Clinical Significance Thresholds in Primary and Revision Latarjet Procedures With Comparable Outcome Achievements.

BACKGROUND: Given the variability across populations and settings, defining the MCID and the PASS for the Rowe and ASOSS scores and patients undergoing primary and revision Latarjet it is essential to have accurate benchmarks relevant to these groups when interpreting clinical results. PURPOSE: To determine the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) thresholds for the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain during sports, Athletic Shoulder Outcome Scoring System (ASOSS), and Rowe scores after primary and revision Latarjet procedures for treatment of shoulder instability. STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: Between January 2018 and January 2020, a retrospective review of 149 patients undergoing primary Latarjet (n = 82) and revision Latarjet (n = 67) to treat shoulder instability was performed in a single institution. Patient-reported outcome measures were collected preoperatively and 1 year postoperatively. The delta was defined as the change between the pre- and postoperative scores. Distribution-based and anchored-based approaches were used to estimate the MCID and the PASS, respectively. The optimal cutoff point and the percentage of patients achieving those thresholds were also calculated. RESULTS: The distribution-based MCIDs after primary Latarjet were 1.1, 7.5, and 9.6 for the VAS, Rowe, and ASOSS scores, respectively. The rates of patients who achieved the MCID thresholds were 93.9%, 98.7%, and 100% for the VAS, Rowe, and ASOSS scores, respectively. The PASS thresholds after primary Latarjet were ≤1, ≥90, and ≥85 for the VAS, Rowe, and ASOSS scores, respectively. The percentages of patients who achieved PASS thresholds were 82.9%, 89%, and 86.5% for the VAS, Rowe, and ASOSS scores, respectively. The distribution-based MCIDs after revision Latarjet were 0.6, 6.2, and 3.4 for the VAS, Rowe, and ASOSS scores, respectively. The rates of patients who achieved MCID thresholds were 89.3%, 100%, and 100% for the VAS, Rowe, and ASOSS scores, respectively. The PASS thresholds were ≤3, ≥87, and ≥86 after revision Latarjet for the VAS, Rowe, and ASOSS scores, respectively. The rates of patients who achieved the PASS thresholds were 88%, 88%, and 91% for the VAS, Rowe, and ASOSS, respectively. CONCLUSION: This study identified useful values for the MCID and PASS thresholds in VAS, Rowe, and ASOSS scores after primary and revision Latarjet procedures for treating shoulder instability. Most patients achieved MCID and PASS benchmarks, indicating successful primary and revision Latarjet procedure outcomes. These metrics can serve as valuable parameters when analyzing parameters in future studies and have the potential to enhance patient care by optimizing treatment strategies and surgical decision making.

Glenohumeral morphological predictors of recurrent shoulder instability following arthroscopic Bankart repair.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate glenohumeral morphological features on a magnetic resonance arthrogram (MRA) to determine risk factors for recurrence of anterior shoulder instability following arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR). METHODS: A retrospective review of patients who underwent ABR between 2012 and 2017 was performed to identify patients who had recurrence of instability following stabilisation (Group 1). These were pair-matched in a 2:1 ratio for age, gender and sport with a control (Group 2) who underwent ABR without recurrence. Preoperative MRAs were evaluated for risk factors for recurrence, with glenoid bone loss and Hill-Sachs lesions also measured. Multilinear and multilogistic regression models were used to evaluate factors affecting recurrence. RESULTS: Overall, 72 patients were included in this study, including 48 patients without recurrence and 24 patients with recurrent instability. There was a significant difference between the two groups in mean glenoid bone loss (Group 1: 7.3% vs. Group 2: 5.7%, p < 0.0001) and the rate of off-track Hill-Sachs lesions (Group 1: 20.8% vs. Group 2: 0%, p = 0.0003). Of the variables analysed in logistic regression, increased glenoid anteversion (p = 0.02), acromioclavicular (AC) degeneration (p = 0.03) and increased Hill-Sachs width were associated with increased risk of failure. Increased chondral version (p = 0.01) and humeral head diameter in the anteriorposterior view were found to be protective and associated with a greater likelihood of success. CONCLUSION: Glenoid anteversion was a risk factor for recurrent instability, whereas increased chondral version and humeral head diameter were associated with higher rates of success following ABR. Glenoid bone loss, presence of an off-track Hill-Sachs lesion, increased Hill-Sachs width and AC degeneration were also associated with failure. These findings should be used by surgeons to stratify risk for recurrence following ABR. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III.

Artificial Intelligence in Shoulder and Elbow Surgery: Overview of Current and Future Applications.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is amongst the most rapidly growing technologies in orthopedic surgery. With the exponential growth in healthcare data, computing power, and complex predictive algorithms, this technology is poised to aid providers in data processing and clinical decision support throughout the continuum of orthopedic care. Understanding the utility and limitations of this technology is vital to practicing orthopedic surgeons, as these applications will become more common place in everyday practice. AI has already demonstrated its utility in shoulder and elbow surgery for imaging-based diagnosis, predictive modelling of clinical outcomes, implant identification, and automated image segmentation. The future integration of AI and robotic surgery represents the largest potential application of AI in shoulder and elbow surgery with the potential for significant clinical and financial impact. This editorial's purpose is to summarize common AI terms, provide a framework to understand and interpret AI model results, and discuss current applications and future directions within shoulder and elbow surgery.

Type V Superior-Labrum Anterior-Posterior (SLAP) Repair - A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to systematically review the evidence in the literature to ascertain the functional outcomes, recurrence rates, and subsequent revision rates following type V superior labrum anterior-posterior (SLAP) repair. METHODS: Two independent reviewers performed a literature search based on PRISMA guidelines, utilizing the EMBASE, MEDLINE, and The Cochrane Library Databases. Studies were included if they had clinical outcomes on the patients undergoing type V SLAP repair. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA). A P value of < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant. RESULTS: Our review found 13 studies, including 451 shoulders meeting our inclusion criteria. The majority of patients were male (89.3%), with an average age of 25.9 years (range 15-58) and a mean follow-up of 53.8 months. The Rowe score was the most utilized functional outcome score, with a weighted mean of 88.5. Additionally, the mean Constant score was 91.0, the mean ASES score was 88.3, the mean SSV score was 85.5%, and the mean VAS pain score was 1.2. The overall rate of return to play was 84.8%, with 80.2% returning to the same level of play. The overall reoperation rate was 6.1%, with a recurrent dislocation rate of 8.2%. In the studies comparing type V SLAP and isolated Bankart repair, there were statistically insignificant differences in VAS pain scores (MD; 0.15, 95% CI, -0.13 to 0.44, I2 = 0%, p = 0.29) and recurrence rates (RR; 1.38, 95% CI, 0.88 to 2.15, I2 = 0%, p = 0.16). CONCLUSION: Arthroscopic repair of type V SLAP tears results in excellent functional outcomes, with high return to play rates in athletes. There are low rates of reoperations and recurrent dislocations. Additionally, in comparison to an isolated Bankart repair, SLAP repair does not increase recurrence rates or postoperative pain.

Editorial Commentary: At Present, ChatGPT Cannot Be Relied Upon to Answer Patient Questions and Requires Physician Expertise to Interpret Answers for Patients.

ChatGPT is designed to provide accurate and reliable information to the best of its abilities based on the data input and knowledge available. Thus, ChatGPT is being studied as a patient information tool. This artificial intelligence (AI) tool has been shown to frequently provide technically correct information but with limitations. ChatGPT provides different answers to similar questions based on the prompts, and patients may not have expertise in prompting ChatGPT to elicit a best answer. (Prompting large language models has been shown to be a skill that can improve.) Of greater concern, ChatGPT fails to provide sources or references for its answers. At present, ChatGPT cannot be relied upon to address patient questions; in the future, ChatGPT will improve. Today, AI requires physician expertise to interpret AI answers for patients.

Long-term outcomes of anterior shoulder instability treated with open latarjet procedure - a systematic review of outcomes at a minimum 15-year follow-up.

Background: To systematically review the literature to evaluate the outcomes following an open Latarjet (OL) procedure at a minimum 15-year follow-up. Methods: Two independent reviewers performed a literature search using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines using 3 databases. Only studies reporting outcomes of OL procedure with a minimum of 15 years of follow-up were included. Results: Nine studies composed of 326 shoulders (78.2% males) in 313 patients were included (average age 26.9 ± 3.2 years (15-58)), with a mean follow-up of 271.9 ± 69.2 months (180-420) At a minimum 15-year follow-up, 93.5% (286 of 306) patients reported being satisfied with their OL procedure, whilst 86.8% (177 of 204) reported good/excellent outcomes at final follow-up. All nine of the included studies reported an overall rate of recurrent instability was 7.7%, with re-dislocations and subluxation at 3.4% and 5.8%, respectively. The rate of surgical revision was 5.15%; 3.5% of cases were revised for recurrent instability. Instability arthropathy was reported across all included studies as 41.0%. Conclusion: The OL procedure results in satisfactory clinical outcomes, low rates of recurrent instability and surgical revision at a minimum 15-year follow-up. Although high levels of radiological instability arthropathy and residual pain are found over the same period, these appear stable from a minimum of 10-year follow-up data. Level of Evidence: IV; a systematic review of all levels of evidence.

Arthroscopic Bankart repair versus nonoperative management for first-time anterior shoulder instability: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

Purpose: Arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR) may be more effective than nonoperative management for patients with anterior shoulder instability following first-time dislocation. The purpose of the study was to determine the most cost-effective treatment strategy by evaluating the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for ABR versus nonoperative treatment. Methods: This cost-effectiveness study utilized a Markov decision chain and Monte Carlo simulation. Probabilities, health utility values, and outcome data regarding ABR and nonoperative management of first-time shoulder instability derived from level I/II evidence. Costs were tabulated from Centers for Medicaid & Medicare Services. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis was performed using >100,000 repetitions of the Monte Carlo simulation. A willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold was set at $50,000. Results: The expected cost for operative management higher than nonoperative management ($32,765 vs $29,343). However, ABR (5.48 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs)) was the more effective treatment strategy compared to nonoperative management (4.61 QALYs). The ICER for ABR was $3943. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that ABR was the most cost-effective strategy in 100% of simulations. Discussion: ABR is more cost-effective than nonoperative management for first-time anterior shoulder dislocation. The threshold analysis demonstrated that when accounting for WTP, ABR was found to be the more cost-effective strategy.

Return to play following operative management of anterior shoulder instability in overhead athletes-A systematic review.

Background: The purpose of this study was to systematically review the rate and timing of return to play in overhead athletes following operative management of anterior shoulder instability. Methods: A systematic literature search based on PRISMA guidelines, utilizing the EMBASE, MEDLINE, and The Cochrane Library Databases. Eligible for inclusion were clinical studies reporting on return to play among overhead athletes following arthroscopic Bankart repair, open Latarjet procedure or Remplissage procedure. Results: There are 23 studies included with 961 patients. Among those undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair, the rate of return to play was 86.2%, with 70.6% returning to the same level of play and the mean time to return to play was 7.1 months. Among those undergoing an open Latarjet procedure, the rate of return to play was 80.9%, with 77.7% returning to the same level of play and the mean time to return to play was 5.1 months. Among those undergoing a Remplissage procedure, the rate of return to play was 70.6%, with 70.0% returning to the same level of play or mean time to return to play. Discussion: Overall, there were high rates of return to play following operative management of anterior shoulder instability in overhead athletes.

Cannabidiol for Postoperative Pain Control After Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair Demonstrates No Deficits in Patient-Reported Outcomes Versus Placebo: 1-Year Follow-up of a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Background: Cannabidiol (CBD) has been shown recently to positively affect patient pain and satisfaction immediately after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR). However, it is unclear whether the addition of CBD to a perioperative regimen could affect postoperative outcomes. Purpose: To evaluate patient-reported outcomes among patients who underwent ARCR and received buccally absorbed CBD or an identical placebo for early postoperative pain management at 1-year follow-up. Study Design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: Eligible patients had previously participated in a multicenter, placebo-controlled, randomized, double-blinded trial that evaluated the analgesic effects of CBD in the immediate postoperative period after ARCR. The experimental group received 25 mg of CBD 3 times/day if <80 kg and 50 mg of CBD 3 times/day if >80 kg for 14 days, with the control group receiving an identical placebo. The following outcomes were assessed at minimum 1-year follow-up: visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), and patient satisfaction. The rates of achievement of the Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) were compared based on ASES at latest follow-up. Continuous and categorical variables were compared with the Mann-Whitney U test and Fisher exact test, respectively. Results: Follow-up was obtained from 83 of 99 patients (83.8%) who completed the original trial. There were no significant differences between the CBD and control groups with respect to age, sex, body mass index, rate of concomitant procedures, or number of anchors used intraoperatively. At 1-year follow-up, there were no significant differences between the CBD and control groups in VAS pain (0.8 vs 1.2, P = .38), ASES (93.0 vs 91.1, P = .71), SANE (87.6 vs 90.1, P = .24), or satisfaction (97.4 vs 95.4, P = .41). A majority of patients achieved the PASS (81.0% [CBD] vs 77.5% [control]; P = .79). Conclusion: Perioperative use of CBD for pain control among patients undergoing ARCR did not result in any significant deficits in pain, satisfaction, or patient-reported outcomes at 1-year postoperatively compared with a placebo control group. These findings suggest that CBD can be considered in a postoperative multimodal pain management regimen without detrimental effects on outcome. Registration: NCT04672252 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).

Midterm outcomes of primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review of studies with minimum 5-year follow-up.

Background: Excellent short-term outcomes after reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) have been reported, but longer term outcomes in the existing literature are sparse and vary widely. The purpose of this study is to systematically assess the existing literature to quantify functional outcomes and complication rates after RSA at a minimum of five years of follow-up. Methods: A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses-compliant systematic literature search of the PubMed and Embase databases was undertaken. Studies reporting outcomes after primary RSA for nontrauma-related indications with a minimum of 5-year follow-up were included. Results: Overall, 20 studies satisfied all inclusion criteria. This represented 1591 shoulders in 1556 patients (32.1% males), with a mean age of 70.2 ± 5.0 years and mean follow-up of 8.8 years, or 106.2 ± 30.1 months (60-243). At final follow-up, the mean reported Constant Murley score was 62.1 ± 5.0 (49.0-83.0). The mean adjusted Constant Murley score was 83.5 ± 12.5 (58-111.9). The mean American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score was 81.8 ± 4.6, while the mean subjective shoulder value was 74.6 ± 6.4. Overall, 88% of patients rated their satisfaction as either good or very good. The range of active forward flexion, abduction, external, and internal rotation were respectively, 126° ± 13°, 106° ± 11°, 22° ± 11°, and 6° ± 2°. The overall rate of revision surgery was 4.9% (0%-45.5%). Regarding complications, the rate of prosthetic joint infection was 4.3% (0%-26.7%), shoulder dislocation was 3.7% (0%-20.4%), and acromial fracture was 2.0% (0%-8.8%). At final follow-up, 30.9% of shoulders had some degree of scapular notching. Conclusion: This systematic review shows that RSA results in high satisfaction rates, good clinical outcomes, as well as modest complication and revision rates at minimum 5-year follow-up.

Tranexamic Acid for Rotator Cuff Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been conducted to assess the use of tranexamic acid (TXA) in the setting of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR). However, these studies have shown mixed results, with some showing improved intraoperative visualization, subsequent operative times, and pain levels, and others finding no difference. PURPOSE: To perform a systematic review of the RCTs in the literature to evaluate the use of TXA on ARCR. STUDY DESIGN: Meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 1. METHODS: Two independent reviewers performed the literature search based on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, with a third author resolving any discrepancies. RCTs comparing TXA with a control in ARCR were included. Visualization, postoperative pain, operative time, pump pressures, and shoulder swelling were evaluated. A P value < .05 was deemed statistically significant. RESULTS: Six RCTs with 450 patients were included in this review. Overall, 5 studies evaluated intraoperative visualization, with 3 studies finding a significant difference in favor of TXA. With TXA, patients had a lower mean postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) score of 3.3, and with the control, patients had a mean VAS score of 4.1, which was statistically significant (P = .001). With TXA, the mean weighted operation time was 79.3 minutes, and with the control, the mean operation time was 88.8 minutes, which was statistically significant (P = .001). No study found any difference in intraoperative pump pressures or swelling. CONCLUSION: TXA improved visualization, operative time, and subsequent postoperative pain levels in patients undergoing ARCR.

Evaluation of information from artificial intelligence on rotator cuff repair surgery.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to analyze the quality and readability of information regarding rotator cuff repair surgery available using an online AI software. Methods: An open AI model (ChatGPT) was used to answer 24 commonly asked questions from patients on rotator cuff repair. Questions were stratified into one of three categories based on the Rothwell classification system: fact, policy, or value. The answers for each category were evaluated for reliability, quality and readability using The Journal of the American Medical Association Benchmark criteria, DISCERN score, Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease Score and Grade Level. Results: The Journal of the American Medical Association Benchmark criteria score for all three categories was 0, which is the lowest score indicating no reliable resources cited. The DISCERN score was 51 for fact, 53 for policy, and 55 for value questions, all of which are considered good scores. Across question categories, the reliability portion of the DISCERN score was low, due to a lack of resources. The Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease Score (and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level) was 48.3 (10.3) for the fact class, 42.0 (10.9) for the policy class, and 38.4 (11.6) for the value class. Conclusion: The quality of information provided by the open AI chat system was generally high across all question types but had significant shortcomings in reliability due to the absence of source material citations. The DISCERN scores of the AI generated responses matched or exceeded previously published results of studies evaluating the quality of online information about rotator cuff repairs. The responses were U.S. 10th grade or higher reading level which is above the AMA and NIH recommendation of 6th grade reading level for patient materials. The AI software commonly referred the user to seek advice from orthopedic surgeons to improve their chances of a successful outcome.

Bone Marrow Stimulation for Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: Bone marrow stimulation (BMS) has been proposed to augment healing at the time of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR) by creating several bone marrow vents in the footprint of the rotator cuff, allowing mesenchymal stem cells, platelets, and growth factors to cover the area as a "crimson duvet." PURPOSE: To perform a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the outcomes after BMS and a control for those undergoing ARCR. STUDY DESIGN: Meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 1. METHODS: A literature search of 3 databases was performed based on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. RCTs comparing BMS and a control for ARCR were included. Clinical outcomes were compared, and a P value <.05 was considered to be statistically significant. RESULTS: A total of 7 RCTs with 576 patients were included. Overall, 18.8% of patients treated with BMS and 21.0% of patients treated with a control had a retear (I2 = 43%; P = .61). With BMS, the mean Constant score was 88.2, and with the control, the mean Constant score was 86.7 (P = .12). Additionally, there was no significant difference in the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (94.3 vs 93.2, respectively; P = .31) or visual analog scale score (0.9 vs 0.9, respectively; P = .89). CONCLUSION: The level 1 evidence in the literature did not support BMS as a modality to improve retear rates or clinical outcomes after ARCR.

Effect of Patient Characteristics on the Minimal Clinically Important Difference and Patient Acceptable Symptom State Thresholds After Arthroscopic Bankart Repair.

BACKGROUND: There is scarce literature on clinically significant values after arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR). PURPOSE: To determine the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and the patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) thresholds at 1 year for the Rowe and Athletic Shoulder Outcome Scoring System (ASOSS) scores after ABR and to determine the effect of patient characteristics on these metrics after ABR. STUDY DESIGN: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients undergoing ABR from a single institution between January 2017 and January 2020 was performed. Patients with at least 1 episode of instability and a minimum follow-up of 12 months were included. The exclusion criteria were as follows: bony defects of >20% on the anteroinferior portion of the glenoid based on a preoperative computed tomography scan; engaging Hill-Sachs lesions at 90° of abduction and 90° of external rotation based on an arthroscopic examination; previous surgery on the same shoulder; multidirectional instability or concomitant repair of full-thickness rotator cuff tears; superior labral anterior to posterior lesions; posterior labral tears; or humeral avulsion of the glenohumeral ligament lesions. Patient-reported outcome measures were collected both preoperatively and 1-year postoperatively. Delta was defined as the change between preoperative and 1-year postoperative scores. Distribution-based (one-half the standard deviation of the difference between pre- and postoperative outcome scores) and anchored-based approaches (response to a satisfaction question at 1 year) were used to estimate the MCID and the PASS, respectively. The optimal cutoff point, where sensitivity and specificity were maximized, and the percentage of patients achieving those thresholds were also calculated. RESULTS: Overall, 190 patients were included. The distribution-based MCID for the Rowe and ASOSS scores were calculated to be 8.2 and 8.7, respectively. The rate of patients who achieved MCID thresholds was 96% for the Rowe and 96% for ASOSS scores. The PASS threshold for the Rowe and ASOSS scores were ≥80 and ≥90, respectively. The rate of patients who achieved PASS scores after ABR were 86% and 83%, respectively. The MCID and PASS values showed great variability based on sex (men: 8.5 and ≥85 for Rowe / 8.9 and ≥90 for ASOSS, respectively, vs women: 6.7 and ≥73 for Rowe / 8.1 and ≥75 for ASOSS), age (≥21: 8.4 and ≥80 / 9.2 and ≥90 vs <21: 7.8 and ≥75 / 7.7 and ≥85), sports participation (sports: 8.8 and ≥85 / 9.5 and ≥90 vs no sports: 8.1 and ≥75 / 8.6 and ≥80), and type of athlete (competitive: 8.4 and ≥85 / 8.9 and ≥87 vs recreational: 7.5 and ≥73 / 8.1 and ≥68). CONCLUSION: This study identified the MCID and PASS thresholds for the Rowe and ASOSS scores at 1 year after ABR. However, these values showed great variability when accounting for different patient characteristics such as sex, age, sports participation, and type of athlete, highlighting the importance of considering individual patient-specific characteristics for optimal treatment decision-making and ensuring treatment success tailored to each patient's unique needs and expectations.

Establishing the Minimal Clinically Important Difference, Substantial Clinical Benefit, and Patient Acceptable Symptomatic State After Arthroscopic Posterior Labral Repair for Posterior Glenohumeral Instability.

BACKGROUND: Posterior glenohumeral instability is an increasingly recognized cause of shoulder pain and dysfunction among young, active populations. Outcomes after posterior stabilization procedures are commonly assessed using patient-reported outcome measures including the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), the Rowe instability score, the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, and the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain. The clinical significance thresholds for these measures after arthroscopic posterior labral repair (aPLR), however, remain undefined. PURPOSE: We aimed to define the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) for the SANE, Rowe score, and ASES score as well as the VAS pain after aPLR. Additionally, we sought to determine preoperative factors predictive of reaching, as well as failing to reach, clinical significance. STUDY DESIGN: Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: This study was a retrospective analysis of patient-reported outcome scores collected from patients who underwent aPLR between January 2011 and December 2018. To determine the clinically significant threshold that corresponded to achieving a meaningful outcome, the MCID, SCB, and PASS were calculated for the SANE, Rowe score, ASES score, and VAS pain utilizing either an anchor- or distribution-based method. Additionally, univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to determine the factors associated with achieving, or not achieving, the MCID, SCB, and PASS. RESULTS: A total of 73 patients with a mean follow-up of 82.55 ± 24.20 months were available for final analysis. MCID, SCB, and PASS values for the VAS pain were 1.10, 6, and 3, respectively; for the ASES score were 7.8, 34, and 80, respectively; for the SANE were 10.15, 33, and 85, respectively; and for the Rowe score were 11.3, 60, and 90, respectively. To meet the MCID, male sex (odds ratio [OR], 1.1639; P = .0293) was found to be a positive predictor for the VAS pain, and a lower preoperative SANE score (OR, 0.9939; P = .0003) was found to be a negative predictor for the SANE. Dominant arm involvement was associated with lower odds of achieving the PASS for the ASES score (OR, 0.7834; P = .0259) and VAS pain (OR, 0.7887; P = .0436). Patients who reported a history of shoulder trauma were more likely to reach the PASS for the SANE (OR, 1.3501; P = .0089), Rowe score (OR, 1.3938; P = .0052), and VAS pain (OR, 1.3507; P = .0104) as well as the SCB for the ASES score (OR, 1.2642; P = .0469) and SANE (OR, 1.2554; P = .0444). A higher preoperative VAS pain score was associated with higher odds of achieving the SCB for both the VAS pain (OR, 1.1653; P = .0110) and Rowe score (OR, 1.1282; P = .0175). Lastly, concomitant biceps tenodesis was associated with greater odds of achieving the SCB for the ASES score (OR, 1.3490; P = .0130) and reaching the PASS for the SANE (OR, 1.3825; P = .0038) and Rowe score (OR, 1.4040; P = .0035). CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this study is the first to define the MCID, SCB, and PASS for the ASES score, Rowe score, SANE, and VAS pain in patients undergoing aPLR. Furthermore, we found that patients who reported a history of shoulder trauma and those who underwent concomitant biceps tenodesis demonstrated a greater likelihood of achieving clinical significance. Dominant arm involvement was associated with lower odds of achieving clinical significance.

Outcomes After Revision Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR) is one of the most commonly performed orthopaedic procedures; however, it is unclear how to manage patients with symptomatic retears. PURPOSE: To perform a systematic review to evaluate the outcomes of revision ARCR in the literature. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: A systematic literature search based on PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines was performed utilizing the Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library databases. Eligible for inclusion were clinical studies reporting on revision rotator cuff repair. Clinical outcomes were recorded. RESULTS: The 17 included studies were composed of 888 shoulders in 885 patients. The mean age of the 885 patients was 58.6 ± 9.1 years, with a mean follow-up of 28.1 ± 22.1 months. The mean visual analog scale score was 2.1 ± 1.8, the mean American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score was 75.0 ± 18.3, and the mean Constant score was 67.4 ± 16.6. The overall rate of retears after revision was 25.3%, with an 8.0% reoperation rate including 2.7% undergoing reverse shoulder arthroplasty and 2.0% undergoing subsequent rotator cuff repair. Finally, the complication rate was 8.6%. CONCLUSION: Revision ARCR improved patient-reported outcomes, with 92% of patients free from reoperations at a mean follow-up of 2 years. Overall, 78.4% of patients were satisfied at final follow-up; however, the rate of retears was found to be higher than after primary ARCR.

Majority of Studies Show Similar Rates of Return to Play After Arthroscopic Bankart Repair or Latarjet Procedure: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: To systematically review the current evidence in the literature to compare return to play following arthroscopic Bankart repair versus open Latarjet procedure for the treatment of anterior shoulder instability. METHODS: A literature search was performed based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Comparative studies reporting return to play following arthroscopic Bankart repair versus open Latarjet procedure were included. Return to play was compared, with all statistical analysis performed using Review Manager, Version 5.3. RESULTS: Nine studies with 1,242 patients (mean age: 15-30 years) were included. The rate of return to play was 61% to 94.1% among those undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair and 72% to 96.8% in those undergoing an open Latarjet procedure. Two studies (Bessiere et al. and Zimmerman et al.) found a significant difference in favor of the Latarjet procedure (P < .05 for both, I2 = 37%). The rate of return to play at preinjury level was 9% to 83.8% among those undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair and 19.4% to 80.6% in those undergoing an open Latarjet procedure, with no study finding a significant difference (P > .05 for all, I2 = 0%). The mean time of return to play was 5.4 to 7.3 months among those undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair and 5.5 to 6.2 months in those undergoing an open Latarjet procedure, with no study finding a significant difference (P > .05 for all, I2 = 39%). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the majority of studies showed no significant difference in rates of return to play or timing following arthroscopic Bankart repair or open Latarjet procedure. Furthermore, no study has found a significant difference in rate of return to play at pre-injury level, or rate of return to play among collision athletes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, systematic review of Level I-III studies.

The association of pre-existing mental health conditions and patient outcomes after lower extremity orthopaedic trauma: a scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: Existing research has established a correlation between post-traumatic mental health conditions, including anxiety and depression, and various aspects of recovery, such as pain exacerbations, reduced functional recovery, and lowered patient satisfaction. However, the influence of pre-existing mental health conditions on orthopaedic trauma outcomes has not been thoroughly investigated. The objective of this study was to systematically review literature addressing the association between pre-existing mental health conditions and patient outcomes following surgical interventions for lower extremity fractures in non-geriatric populations. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted using Medline, Embase, and Scopus databases following PRISMA-ScR guidelines to select studies that examined lower extremity orthopaedic trauma outcomes in relation to pre-existing mental health conditions. Studies that evaluated patients with surgically treated lower extremity fractures and a history of mental health conditions such as anxiety, depression, or mood disorders were included. Studies with a mean patient age above 65 years of age were excluded to focus on non-geriatric injury patterns. RESULTS: The systematic review identified 12 studies investigating the relationship between surgical outcomes of orthopaedic lower extremity fractures and pre-existing mental health disorders in non-geriatric populations. Studies included patients with pelvis, femur, tibia, and ankle fractures. A majority (83%) of these studies demonstrated that patients with pre-existing mental health diagnoses had inferior functional outcomes, heightened pain levels, or an increase in postoperative complications. DISCUSSION: The presence of pre-existing mental health conditions, particularly anxiety and depression, may predispose orthopaedic trauma patients to an elevated risk of suboptimal functional outcomes, increased pain, or complications after surgical intervention for lower extremity fractures. Future research should focus on interventions that mitigate the impact of mental health conditions on orthopaedic outcomes and patient wellness in this population.

Experts Achieve Consensus on a Majority of Statements Regarding Platelet-Rich Plasma Treatments for Treatment of Musculoskeletal Pathology.

PURPOSE: To establish consensus statements on platelet-rich plasma (PRP) for the treatment of musculoskeletal pathologies. METHODS: A consensus process on the treatment of PRP using a modified Delphi technique was conducted. Thirty-five orthopaedic surgeons and sports medicine physicians participated in these consensus statements on PRP. The participants were composed of representatives of the Biologic Association, representing 9 international orthopaedic and musculoskeletal professional societies invited due to their active interest in the study of orthobiologics. Consensus was defined as achieving 80% to 89% agreement, strong consensus was defined as 90% to 99% agreement, and unanimous consensus was indicated by 100% agreement with a proposed statement. RESULTS: There was consensus on 62% of statements about PRP. CONCLUSIONS: (1) PRP should be classified based on platelet count, leukocyte count, red blood count, activation method, and pure-plasma versus fibrin matrix; (2) PRP characteristics for reporting in research studies are platelet count, leukocyte count, neutrophil count, red blood cell count, total volume, the volume of injection, delivery method, and the number of injections; (3) the prognostic factors for those undergoing PRP injections are age, body mass index, severity/grade of pathology, chronicity of pathology, prior injections and response, primary diagnosis (primary vs postsurgery vs post-trauma vs psoriatic), comorbidities, and smoking; (4) regarding age and body mass index, there is no minimum or maximum, but clinical judgment should be used at extremes of either; (5) the ideal dose of PRP is undetermined; and (6) the minimal volume required is unclear and may depend on the pathology. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V, expert opinion.