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: Return-to-play (RTP) assessment after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) rarely includes hip strength. Hypothesis: It was hypothesized that (1) patients after ACLR will have weaker hip abduction (AB) and adduction (AD) strength compared with the contralateral limb, with larger deficits in women, (2) there will be a correlation between hip and thigh strength ratios and patient-reported outcomes (PROs), and (3) hip AB and AD strength will improve over time. Study Design: Descriptive laboratory study. Methods: Included were 140 patients (74 male, 66 female; mean age, 24.16 ± 10.82 years) who underwent RTP assessment at 6.1 ± 1.6 months after ACLR; 86 patients underwent a second assessment at 8.2 ± 2.2 months. Hip AB/AD and knee extension/flexion isometric strength were measured and normalized to body mass, and PRO scores were collected. Strength ratios (hip vs thigh), limb differences (injured vs uninjured), sex-based differences, and relationships between strength ratios and PROs were determined. Results: Hip AB strength was weaker on the ACLR limb (ACLR vs contralateral: 1.85 ± 0.49 vs 1.89 ± 0.48 N·m/kg; P <.001) and hip AD torque was stronger (ACLR vs contralateral: 1.80 ± 0.51 vs 1.76 ± 0.52 N·m/kg; P =.004), with no sex-by-limb interaction found. Lower hip-to-thigh strength ratios of the ACLR limb were correlated with higher PRO scores (r = −0.17 to −0.25). Over time, hip AB strength increased in the ACLR limb more than in the contralateral limb (P =.01); however, the ACLR limb remained weaker in hip AB at visit 2 (ACLR vs contralateral: 1.88 ± 0.46 vs 1.91 ± 0.45 N·m/kg; P =.04). In both limbs, hip AD strength was greater at visit 2 than visit 1 (ACLR: 1.82 ± 0.48 vs 1.70 ± 0.48 N·m/kg; contralateral: 1.76 ± 0.47 vs 1.67 ± 0.47 N·m/kg; P <.01 for both). Conclusion: The ACLR limb had weaker hip AB and stronger AD compared with the contralateral limb at initial assessment. Hip muscle strength recovery was not influenced by sex. Hip strength and symmetry improved over the course of rehabilitation. Although strength differences across limbs were minor, the clinical importance of these differences is still unknown. Clinical Relevance: The evidence provided highlights the need to integrate hip strength into RTP assessments to identify hip strength deficits that may increase reinjury or lead to poor long-term outcomes. [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]

Purpose: There is a common belief among some shoulder surgeons that the increased utilization of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) is driven by the operation being performed in younger patients. The primary purpose of this study was to evaluate the change in patient age at the time of primary RSA in the USA. Methods: All patients undergoing primary RSA (January 2011–June 2018) were identified in the Mariner database. The mean age at the time of primary RSA was evaluated for each patient and assessed in 6-month intervals. A longitudinal comparison over time was performed for all patients. Results: A total of 56,141 primary RSA were evaluated, with the mean age increasing from 69 in the 2011 to 71 in 2018 (p < 0.001). The largest increase in RSA utilization occurred in patients > 70 (1092 in 2011 to 3499 in 2018), with patients < 50 years demonstrating the slowest growth (13 in 2011 to 65 in 2018). However, when evaluated by percentage increase from 2011 to 2018, RSA volumes for patients < 60 have increased 390% compared to 220% for those > 70 years (p < 0.001). Conclusion: RSA continues to be performed at a similar mean age despite expanded indications and surgeon comfort. However, patients < 60 years have had a greater increase in utilization compared to patients > 70 years. The volumetric growth of RSA has largely been driven by the older population, but younger patients have shown a higher percentage of growth, which may explain the generalized observation that RSA is performed in younger patients. Level of Evidence: Level III; Retrospective comparative study; Treatment study. [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: Stemless humeral components for anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) have several reported potential benefits compared with stemmed implants. However, we are aware of no Level-I, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that have compared stemless implants with stemmed implants in patients managed with aTSA. We sought to directly compare the short-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of stemless and stemmed implants to determine if the stemless implant is noninferior to the stemmed implant.Methods: We performed a prospective, multicenter, single-blinded RCT comparing stemless and short-stemmed implants in patients managed with aTSA. Range-of-motion measurements and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), and Constant scores were obtained at multiple time points. Device-related complications were recorded. Radiographic evaluation for evidence of loosening, fractures, dislocation, or other component complications was performed. Statistical analysis for noninferiority was performed at 2 years of follow-up for 3 primary end points: ASES score, absence of device-related complications, and radiographic signs of loosening. All other data were compared between cohorts at all time points as secondary measures.Results: Two hundred and sixty-five shoulders (including 176 shoulders in male patients and 89 shoulders in female patients) were randomized and received the allocated treatment. The mean age of the patients (and standard deviation) was 62.6 ± 9.3 years, and 99% of the shoulders had a primary diagnosis of osteoarthritis. At 2 years, the mean ASES score was 92.5 ± 14.9 for the stemless cohort and 92.2 ± 13.5 for the stemmed cohort (p value for noninferiority test, <0.0001), the proportion of shoulders without device-related complications was 92% (107 of 116) for the stemless cohort and 93% (114 of 123) for the stemmed cohort (p value for noninferiority test, 0.0063), and no shoulder in either cohort had radiographic signs of loosening. Range-of-motion measurements and ASES, SANE, and Constant scores did not differ significantly between cohorts at any time point within the 2-year follow-up.Conclusions: At 2 years of follow-up, the safety and effectiveness of the stemless humeral implant were noninferior to those of the stemmed humeral implant in patients managed with aTSA for the treatment of osteoarthritis. These short-term results are promising given the potential benefits of stemless designs over traditional, stemmed humeral components.Level Of Evidence: Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence. [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.

The article discusses a study focusing on the placement of femoral tunnel in posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) reconstruction, which compares the ability of outside-in (OI) and inside-out (IO) femoral tunnel drilling. It briefly describes comparison of PCL femoral footprint in OI and IO drilling by using preoperative and postoperative computed tomography (CT) scans. Findings of study revealed no difference between OI and IO techniques for use in femoral tunnel placement.

Background: During anatomic anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, we have found that the femoral footprint can best be visualized from the anteromedial portal. Independent femoral tunnel drilling can then be performed through an accessory medial portal, medial and inferior to the standard anteromedial portal.Purpose: To compare the accuracy of independent femoral tunnel placement relative to the ACL footprint using an accessory medial portal versus tunnel placement with a traditional transtibial technique.Study Design: Controlled laboratory study.Methods: Ten matched pairs of cadaveric knees were randomized such that within each pair, one knee underwent arthroscopic transtibial (TT) drilling, and the other underwent drilling through an accessory medial portal (AM). All knees underwent computed tomography (CT) both preoperatively and postoperatively with a technique optimized for ligament evaluation (80 keV with maximum mAs). Computed tomography was performed with a dual-energy scanner. Commercially available third-party software was used to fuse the preoperative and postoperative CT scans, allowing anatomic comparison of the ACL footprint to the drilled tunnel. The ACL footprint was marked in consensus by an orthopaedic surgeon and a musculoskeletal radiologist and then compared with the tunnel aperture after drilling. The percentage of tunnel aperture contained within the native footprint as well as the distance from the center of the tunnel aperture to the center of the footprint was measured.Results: The AM technique placed 97.7% ± 5% of the tunnel within the native femoral footprint, significantly more than 61.2% ± 24% for the TT technique (P = .001). The AM technique placed the center of the femoral tunnel 3.6 ± 1.2 mm from the center of the native footprint, significantly closer than 6.0 ± 1.9 mm for the TT technique (P = .003).Conclusion: This study demonstrates that use of an accessory medial portal will facilitate more accurate placement of the femoral tunnel in the native ACL femoral footprint.Clinical Relevance: More accurate placement of the femoral tunnel in the native ACL femoral footprint should improve the ability to achieve more anatomic positioning of the ACL graft. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]