reoperation of the index rotator cuff surgery. CONCLUSION: Final 2-year data from this study confirm that using this implant in augmentation of arthroscopic double-row repair of FTRCTs provides favorable rates of radiographic retear and substantial functional recovery. The relative safety of the device is also further supported.

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty with and without baseplate wedge augmentation in the setting of glenoid deformity and rotator cuff deficiency-a multicenter investigation.

INTRODUCTION: Glenoid baseplate augments have recently been introduced as a way of managing glenoid monoplanar or biplanar abnormalities in reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). The purpose of this study is to evaluate the difference in clinical outcomes, complications, and revision rates between augmented and standard baseplates in RSA for rotator cuff arthropathy patients with glenoid deformity. METHODS: A multicenter retrospective analysis of 171 patients with glenoid bone loss who underwent RSA with and without augmented baseplates was performed. Preoperative inclusion criteria included minimum follow-up of 2 years and preoperative retroversion of 15°-30° and/or a beta angle 70°-80°. Version and beta angle were measured on computed tomographic scans, when available, and plain radiographs. Shoulder range of motion (ROM) and patient-reported outcomes were obtained from preoperative and multiple postoperative time points. RESULTS: The study consisted of 84 standard baseplate patients and 87 augmented baseplate patients. The augment cohort had greater mean preoperative glenoid retroversion (17° vs. 9°, P < .001). At >5-year follow-up, the increase in postoperative active abduction (52° vs. 31°, P = .023), forward flexion (58° vs. 35°, P = .020), and internal rotation score (2.8° vs. 1.1°, P = .001) was significantly greater in the augment cohort. Additionally, >5-year follow-up American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form score (87.0 ± 16.6 vs. 75.9 ± 22.4, P = .022), Constant score (78.0 ± 9.7 vs. 64.6 ± 15.1, P < .001), and Shoulder Arthroplasty Smart score (81.2 ± 6.5 vs. 71.2 ± 13.6, P = .003) were significantly higher in the augment cohort. Revision rate was low overall, with no difference between the augment and no augment groups (0.7% vs. 3.0%, P = .151). CONCLUSION: In comparing augments to standard nonaugment baseplates in the setting of RSA with glenoid deformity, our results demonstrate greater postoperative improvements in multiple planes of active ROM in the augment cohort. Additionally, the augment cohort demonstrated greater postoperative level and improvement in scores for multiple clinical outcome metrics up to >5 years of follow-up with no difference in complication or revision rates, supporting the use of augmented glenoid baseplates in RSA with glenoid deformity.

Can the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation be used as a stand-alone subjective outcome instrument in patients undergoing rotator cuff repair?

BACKGROUND/HYPOTHESIS: There is no consensus to which patient-determined shoulder outcome scores should be considered when analyzing patient outcomes. Use of multiple patient-determined outcomes may be redundant and cause increased responder burden. The Single Assessment Numeric (SANE) has not been widely accepted as a stand-alone shoulder-specific outcome measure. The hypothesis was that SANE will correlate with and be comparable in responsiveness to other subjective outcome measures that have been used in a stand-alone fashion in patients undergoing rotator cuff repair (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form [ASES], Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index [WORC], and the Simple Shoulder Test [SST]). In addition, the SANE will be more relevant to each patient compared to the ASES, further supporting its use as a stand-alone shoulder-specific outcomes measure. METHODS: A retrospective review of a database of patients undergoing rotator cuff repair was reviewed where the SANE was recorded with the ASES, WORC, and/or SST. Correlations were determined using the Pearson coefficient. Subgroup analysis was performed to determine if correlations differed in (1) preoperative and (2) postoperative outcome determinations. Responsiveness was determined by calculating the standardized response mean (SRM) and the effect size (ES) of all scores. Relevance and precision of the SANE and ASES were examined using 150 consecutive patients to determine the number of questions in each score that were not answered. RESULTS: Correlation was excellent for the SANE and the ASES (n = 1838, r = 0.81, P < .0001), the WORC (n = 1793, r = 0.82, P < .0001), and the SST (n = 1836, r = 0.76, P < .0001). Correlation of preoperative scores was moderate and postoperative scores were excellent when comparing the SANE with all 3 scores. All scores were highly responsive, with the SRM of the SANE = 2.1, ASES = 2.2, WORC = 2.4, and the SST = 1.8. The ES of the SANE = 2.4, ASES = 2.7, WORC = 3.0, and the SST = 2.1. One hundred percent of the SANE scores were answered completely compared with 57% (P < .0001) of the ASES, with significant variability found in the answers to the "work" and "score" questions. CONCLUSION: In patients undergoing rotator cuff repair, the SANE highly correlated and has equivalent responsiveness with the WORC, ASES, and SST, which have been used as stand-alone shoulder-specific outcomes measures. The SANE may provide the same information as the WORC, ASES, and SST regarding outcome with significant reduction in responder burden. This study supports that the SANE can be used as a subjective, stand-alone instrument for patients undergoing rotator cuff repair.