Search

Background: The purpose of the present study was to analyze the association between sex hormone deficiency and rotator cuff repair (RCR) with use of data from a large United States insurance database.Methods: A retrospective analysis of insured subjects from the Truven Health MarketScan database was conducted, collecting data for RCR cases as well as controls matched for age, sex, and years in the database. Multivariable logistic regression models adjusted for matching variables were utilized to compare RCR status with estrogen deficiency status and testosterone deficiency status. These associations were confirmed with use of data from the Veterans Genealogy Project database, with which the relative risk of RCR was estimated for patients with and without sex hormone deficiency.Results: The odds of RCR for female patients with estrogen deficiency were 48% higher (odds ratio, 1.48; 95% confidence interval, 1.44 to 1.51; p < 0.001) than for those without estrogen deficiency. The odds of RCR for males with testosterone deficiency were 89% higher (odds ratio, 1.89; 95% confidence interval, 1.82 to 1.96; p < 0.001) than for those without testosterone deficiency. Within the Veterans Genealogy Project database, the relative risk of estrogen deficiency among RCR patients was 2.58 (95% confidence interval, 2.15 to 3.06; p < 0.001) and the relative risk of testosterone deficiency was 3.05 (95% confidence interval, 2.67 to 3.47; p < 0.001).Conclusions: Sex hormone deficiency was significantly associated with RCR. Future prospective studies will be necessary to understand the pathophysiology of rotator cuff disease as it relates to sex hormones.Level Of Evidence: Prognostic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patients with shoulder and rotator cuff pathology who exhibit greater levels of psychological distress report inferior preoperative self-assessments of pain and function. In several other areas of orthopaedics, higher levels of distress correlate with a higher likelihood of persistent pain and disability after recovery from surgery. To our knowledge, the relationship between psychological distress and outcomes after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair has not been similarly investigated. Questions/purposes: (1) Are higher levels of preoperative psychological distress associated with differences in outcome scores (visual analog scale [VAS] for pain, Simple Shoulder Test, and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score) 1 year after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair? (2) Are higher levels of preoperative psychological distress associated with less improvement in outcome scores (VAS for pain, Simple Shoulder Test, and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score) 1 year after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair? (3) Does the prevalence of psychological distress in a population with full-thickness rotator cuff tears change when assessed preoperatively and 1 year after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair? Methods: Eighty-five patients with full-thickness rotator cuff tears were prospectively enrolled; 70 patients (82%) were assessed at 1-year followup. During the study period, the three participating surgeons performed 269 rotator cuff repairs; in large part, the low overall rate of enrollment was related to two surgeons enrolling only two patients total in the initial 14 months of the study. Psychological distress was quantified using the Distress Risk Assessment Method questionnaire, and patients completed self-assessments including the VAS for pain, the Simple Shoulder Test, and the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score preoperatively and 1 year after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. Fifty of 85 patients (59%) had normal levels of distress, 26 of 85 (31%) had moderate levels of distress, and nine of 85 (11%) had severe levels of distress. Statistical models were used to assess the effect of psychological distress on patient self-assessment of shoulder pain and function at 1 year after surgery. Results: With the numbers available, distressed patients were not different from nondistressed patients in terms of postoperative VAS for pain (1.9 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.0-2.8] versus 1.0 [95% CI, 0.5-1.4], p = 0.10), Simple Shoulder Test (9 [95% CI, 8.1-10.4] versus 11 [95% CI, 10.0-11.0], p = 0.06), or American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores (80 [95% CI, 72-88] versus 88 [95% CI, 84-92], p = 0.08) 1 year after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. With the numbers available, distressed patients also were not different from nondistressed patients in terms of the amount of improvement in scores between preoperative assessment and 1-year followup on the VAS for pain (3 [95% CI, 2.2-4.1] versus 2 [95% CI, 1.4-2.9], p = 0.10), Simple Shoulder Test (5.2 [95% CI, 3.7-6.6] versus 5.0 [95% CI, 4.2-5.8], p = 0.86), or American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scale (38 [95% CI, 29-47] versus 30 [95% CI, 25-36], p = 0.16). The prevalence of psychological distress in our patient population was lower at 1 year after surgery 14 of 70 (20%) versus 35 of 85 (41%) preoperatively (odds ratio, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.17-0.74; p = 0.005). Conclusions: Mild to moderate levels of distress did not diminish patient-reported outcomes to a clinically important degree in this small series of patients with rotator cuff tears. This contrasts with reports from other areas of orthopaedic surgery and may be related to a more self-limited course of symptoms in patients with rotator cuff disease or possibly to a beneficial effect of rotator cuff repair on sleep quality or other unrecognized determinants of psychosocial status. Level Of Evidence: Level I, prognostic study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) for different patient outcome scores have been reported for various shoulder diseases, including shoulder arthroplasty and the nonoperative treatment of rotator cuff disease. The purpose of this study was to assess the MCID for the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form (ASES) score, the Simple Shoulder Test (SST), and a visual analog scale (VAS) measuring pain, after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair., Methods: A total of 202 patients who underwent arthroscopic rotator cuff repair were retrospectively reviewed. ASES, SST, and VAS pain scores were collected preoperatively and at 1 year postoperatively. The MCID was then calculated via a 4-question anchor-based method., Results: The MCID results for the ASES, SST, and VAS pain scores were 27.1, 4.3, and 2.4, respectively. Age at time of surgery, sex, anteroposterior tear size, and worker's compensation status were not associated with MCID values (P > .05)., Conclusion: The MCID values determined in the current study are higher than those previously identified for the nonoperative treatment of rotator cuff disease using the same anchor questions. Use of these higher values should be considered when evaluating improvements of individual patients after rotator cuff repair, to determine comparative effectiveness of various rotator cuff repair techniques and to determine sample sizes for prospective comparative trials of rotator cuff repair methods., (Copyright © 2019 Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Board of Trustees. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Humeral bone loss is commonly encountered during revision shoulder arthroplasty and anticipating humeral bone defects can help the revision surgeon make appropriate plans to achieve adequate fixation and stability. No validated classification system exists to characterize humeral bone loss in the setting of revision shoulder arthroplasty., Questions/purposes: The purposes of this study were (1) to create a classification system for humeral bone loss in revision shoulder arthroplasty; (2) to determine the classification system's reliability; and (3) to determine whether humeral bone loss type is associated with intraoperative humeral-related reconstruction characteristics., Methods: This was a comparative retrospective radiographic study. First, six surgeons from five centers collaborated to create a classification by consensus. Second, two surgeons from two other centers who had fellowship training in shoulder and elbow surgery, who were blinded to each other's grades and all patient details other than plain radiographs, and who were not involved in creation of the system, classified true AP, AP, and lateral (axillary and/or scapular-Y) radiographs from 108 revision (413 radiographs) from one center that were performed between November 15, 2006, and January 4, 2018. Interobserver reliability was calculated by comparing those two reviews and determining Cohen's κ. In addition, one reviewer repeated his assessments twice, 4 months apart, to determine intraobserver reliability using Cohen's κ. Third, we performed a retrospective chart study of these same revisions to determine intraoperative humeral-related reconstruction characteristics such as the use of greater tuberosity fixation, stem length, humeral bone grafting, and the use of proximal humeral replacement or total humeral replacement; at the center where these revisions were performed during that timespan, no attempt to classify bone loss was made. During that period, the general indications for greater tuberosity fixation included the absence of a stable osseous connection between the greater tuberosity and the shaft of the humerus with a tuberosity amendable to repair; the general indications for use of longer stems were inability to obtain a minimum of two cortical widths of overlap between the implant and the humeral diaphysis and/or loss of the greater tuberosity; and the general indications for proximal and total humeral replacement were bone loss that was felt to be too severe to allow reconstruction with allograft., Results: The classification system consists of three types of humeral bone loss: Type 1 is loss of the epiphysis with subtypes for loss of the calcar and loss of the greater tuberosity; Type 2 is loss of the metadiaphysis above the deltoid attachment with a subtype for cortical thinning; and Type 3 is bone loss extending below the deltoid attachment with a subtype for cortical thinning. We studied 108 revisions: 38 (35%) without bone loss, 34 (31%) Type 1, 27 (25%) Type 2, and nine (8%) Type 3. For reliability, interrater κ was 0.545 and in 71% (77 of 108) of revisions, the two raters agreed on a numeric type. Intrarater κ was 0.615 and in 77% (83 of 108) of revisions, the rater agreed with himself as to the numeric type. Stem length increased with class type (Type 1 median [range] 130 [70-210], Type 2 150 [70-210], Type 3 190 [70-240], p = 0.005). Most greater tuberosity fixation for intraoperative fracture was in Types 1 and 2 (13 of 18 compared with the five of 18 of greater tuberosity fixation that was within Types 0 and 3, p = 0.043). Most bone grafting was in Types 2 and 3 (eight of 13 compared with five of 13 of bone grafting was in Types 0 and 1, p = 0.044). Most proximal humeral and total humeral replacements were in Type 3 (three of four compared with one of four, p < 0.001)., Conclusions: We developed the Proximal Humeral Arthroplasty Revision Osseous inSufficiency (PHAROS) system, which has adequate, if imperfect, reliability to classify humeral bone loss in the setting of revision shoulder arthroplasty. This classification system may be useful to anticipate the complexity of humeral reconstruction. Further validation incorporating advanced imaging and further evaluators will be necessary., Level of Evidence: Level III, diagnostic study.

Background: We developed two objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs) to educate and evaluate trainees in the evaluation and management of shoulder and knee pain. Our objective was to examine the evidence for validity of these OSCEs., Methods: A multidisciplinary team of content experts developed checklists of exam maneuvers and criteria to guide rater observations. Content was proposed by faculty, supplemented by literature review, and finalized using a Delphi process. One faculty simulated the patient, another rated examinee performance. Two faculty independently rated a portion of cases. Percent agreement was calculated and Cohen's kappa corrected for chance agreement on binary outcomes. Examinees' self-assessment was explored by written surveys. Responses were stratified into 3 categories and compared with similarly stratified OSCE scores using Pearson's coefficient., Results: A multi-disciplinary cohort of 69 examinees participated. Examinees correctly identified rotator cuff and meniscal disease 88% and 89% of the time, respectively. Inter-rater agreement was moderate for the knee (87%; k = 0.61) and near perfect for the shoulder (97%; k = 0.88). No correlation between stratified self-assessment and OSCE scores were found for either shoulder (0.02) or knee (-0.07)., Conclusions: Validity evidence supports the continuing use of these OSCEs in educational programs addressing the evaluation and management of shoulder and knee pain. Evidence for validity includes the systematic development of content, rigorous control of the response process, and demonstration of acceptable interrater agreement. Lack of correlation with self-assessment suggests that these OSCEs measure a construct different from learners' self-confidence.