Evaluation of spin in systematic reviews on the use of tendon transfer for massive irreparable rotator cuff tears.

PURPOSE: To identify, describe and account for the incidence of spin in systematic reviews and meta-analyses of tendon transfer for the treatment of massive, irreparable rotator cuff tears. The secondary objective was to characterize the studies in which spin was identified and to determine whether identifiable patterns exist among studies with spin. METHODS: This study was conducted per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Each abstract was assessed for the presence of the 15 most common types of spin derived from a previously established methodology. General data that were extracted included study title, authors, publication year, journal, level of evidence, study design, funding source, reported adherence to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, preregistration of the study protocol, and methodologic quality per A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews Version 2 (AMSTAR 2). RESULTS: The search yielded 53 articles, of which 13 were included in the final analysis. Articles were excluded if they were not published in a peer reviewed journal, not written in English, utilized cadaveric or nonhuman models, or lacked an abstract with accessible full text. 53.8% (7/13) of the included studies contained at least 1 type of spin in the abstract. Type 5 spin ("The conclusion claims beneficial effect of the experimental treatment despite a high risk of bias in primary studies") was the most common, appearing in 23.1% (3/13) of included abstracts. Nine of the spin categories did not appear in any of the included abstracts. A lower AMSTAR 2 score was significantly associated with the presence of spin in the abstract (P < .006). CONCLUSION: Spin is highly prevalent in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses concerning tendon transfer for massive rotator cuff tears. A lower overall AMSTAR 2 rating was associated with a higher incidence of spin. Future studies should continue to explore the prevalence of spin in orthopedic literature and identify any factors that may contribute to its presence.

Evaluation of spin in reviews of biodegradable balloon spacers for massive irreparable rotator cuff tears.

HYPOTHESIS: Clinical studies are often at risk of spin, a form of bias where beneficial claims are overstated while negative findings are minimized or dismissed. Spin is often more problematic in abstracts given their brevity and can result in the misrepresentation of a study's actual findings. The goal of this study is to aggregate primary and secondary studies reporting the clinical outcomes of the use of subacromial balloon spacers in the treatment of massive irreparable rotator cuff tears to identify the incidence of spin and find any significant association with study design parameters. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Independent searches were completed on 2 databases (PubMed and Embase) for primary studies, systematic and current concepts reviews, and meta-analyses and the results were compiled. Two authors independently screened the studies using a predetermined inclusion criteria and aggregated data including titles, publication journals and years, authors, study design, etc. Each study was independently assessed for the presence of 15 different types of spin. Statistical analysis was conducted to identify associations between study characteristics and spin. RESULTS: Twenty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria for our analysis, of which 10 were reviews or meta-analyses and 19 were primary studies. Spin was identified in every study except for 2 (27/29, 93.1%). Type 3 spin, "Selective reporting of or overemphasis on efficacy outcomes or analysis favoring the beneficial effect of the experimental intervention" and type 9 spin, "Conclusion claims the beneficial effect of the experimental treatment despite reporting bias" were most frequently noted in our study, both observed in 12/29 studies (41.4%). Date of publication, and adherence to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses or "The International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews" were study characteristics associated with a higher rate of certain types of spin. There was a statistically significant association between disclosure of external study funding source and the presence of spin type 4, but none of the other forms of spin. CONCLUSION: Spin is highly prevalent in the abstracts of primary studies, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses discussing the use of subacromial balloon spacer technology in the treatment of massive irreparable rotator cuff tears. Our findings revealed that spin in the abstract tended to favor the balloon spacer intervention. Further efforts are required in the future to mitigate spin within the abstracts of published manuscripts.

Reporting Bias is Highly Prevalent in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Platelet Rich Plasma Injections for Hip Osteoarthritis.

Purpose: To describe the incidence and types of spin in systematic reviews of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections for hip osteoarthritis (OA) and to determine whether patterns in study characteristics could be identified among studies with identifiable spin. Methods: The PubMed, Scopus, and SPORTDiscus databases were queried. Inclusion criteria were systematic reviews or meta-analyses that included an assessment of intra-articular PRP injections as a stand-alone treatment for hip OA. Two authors independently assessed the presence of spin in the included studies and recorded general study characteristics. The prevalence of the 15 different categories of spin was quantified using descriptive statistics. Results: Fifteen studies met inclusion criteria for this study. All studies contained at least two types of spin (range 2-9), with a median of 2. The most common type of spin was type 14 ("Failure to report a wide confidence interval of estimates"), which was observed in 10 studies. The second most common type of spin was type 13 ("Failure to specify the direction of the effect when it favors the control intervention"), found in 6 studies. Conclusions: Spin is highly prevalent in abstracts of systematic reviews of PRP in the treatment of hip OA. Several associations were found between spin types and the study characteristics of AMSTAR 2 rating, Scopus CiteScore, journal impact factor, and PROSPERO preregistration. When present, spin in the abstracts of reviewed studies tended to favor the use of PRP in hip osteoarthritis. Clinical Relevance: It is important to understand the prevalence of spin in published abstracts, especially in areas of great impact or interest, so authors and readers can have a greater awareness of this potential form of bias.

Female patient with bilateral distal biceps tendon reconstruction: A case report.

This is a case of a 57-year-old healthy woman with traumatic bilateral distal biceps tendon rupture with tendon retraction requiring reconstruction. The functional outcomes were recorded pre-operatively and at 3 months, 6 months, 1 year and 2 years postoperatively. Conclusion: Distal biceps tendon rupture usually occurs in male patients; however, this injury may occur in females. Delay in treatment may result in tendon degeneration precluding repair. Distal biceps tendon reconstruction with Achilles allograft yielded favorable outcome in a middle-aged female patient who sustained bilateral distal biceps tendon rupture.

Avive Soft Tissue Membrane Improves Outcomes of Revision Upper-extremity Nerve Decompression Surgery.

Revision nerve decompression remains a challenge for surgeons. Avive Soft Tissue Membrane is processed human umbilical cord membrane that may reduce inflammation and scarring, thereby improving tissue gliding. Although synthetic conduits have been reported in revision nerve decompression, the use of Avive has not. Methods: Prospective study of revision nerve decompression with Avive application. VAS pain, two-point discrimination, Semmes-Weinstein, pinch and grip strength, range of motion, Quick Disability of Arm, Shoulder & Hand (QuickDASH), and satisfaction were recorded. Using a propensity-matched cohort, VAS pain and satisfaction were retrospectively collected to compare with cohort outcomes. Results: In the Avive cohort, 77 patients (97 nerves) were included. Mean follow-up was 9.0 months. Avive was applied to the median nerve in 47.4%, ulnar nerve in 39.2%, and radial nerve in 13.4%. VAS pain was 4.5 preoperatively and 1.3 postoperatively. S4 sensory recovery was achieved in 58% of patients, S3+ in 33%, S3 in 7%, S0 in 2%, and improvement from baseline in 87%. Strength improved in 92%. Mean total active motion was 94.8%. Mean QuickDASH score was 36.1, and 96% reported improved or resolved symptoms. Preoperative pain was not significantly different between Avive cohort and controls (P = 0.618). Postoperative pain was significantly lower in cohort patients (1.3 ± 2.2 versus 2.7 ± 3.0, P = 0.001). In the Avive cohort, more had improved or resolved symptoms (P < 0.0001). Clinically important improvement in pain was reported in 64.9% of Avive group patients versus 40.8% of controls (P = 0.002). Conclusion: Avive contributes to improved outcomes in revision nerve decompression.

Evaluation of Spin in the Abstracts of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Ulnar Collateral Ligament Reconstruction.

Purpose: To identify the quantity and types of spin present in systematic reviews and meta-analyses of ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction (UCLR) outcomes and to characterize the studies with spin to determine if any patterns exist. Methods: This study was conducted per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. In August 2022, PubMed, Scopus, and SportDiscus databases were searched using the terms "ulnar collateral ligament reconstruction" AND "systematic review" OR "meta-analysis." Each abstract was assessed for the presence of the 15 most common types of spin derived from a previously established methodology. General data that were extracted included study title, authors, publication year, journal, level of evidence, study design, funding source, reported adherence to PRISMA guidelines, preregistration of the study protocol, and methodologic quality per A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews Version 2 (AMSTAR 2). Results: In total, 122 studies were identified during the preliminary search, of which 19 met the inclusion criteria. Each study had at least 1 form of spin. The most common type of spin identified was type 5 ("The conclusion claims the beneficial effect of the experimental treatment despite a high risk of bias in primary studies") (7/19, 36.8%). AMSTAR type 9 ("Did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the RoB [risk of bias] in individual studies that were included in the review?") was associated with both a lower Clarivate Impact Factor (P = .001) and a lower Scopus CiteScore (P = .015). Studies receiving external funding were associated with the failure to satisfy AMSTAR type 3 ("Did the review authors explain their selection of the study designs for inclusion in the review?") (P = .047). Conclusions: Spin is highly prevalent in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses that investigate the outcomes of UCLR. Clinical Relevance: Spin has been identified in peer-reviewed articles published on various topics, including many in orthopaedics. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses contain the most comprehensive evidence regarding a clinical question, so it is important to identify spin that may be included in these reports. Greater efforts are needed to ensure that the abstracts of papers accurately represent the results in the full text.

Off-Season Arthroscopic Partial Meniscectomy in National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I Football Players Has a Longer Return to Sport Time than In-Season Surgery.

Purpose: To report the outcomes of routine arthroscopic meniscectomy in National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I Football players. Methods: NCAA athletes who underwent arthroscopic meniscectomy over 5 years were included. Players who had incomplete data, previous knee surgery, ligamentous injury, and/or microfractures were excluded. Data collected were player position, timing of surgery, procedures performed, return to play (RTP) rate and time, and postoperative performance. Continuous variables were analyzed with Student t-tests or a one-way analysis of variance. Results: Thirty-six athletes (38 knees) who underwent arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (31 lateral, 7 medial) were included. The mean RTP time was 71 ± 39 days. The mean RTP time in athletes who underwent in-season surgery) was significantly shorter than the RTP in athletes who had off-season surgery (58 ± 41 days vs 85 ± 33 days, P < .05). The mean RTP in 29 athletes (31 knees) with lateral meniscectomy was similar to the 7 athletes (7 knees) who had medial meniscectomy (70 ± 36 vs 77 ± 56, P = .6803). The mean RTP time was similar between football players who underwent isolated lateral meniscectomy and those who had lateral meniscectomy with chondroplasty (61 ± 36 days vs 75±41 days, P = .32). Athletes played an average of 7.7 ± 4.9 games the season they returned; position category and anatomical compartment of the knee lesion had no bearing on number of games played (P = .1864 and P = .425). Conclusions: NCAA Division 1 football players who underwent arthroscopic partial meniscectomy RTP at approximately 2.5 months' postoperatively. Athletes who underwent off-season surgery had longer RTP time compared with those who underwent in-season surgery. RTP time and performance after surgery did not differ based on player position, anatomical location of the lesions, or chondroplasty at the time of meniscectomy. Level of Evidence: Level IV, therapeutic case series.

Management of Hand and Wrist Injuries in NCAA Division I Football Players From a Single Institution: Factors Associated With Epidemiology, Surgical Intervention, and Return to Play.

Background: Upper extremity injuries account for approximately 16.9% of football injuries in the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). Purpose: To determine the epidemiology, management, and outcomes of hand/wrist injuries in collegiate football athletes so as to identify factors associated with surgical intervention and delayed return to play (RTP). Study Design: Descriptive epidemiology study. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed hand/wrist injuries that occurred within a single NCAA Division I football team from January 1, 2003, to December 31, 2020. Data analyzed included player position, college seniority, injury characteristics, injury management, surgical procedures performed, and timing of RTP. A univariate analysis was performed to identify factors associated with increased risk for surgical intervention and delayed (>21 days) RTP after hand and wrist injury in this cohort. Results: Overall, 124 patients with 168 hand/wrist injuries were identified (9.9 wrist/hand injuries per year). Sprain of the thumb metacarpophalangeal (MCP) joint ulnar collateral ligament (UCL) was the most common diagnosis (19.6%). Surgery was required in 22% of injuries, with injury of the UCL of the thumb MCP joint (8/37) being the most common indication. Injuries occurring during competitive games (odds ratio = 4.29; 95% CI, 1.2-15.9) were associated with an increased risk for surgery. Most (70%) injuries did not lead to time missed from football, whereas the remaining 30% resulted in an average of 33 ± 36 days missed. Conclusion: Over 17 athletic seasons, the annual incidence of hand and wrist injury in these NCAA Division I football players was 9.9 injuries per year, with 22% requiring surgical treatment. Injury to the UCL of the thumb MCP joint was the most common injury and indication for surgery, and 30% of injuries resulted in approximately 1 month lost. Injuries sustained in games were associated with operative management and delayed RTP.

Anastomotic leak rates after repair of mesenteric bucket-handle injuries: A multi-center retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Primary aim was to assess the relative risk (RR) of anastomotic leak (AL) in intestinal bucket-handle (BH) compared to non-BH injury. METHODS: Multi-center study comparing AL in BH from blunt trauma 2010-2021 compared to non-BH intestinal injuries. RR was calculated for small bowel and colonic injury using R. RESULTS: AL occurred in 20/385 (5.2%) of BH vs. 4/225 (1.8%) of non-BH small intestine injury. AL was diagnosed 11.6 ± 5.6 days from index operation in small intestine BH and 9.7 ± 4.3 days in colonic BH. Adjusted RR for AL was 2.32 [0.77-6.95] for small intestinal and 4.83 [1.47-15.89] for colonic injuries. AL increased infections, ventilator days, ICU & total length of stay, reoperation, and readmission rates, although mortality was unchanged. CONCLUSION: BH carries a significantly higher risk of AL, particularly in the colon, than other blunt intestinal injuries.