Clinical outcomes of over-the-top subscapularis repair in reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

Background: Biomechanical research demonstrates increased subscapularis abduction range of motion (ROM) when the tendon's upper two-thirds is repaired over-the-top of the center of rotation during reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). This study compares the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing RSA with over-the-top subscapularis repair (OTTR) to patients without repair. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 97 consecutive RSAs with either OTTR of the subscapularis (N = 75) or no repair (N = 22). Repair was attempted in all patients but not performed if the subscapularis could not be brought to the over-the-top position in 20° of external rotation (ER) and 30° of abduction. Improvements in ROM were compared to the minimal clinically important difference for RSA. Results: The mean follow-up was 3.8 ± 1.6 years. Demographics were similar between groups. Preoperatively, patients undergoing repair had greater ER when compared to those without repair (15 ± 16° vs. 5 ± 12°, P = .003). Postoperatively, patients undergoing repair had greater forward elevation (132 ± 21° vs. 126 ± 22°, P = .268) and abduction (114 ± 26° vs. 106 ± 23°, P = .193) with both exceeding the minimal clinically important difference (-2.9° and -1.9°, respectively); however, not statistically significant. Patients with repair were more frequently able to reach the small of their back postoperatively (65% vs. 21%, P = .006) but had less improvement in ER (13 ± 20° vs. 24 ± 20°, P = .028). Postoperative outcome scores, complications, and reoperations were similar between groups. Discussion: OTTR of the subscapularis in RSA had similar ROM and outcome scores compared to no repair, but a significantly larger proportion of patients with repair achieved functional internal rotation to the small of the back. ER limitations seen after conventional repair may also apply to this novel technique, but without a corresponding detrimental effect on forward elevation or abduction.

Establishing the diagnosis of radial tunnel syndrome: a systematic review of published clinical series.

PURPOSE: Radial tunnel syndrome (RTS) is a controversial diagnosis due to non-specific exam findings and frequent absence of positive electromyography (EMG) and nerve conduction study (NCS) findings. The purpose of this study was to identify the methods used to diagnose RTS in the literature. METHODS: We queried PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases per PRISMA guidelines. Extracted data included article and patient characteristics, diagnostic assessments utilized and their respective findings, and treatments. Objective data were summarized descriptively. The relationship between reported diagnostic findings (i.e., physical exam and diagnostic tests) and treatments was assessed via a descriptive synthesis. RESULTS: Our review included 13 studies and 391 upper extremities. All studies utilized physical exam in diagnosing RTS; most commonly, patients had tenderness over the radial tunnel (381/391, 97%). Preoperative EMG/NCS was reported by 11/13 studies, with abnormal findings in 8.9% (29/327) of upper extremities. Steroid and/or lidocaine injection for presumed lateral epicondylitis was reported by 9/13 studies (46/295 upper extremities, 16%), with RTS being diagnosed after patients received little to no relief. It was also common to inject the radial tunnel to make the diagnosis (218/295, 74%). The most common reported intraoperative finding was narrowing of the PIN (38/137, 28%). The intraoperative compressive site most commonly reported was the arcade of Frohse (142/306, 46%). CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial heterogeneity in modalities used to diagnose RTS and the reported definition of RTS. This, in conjunction with many patients having concomitant lateral epicondylitis, makes it difficult to compare treatment outcomes for RTS. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III. Systematic review of retrospective and prospective cohort studies.

Reported outcome measures in complex fracture elbow dislocations: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Complex elbow fracture dislocations, dislocation with fracture of one or several surrounding bony stabilizers, are difficult to manage and associated with poor outcomes. While many studies have explored treatment strategies but a lack of standardization of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) makes cross-study comparison difficult. In this systematic review, we aim to describe what injury patterns, measured outcomes, and associated complications are reported in the complex elbow fracture dislocation literature to provide outcome reporting recommendations that will facilitate improved future cross-study comparison. METHODS: A systematic review was performed per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We queried PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases to identify articles published between 2010 and 2022 reporting on adult patients who had a complex elbow fracture dislocation. Pathologic fractures were excluded. A bias assessment using the methodological index for nonrandomized studies criteria was conducted. For each article, patient demographics, injury pattern, outcome measures, and complications were recorded. RESULTS: Ninety-one studies reporting on 3664 elbows (3654 patients) with an elbow fracture and dislocation (weighted mean age 44 years, follow-up of 30 months, 41% female) were evaluated. Of these, the injury pattern was described in 3378 elbows and included 2951 (87%) terrible triad injuries and 72 (2%) transolecranon fracture-dislocations. The three most commonly reported classification systems were: Mason classification for radial head fractures, Regan and Morrey coronoid classification for coronoid fractures, and O'Driscoll classification for coronoid fractures. Range of motion was reported in 87 (96%) studies with most reporting flexion (n = 70), extension (n = 62), pronation (n = 68), or supination (n = 67). Strength was reported in 11 (12%) studies. PROMs were reported in 83 (91%) studies with an average of 2.6 outcomes per study. There were 14 outcome scores including the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (n = 69 [83%]), the Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score (n = 28 [34%]), the visual analog scale for pain (n = 27 [33%]), QuickDASH score (n = 13 [15.7%]), and Oxford Elbow score (n = 5 [6.0%]). No significance was found between the number of PROMs used per article and the year of publication (P = .313), study type (P = .689), complex fracture pattern (P = .211), or number of elbows included (P = .152). CONCLUSION: There is great heterogeneity in reported PROMs in the complex elbow fracture dislocation literature. Although there is no gold standard PROM for assessing complex elbow fracture dislocations, we recommend the use of at least the Mayo Elbow Performance Score and DASH outcomes measures as well as visual analog scale pain rating scale in future studies to facilitate cross-study comparisons.

Insertion sites of latissimus dorsi tendon transfer performed during reverse shoulder arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) with concurrent latissimus dorsi transfer (LDT) is a potential treatment option for restoration of external rotation (ER). Biomechanical studies have emphasized the importance of the insertion site location for achieving optimal outcomes. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to describe what insertion sites for LDT are utilized during concomitant RSA and their associated clinical outcomes. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed per PRISMA guidelines. We queried PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases to identify articles reporting on patients who received RSA with LDT to restore ER and specified the site of tendon transfer insertion on the humerus. We first describe reported insertion sites in the literature. Secondarily, we present preoperative and postoperative range of motion and Constant score for different insertion sites as well as reported complications. RESULTS: Sixteen studies, analyzed as 19 separate cohorts (by insertion site and tendon-transfer), reporting on 264 RSAs with LDT (weighted mean age 66 years, follow-up 39 months, 61% female) were evaluated. Of these, 143 (54%) included a concomitant teres major transfer (LDT/TMT) and 121 (46%) were LDT-only. Fourteen cohorts (14/19, 74%) reported insertion at the posterolateral aspect of the greater tuberosity, four cohorts (4/19, 21%) reported insertion site at the lateral bicipital groove, and one cohort (1/19, 5%) reported separate LDT and TMT with insertion of the TMT to the posterolateral aspect of the greater tuberosity and LDT to the lateral bicipital groove. Meta-analysis revealed no differences in range of motion or Constant score based on humeral insertion site or whether the LDT was transferred alone or with TMT. Leading complications included dislocation, followed by infection and neuropraxia. No discernible correlation was observed between postoperative outcomes and the strategies employed for tendon transfer, prosthesis design, or subscapularis management. CONCLUSION: The posterolateral aspect of the greater tuberosity was the most-utilized insertion site for LDT performed with RSA. However, in the current clinical literature, LDT with or without concomitant TMT result in similar postoperative ROM and Constant score regardless of insertion site. Analysis of various proposed transfer sites reinforce the ability of LDT with RSA to restore both FE and ER in patients with preoperative active elevation and external rotation loss. Meta-analysis revealed significant improvements in range of motion and Constant score regardless of humeral insertion site or whether the LDT was transferred alone or with TMT, although future studies are needed to determine whether an ideal tendon transfer technique exists. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Can You Pay Your Way to Readership? Free to Publish Open Access Formats Receive Greater Readership and Citations Than Paid Open Access Formats in Total Knee Arthroplasty Literature.

BACKGROUND: As publishing with open access is becoming increasingly popular within orthopaedics, understanding the types of publishing options available and what each may deliver is critically important. Hybrid articles require a high article processing charge. Open journal articles have a lower fee, while closed license articles are freely accessible at no charge. Open repository articles are peer-reviewed manuscripts posted freely online. The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between article type and resulting citations, social media attention, and readership in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) literature. METHODS: Open access TKA journal articles published since 2016 were found using the Altmetric Explorer Database. Data gathered included the Altmetric Attention Score (attention), Mendeley Readership Score (readership), and citations per article. Articles were grouped by type: open journal, hybrid, closed license, and open repository. Results were analyzed using descriptive statistics and Tukey's analysis; α = 0.05. RESULTS: A total of 9,606 publications were included. The open repository had the greatest mean citations (14.40), while open journal (9.55) had fewer than all other categories (P < .001). Hybrid had the greatest mean attention (10.35), and open journal (6.16) had a lower mean attention than all other categories (P ≤ .002). Open repository had the greatest mean readership (44.68), and open journal (34.00) had a lower mean readership than all other categories (P ≤ .012). The mean publication fee for paid publication options was $1,792 United States dollars. CONCLUSIONS: In open access TKA literature, free-to-publish open repositories had the greatest mean citations and readership. Free publication options, open repositories and closed licenses, had greater readership compared to paid publication options.