Search

While there has been increased attention to the use of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) to treat rotator cuff intact glenohumeral osteoarthritis (RCIOA) for older age groups, there has not been as precise an assessment of the differences in utilization for female vs. male patients or in specific age groups. Our purpose was to determine if differences existed in the utilization of shoulder arthroplasty to treat RCIOA based on gender and age in North America. Anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (ATSA) and RTSA cases were queried from the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Shoulder and Elbow Registry between January 2015 and December 2021. Cases were included if they had a diagnosis of RCIOA, defined by the International Classification of Diseases-10 codes M19.011, M19.012, and M19.019. Cases were stratified by procedure, age, gender, and year of surgery. Chi-square and Fisher's exact tests were calculated to assess the associations between procedure type and patient demographics. There were 2748 (48.06%) ATSA and 2970 (51.94%) RTSA procedures reported to the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Shoulder and Elbow Registry. There was a significant relationship between procedure type and age group (P <.001) in that ATSA was utilized more frequently than RTSA for patients ages <70 years old, and this relationship reversed for ages ≥ 70 years old. Female patients were more likely to receive RTSA (P <.001). When looking at the relationship between procedure type and gender by age group, both genders were more likely to receive ATSA compared to RTSA for age groups 50-59 and 60-69 (P =.0097 and P =.0005, respectively) but not for other age groups. For patients ≥ 70 years old, both females and males were more likely to receive RTSA, but this relationship did not reach statistical significance (P =.1094). For both genders and ages ≥ 70 years old, there was a significant relationship between year and procedure type (P <.0001) in that RTSA was more commonly utilized in 2017 and onward. When assessing patients with RCIOA, the use of ATSA and RTSA was similar, but for patients 50 to 69 years old, for both genders, the use of ATSA was greater. Although RTSA was more commonly used for both genders in the ≥ 70 years old population, this difference was not significant. Interestingly, for both genders, ages ≥ 70 years old, RTSA was significantly more utilized from 2017 onward. This analysis highlights the influence of age and gender in use of ATSA and RTSA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Clinical outcomes after revision anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) are not well understood. Hypothesis: Patients undergoing revision ACLR would demonstrate worse patient-reported outcomes and worse limb symmetry compared with a cohort undergoing primary ACLR. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: 672 participants (373 with primary ACLR, 111 with revision ACLR, and 188 uninjured) completed functional testing at a single academic medical center. Descriptive information, operative variables, and patient-reported outcomes (International Knee Documentation Committee score, Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, and Tegner Activity Scale score) were assessed for each patient. Quadriceps and hamstring strength tests were conducted using a Biodex System 3 Dynamometer. Single-leg hop for distance, triple hop test, and the 6-m timed hop test were also assessed. Limb symmetry index (LSI) between the ACLR limb and contralateral limb was calculated for strength and hop testing. Normalized peak torque (N·m/kg) was calculated for strength testing. Results: No differences were found in group characteristics, excluding body mass (P <.001), or in patient-reported outcomes. There were no interactions between revision status, graft type, and sex. Knee extension LSI was inferior (P <.001) in participants who had undergone primary (73.0% ± 15.0%) and revision (77.2% ± 19.1%) ACLR compared with healthy, uninjured participants (98.8% ± 10.4%). Knee flexion LSI was inferior (P =.04) in the primary group (97.4% ± 18.4%) compared with the revision group (101.9% ± 18.5%). Difference in knee flexion LSI between the uninjured and primary groups, as well as between the uninjured and revision groups, did not reach statistical significance. Hop LSI outcomes were significantly different across all groups (P <.001). Between-group differences in extension in the involved limb (P <.001) were noted, as the uninjured group exhibited stronger knee extension (2.16 ± 0.46 N·m/kg) than the primary group (1.67 ± 0.47 N·m/kg) and the revision group (1.78 ± 0.48 N·m/kg). As well, differences in flexion in the involved limb (P =.01) were found, as the revision group exhibited stronger knee flexion (1.06 ± 0.25 N·m/kg) than the primary group (0.97 ± 0.29 N·m/kg) and the uninjured group (0.98 ± 0.24 N·m/kg). Conclusion: At 7 months postoperatively, patients who had undergone revision ACLR did not demonstrate inferior patient-reported outcomes, limb symmetry, strength, or functional performance compared with patients who had undergone primary ACLR. Patients who had undergone revision ACLR exhibited greater strength and LSI than their counterparts with primary ACLR, but these parameters were still inferior to those of uninjured controls. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Meniscal injuries are commonly associated with anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) tears. Treatment of meniscal injuries can impart delayed weightbearing and range of motion restrictions, which can affect the rehabilitation protocol. The effect of meniscal treatment and subsequent restrictions on strength recovery after ACL reconstruction is unclear. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose of this study was to compare strength, jumping performance, and patient-reported outcomes between patients who underwent isolated ACL reconstruction (ACLR) and those who underwent surgical intervention for meniscal pathology at the time of ACLR. Our hypothesis was that patients who underwent concurrent meniscal repair (MR) would have lower strength recovery owing to postoperative restrictions. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Patients with ACLR were stratified into isolated ACLR, ACLR and meniscectomy (ACLR-MS), or ACLR-MR groups and were compared with healthy controls. The ACLR-MR group was restricted to partial weightbearing and to 90° of knee flexion for the first 6 weeks postoperatively. All participants completed patient-reported outcomes (International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC] and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [KOOS]) and underwent bilateral isokinetic and isometric strength tests of the knee extensor and flexor groups as part of a return-to-sports test battery at 5 to 7 months postoperatively. Results: A total of 165 patients with ACLR (50 with isolated ACLR, 44 with ACLR-MS, and 71 with ACLR-MR) and 140 healthy controls were included in the study. Follow-up occurred at a mean of 5.96 ± 0.47 months postoperatively. The control group demonstrated higher subjective knee function, unilateral peak extensor torque, and limb symmetry than did the ACLR-MS and ACLR-MR groups combined (P <.001 for all). There were no differences in IKDC, KOOS subscales, or unilateral or limb symmetry measures of peak knee extensor or flexor torque among the isolated ACLR, ACLR-MS, and ACLR-MR groups. Conclusion: Persistent weakness, asymmetry, and reduced subjective outcome scores at 6-month follow-up after ACLR were not influenced by meniscal treatment. These findings suggested that the weightbearing and range of motion restrictions associated with meniscal repair recovery do not result in loss of early strength or worse patient-reported outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Pass rates for return-to-play evaluations are alarmingly low for patients after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). Since timing of return to play is a complicated decision, it is important that patients be given optimal time to realize meaningful improvements in strength that warrant additional testing. Purpose: To (1) compare outcomes among patients assessed at different time points after ACLR, (2) determine strength gains indicative of improvements in subjective function, and (3) determine the amount of time necessary to achieve meaningful strength gains. Study Design: Cross-sectional/case-control study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A total of 293 patients participated in the study after ACLR (mean ± SD, 23.2 ± 10.1 years old; n = 142 female participants; 6.4 ± 0.9 months after ACLR). Participants were stratified on the month of their evaluation after ACLR: 5 to 6 months (n = 122), 6 to 7 months (n = 102), 7 to 8 months (n = 43), and 8 to 9 months (n = 26). The International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) subjective form and knee extensor and flexor torque and symmetry, as assessed through an isokinetic dynamometer, were compared among groups. Forty patients (20 female participants, 20.4 ± 7.1 years old) were referred for subsequent testing (2.14 ± 0.78 months after initial visit). Subjective improvement between visits was defined as a ≥9-point change of the IKDC score. Thresholds of knee extensor torque and symmetry indicative of subjective improvement and the time between assessments needed to achieve these strength improvements were determined. Results: Patients between 5 and 6 months (IKDC, 79.7; interquartile range [IQR], 70.1-88.5) had lower subjective function compared to patients between 6 and 7 months (IKDC, 83.9; IQR, 74.5-92.0; P =.019) and 8 and 9 months after ACLR (IKDC, 89.1; IQR 75.8-92.3; P =.026). Patients between 5 and 6 months (1.41 N·m/kg; IQR, 1.16-1.73 N·m/kg]) had lower knee extensor torque compared to patients 6 and 7 months (1.59 N·m/kg; IQR, 1.23-1.95 N·m/kg; P =.013) and 7 and 8 months after ACLR (1.62 N·m/kg; IQR, 1.30-1.86 N·m/kg; P =.046). Patients between 5 and 6 months (66.4%; IQR, 54.2-78.6) had lower symmetry compared to patients between 6 and 7 months (71.8%; IQR,61.1-82.9; P =.019) and 8 and 9 months afterACLR (75.2%; IQR, 66.6-87.7; P =.014). Of the 40 patients that completed follow-up assessments, an increase in knee extensor torque of 0.22 N·m/kg and symmetry of 5.75% discriminated patients that achieved subjective improvement. A period of 1.97 months between assessments discriminated those that achieved the established symmetry threshold. Conclusion: Patients demonstrate increasing subjective and quadriceps function when tested at later time points from surgery; however, the observed values are low, suggesting that at 9 months patients are demonstrating deficits that may be improving. Approximately 2 months is needed to observe clinically meaningful improvements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents research which compared the two-year clinical outcomes of patients with open subpectoral and arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis. Topics covered include the examination of the biomechanical aspects of tenodesis locations of different implants. Also mentioned is the impact of the operations on the functions of the biceps and shoulders of patients.