Evaluating The Effect of Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair with Concomitant Subacromial Decompression on 2, 4, and 6 Year Reoperation Rates.

INTRODUCTION: The risks and benefits of including an arthroscopic subacromial decompression (ASD) during arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (RCR) are uncertain. Some studies suggest no difference in revision surgery rates, whereas others have found higher revision surgery rates associated with concomitant ASD. In this study, we compare mid-term revision surgery rates in patients undergoing arthroscopic RCR with or without concomitant ASD. METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted using a national all-payer claims database. Current Procedural Terminology and International Classification of Disease, 10th Revision, codes were used to identify patients who underwent primary arthroscopic RCR with or without ASD in the United States. The primary study outcome was revision surgery at 2, 4, and 6 years. Univariate analysis was conducted on demographic variables (age, sex) and comorbidities in the Elixhauser Comorbidity Index using chi-square and Student t-tests. Multivariate analysis was conducted using logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 11,188 patients were identified who underwent RCR and met the inclusion criteria. Of those, 8,994 (80%) underwent concomitant ASD. Concomitant ASD was associated with lower odds of all-cause revision surgery to the ipsilateral shoulder at 2 years (odds ratio [OR], 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51 to 0.73), 4 years (OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.70), and 6 years (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.69). Concomitant ASD was also associated with lower odds of revision RCR at 2 years (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.86), 4 years (OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.78), and 6 years (OR, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.76). DISCUSSION: Arthroscopic RCR with concomitant ASD is associated with lower odds of all-cause revision surgery in the ipsilateral shoulder at 2, 4, and 6 years. The lower mid-term revision surgery rates suggest benefits to performing concomitant ASD with primary arthroscopic RCR. Continued research on the mid to long-term benefits of ASD is needed to determine which patient populations benefit most from this procedure. DATA AVAILABILITY: The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Surgical and Patient-Centered Outcomes of Open versus Arthroscopic Ganglion Cyst Excision: A Systematic Review.

Introduction As the popularity of wrist arthroscopy grows, it continues to prove useful in the treatment of ganglion cysts. Previous studies comparing an arthroscopic technique to traditional open excision have demonstrated generally equivalent results regarding complications and cyst recurrence. However, this systematic review compares the two treatment methods not only regarding cyst recurrence but also regarding patient-centered outcomes. Additionally, new studies in the available literature may allow for further analysis. Methods This systematic review identified 23 articles published between 2000 and 2021 that met inclusion criteria. Articles were assessed for quality, and reported cyst recurrence rates, patient satisfaction, patients' preoperative and postoperative pain, and complications associated with either open or arthroscopic excisions were pooled into open excision and arthroscopic excision groups for analysis. Results In total, 23 studies accounted for 1,670 cases. Pooled data for patient-centered outcomes indicated a significantly higher patient satisfaction rate (89.2 vs 85.6%, p < 0.001) and higher reported pain relief (69.5 vs. 66.7%, p = 0.011) associated with arthroscopic excision versus open excision. Recurrence rates were also significantly lower for the arthroscopic excision group (9.4 vs. 11.2%, p < 0.001). Overall, the complication rate was significantly lower for arthroscopic excision (7.5 vs. 10.7%, p < 0.001), but the complication profile distinctly differed between the two methods. Conclusions Both arthroscopic and open excision of dorsal wrist ganglions are viable treatment options. However, the results of this meta-analysis suggest benefits associated with the arthroscopic technique in both patient-centered outcomes and in traditional, surgical outcomes. This may prove advantageous as wrist arthroscopy becomes more common.

IDEO energy-storing orthosis: Effects on lower extremity function and preservation.

INTRODUCTION: The Intrepid Dynamic Exoskeletal Orthosis (IDEO) brace is a custom energy-storing orthosis design meant to improve gait, stability, and function after lower extremity injury or limb salvage. Early studies demonstrated the potential for the IDEO to improve functional performance, in conjunction with its paired return to run (RTR) rehabilitation program, compared to other brace types, and an impressively decreased rate of late amputation. The current study aimed to investigate these functional and revision outcomes from our institution to determine which patients may benefit most from IDEO bracing and what factors of the IDEO design and rehabilitation program are most important for improved outcomes after lower extremity trauma and/or loss of function. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of all patients treated with a IDEO style brace at a single military lower extremity trauma referral center between May 2003 and November 2017. We reviewed the medical records for initial diagnosis, post-orthotic rehabilitation program, IDEO use characteristics, pain, change in desire for amputation, and whether patient underwent eventual amputation. RESULTS: We identified 213 patients with 222 lower extremities treated with IDEO brace. Of these, 76 limbs were treated for combat-related injuries. At one year follow-up, use status could not be determined for 37 extremities (16.7%). Of the 185 limbs with use data available, 116 (61.1%) continued regular brace use, and 37 (15.7%) reported intermittent use. Patients diagnosed with footdrop or weakness were more likely to continue use (OR 2.33, p=0.04), while patients with a previous fusion were less likely to continue use (OR 0.45, p=0.049). Undergoing any dedicated therapy increased chances of continued use (OR 3.37, p<0.001). At final follow-up, 16 patients (7.5%) underwent delayed lower extremity amputations following IDEO treatment. Overall, 27.2% of patients who initially desired amputation eventually underwent amputation despite IDEO brace use. Patients who underwent amputation reported higher pain levels (2 versus 5, p<0.001). DISCUSSION: In select patients, the IDEO may decrease the desire for delayed amputation and permit higher levels of activity; however, its efficacy appears tied to the rehabilitative regimen, pain levels, and initial diagnosis. These findings should guide post-surgical extremity bracing prescriptions and expectations.