Search

Informed consent allows for the maintenance of patient autonomy and is essential in establishing trusting relationships between physicians and their patients. This process involves thorough discussion of the risks and alternatives, as well as the short- and long-term outcomes, of proposed treatment options. Inadequacies with informed consent can lead to inferior patient outcomes and may be subject to severe legal consequences. Individualized discussions are warranted to address the questions of these patients, whether it be the high-level athlete or the weekend warrior. This review highlights factors, identifies barriers, and proposes potential solutions to improve informed consent within orthopaedic sports medicine., Competing Interests: The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: A.D.B. reports a consulting or advisory relationship with Acumed and Stryker; owns equity or stocks in ROM3 Rehab; and reports board membership with American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society, American Osteopathic Academy of Orthopedics, Foot and Ankle International, New York State Society of Orthopaedic Surgeons, and The Marfan Foundation. N.A.S. receives nonfinancial support from ReGen Biologics; receives funding grants from Wolters Kluwer–Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; reports a consulting or advisory relationship with Zimmer; and reports board membership with Sports Medicine Arthroscopy Review. All other authors (J.G., L.G., B.K., L.B.) declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (© 2024 The Authors.)

Purpose: To evaluate the 1-year clinical outcomes of patients treated with combined proximal biceps tenodesis and repair of type II to III subscapularis tendon (SST) injuries according to Lafosse et al., using the Loop 'N' Tack (LNT) technique., Methods: All patients undergoing proximal biceps tenodesis and rotator cuff repair between March 1, 2020, and January 30, 2022, were retrospectively identified. Only patients undergoing combined proximal biceps tenodesis and repair of grade II or III SST injuries with a minimum follow-up of 1 year were included. All patients underwent combined single-anchor proximal biceps tenodesis and SST repair using the LNT technique. The following outcome scores were recorded at a final follow-up of 1 year postoperatively and compared with baseline, preoperative values: American Shoulder and Elbow Score (ASES), Single Assessment Numerical Evaluation (SANE), Veterans Rand 12 Item Health Survey (VR-12), and visual analog scale (VAS). The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for all outcome indices was determined with a distribution-based method., Results: A total of 41 consecutive patients were included. The MCID values for VAS pain, ASES, SANE, and VR-12 mental scores were 0.97, 8.5, 10.9, and 6.0 respectively. At 1-year final follow-up, approximately 95% (39/41) of patients exceeded the MCID for VAS pain scores, 90% (37/41) of patients for ASES scores, 85.4% (34/41) of patients for SANE scores, and 75.6% (31/41) of patients for VR-12 mental health scores. On average, ASES and SANE scores improved by 37 (preoperatively: 45.2, 1 year: 82.4, P < .001) and 38 points (preoperatively: 38.0, 1 year: 75.7, P < .001), respectively, while VAS scores decreased by 4 points (preoperatively: 5.49, 1 year: 1.48, P < .001). Approximately 88% (36/41) of patients were satisfied at 1 year postoperatively. Treatment failure was observed in 1 patient (2.4%)., Conclusions: Patients treated with combined, single-anchor SST repair and LNT proximal biceps tenodesis achieved significant improvements in function, high satisfaction, and low rates of reoperation at 1 year postoperatively. Additionally, 76% to 95% of patients met the MCID for VAS pain, ASES, SANE, and VR-12 mental health scores., Level of Evidence: Level IV, retrospective case series., Competing Interests: The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: S.A. reports a relationship with Arthrex that includes consulting or advisory. J.M.P. reports a relationship with Arthrex that includes consulting or advisory. All other authors (L.B., B.K., C.B.) declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (© 2024 The Authors.)

Purpose: To assess the future publication rates of abstracts presented at AANA annual meetings between 2015 and 2019., Methods: Abstracts presented at the 2015-2019 AANA annual meetings were identified. The PubMed and Google Scholar databases were searched for a corresponding manuscript for each abstract using the name of the first author, abstract title, and keywords. A level of evidence and anatomic category were assigned to each abstract. For each corresponding manuscript identified, the authors, journal of publication, journal impact factor (IF), time to publication, and number of citations were recorded., Results: Overall, 70.5% of abstracts presented at the 2015-2019 AANA annual meetings (275 of 390) went on to future publication, with 63.6% (248 of 390) achieving publication within 3 years. The median time to publication from presentation was 12.8 months. Arthroscopy (29.8%) was the most frequent journal of publication. The average IF of publishing journals was 4.92 ± 3.41, with 61.8% of manuscripts (170 of 275) published in journals with an IF of at least 4.00. Published manuscripts received an average of 36.30 ± 47.6 citations per manuscript. A stronger level of evidence was associated with an increased likelihood of future publication ( P  = .008)., Conclusions: Pre-publication literature presented at the AANA annual meetings has continued to be associated with a strong likelihood of future publication in Arthroscopy and Arthroscopy, Sports Medicine, and Rehabilitation , as well as other respected peer-reviewed journals., Clinical Relevance: Exposure to pre-publication literature may have an impact on clinical management. It is important to understand the quality of research presented in abstracts from AANA annual meetings. Knowing how many abstracts are ultimately published in peer-reviewed journals provides an indicator of the quality and reliability of the research., Competing Interests: The authors report the following potential conflicts of interest or sources of funding: N.A.S. reports a relationship with 10.13039/100008542Arthroscopy Association of North America (AANA) that includes board membership. N.A.S. served as 2012-2013 AANA president and served on the AANA Board of Directors beginning in 2008. N.A.S. serves on the AANA Education Foundation and is the current foundation chair. N.A.S. has served on the Arthroscopy Board of Trustees and is the board’s current chairperson. All other authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. Full ICMJE author disclosure forms are available for this article online, as supplementary material., (© 2023 The Authors.)