Real-World Surgical and Endoscopic Recurrence Based on Risk Profiles and Prophylaxis Utilization in Postoperative Crohn's Disease.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Preoperative risk stratification may help guide prophylactic biologic utilization for the prevention of postoperative Crohn's disease (CD) recurrence; however, there are limited data exploring and validating proposed clinical risk factors. We aimed to explore the preoperative clinical risk profiles, quantify individual risk factors, and assess the impact of biologic prophylaxis on postoperative recurrence risk in a real-world cohort. METHODS: In this multicenter retrospective analysis, patients with CD who underwent ileocolonic resection (ICR) from 2009 to 2020 were identified. High-risk (active smoking, ≥2 prior surgeries, penetrating disease, and/or perianal disease) and low-risk (nonsmokers and age >50 y) features were used to stratify patients. We assessed the risk of endoscopic (Rutgeert score, ≥i2b) and surgical recurrence by risk strata and biologic prophylaxis (≤90 days postoperatively) with logistic and time-to-event analyses. RESULTS: A total of 1404 adult CD patients who underwent ICR were included. Of the high-risk factors, 2 or more ICRs (odds ratio [OR], 1.71; 95% CI, 1.13-2.57), active smoking (OR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.17-2.53), penetrating disease (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.02-1.94), and history of perianal disease alone (OR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.42-2.79) were associated with surgical but not endoscopic recurrence. Surgical recurrence was lower in high-risk patients receiving prophylaxis vs not (10.2% vs 16.7%; P = .02), and endoscopic recurrence was lower in those receiving prophylaxis irrespective of risk strata (high-risk, 28.1% vs 37.4%; P = .03; and low-risk, 21.1% vs 38.3%; P = .002). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical risk factors accurately illustrate patients at risk for surgical recurrence, but have limited utility in predicting endoscopic recurrence. Biologic prophylaxis may be of benefit irrespective of risk stratification and future studies should assess this.

Outcomes After Revision Anterior Shoulder Stabilization: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Primary shoulder stabilization is successful, but there continues to be a risk of recurrence after operative repair, particularly in the young athlete. It is important for surgeons to understand the outcomes after various revision stabilization techniques to best counsel patients and manage expectations. PURPOSE: To analyze recurrent instability and revision surgery rates in patients who underwent revision anterior glenohumeral stabilization procedures with either arthroscopic repair, open repair, coracoid transfer, free bone block, or capsular reconstruction. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of level 2 to 4 evidence studies using PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. Clinical studies of revision anterior glenohumeral stabilization (arthroscopic repair, open repair, coracoid transfer, free bone block, or capsular reconstruction) with a minimum 2-year follow-up were analyzed. The rate of recurrent instability, rate of revision surgery, patient-reported outcomes, and range of motion were extracted and reported. Study methodological quality was evaluated using the Downs and Black quality assessment score. RESULTS: A total of 37 studies met inclusion criteria and were available for analysis: 20 studies evaluated arthroscopic repair, 8 evaluated open repair, 5 evaluated Latarjet procedure, 3 evaluated bone block, and 2 evaluated capsular reconstruction. There was 1 study included in both arthroscopic and Latarjet procedures, for a total of 1110 revision cases. There was 1 level 2 study, and the remainder were level 3 or 4 with poor Downs and Black scores. Participants analyzed were most commonly young (weighted mean age, 26.1 years) and male (78.4%). The weighted mean clinical follow-up after revision surgery was 47.8 months. The weighted mean rate of recurrent instability was 3.8% (n = 245) after the Latarjet procedure, 13.4% (n = 260) after open repair, 16.0% (n = 531) after arthroscopic repair, 20.8% (n = 72) after bone block, and 31.0% (n = 35) after capsular reconstruction. The weighted mean rate of additional revision surgery was 0.0% after bone block, 0.02% after the Latarjet procedure, 9.0% after arthroscopic repair, 9.3% after open repair, and 22.8% after capsular reconstruction. Patient-reported outcomes and objective measures of range of motion and strength improved with all revision techniques. CONCLUSION: The current review identifies a deficiency in the literature pertaining to consistent meaningful outcomes and the effect of bone loss after revision shoulder stabilization. Published studies demonstrate, however, that revision shoulder stabilization using arthroscopic, open, coracoid transfer, or bone block techniques yielded satisfactory objective and patient-reported outcomes. The Latarjet procedure exhibited the lowest recurrent instability rate. This study confirms that recurrent instability remains a common problem, despite revision shoulder stabilization. The quality of research in revision shoulder stabilization remains poor, and higher quality studies are needed to establish best practices for treatment of this complex problem.