Search

Background Thus, the purpose of the present study was to (1) characterize common postoperative complications and (2) quantify the rates of revision in patients undergoing hemiarthroplasty to reverse total shoulder arthroplasty revisional surgery. We hypothesize that hardware loosenings will be the most common complication to occur in the sample, with the humeral component being the most common loosening. Methods This systematic review adhered to PRISMA reporting guideline. For our inclusion criteria, we included any study that contained intraoperative and/or postoperative complication data, and revision rates on patients who had undergone revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty due to a failed hemiarthroplasty. Complications include neurologic injury, deep surgical site infections, hardware loosening/prosthetic instability, and postoperative fractures (acromion, glenoid, and humeral fractures). Results The study contained 22 studies that assessed complications from shoulders that had revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty from a hemiarthroplasty, with a total sample of 925 shoulders. We found that the most common complication to occur was hardware loosenings (5.3%), and of the hardware loosenings, humeral loosenings (3.8%) were the most common. The revision rate was found to be 10.7%. Conclusion This systematic review found that revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for failed hemiarthroplasty has a high overall complication and reintervention rates, specifically for hardware loosening and revision rates.

Purpose To determine how changing the P value threshold of statistical significance from .05 to .005 could affect the statistical significance of findings in previously published orthopaedic sports medicine randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods The authors searched PubMed from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2017, for RCTs published in the American Journal of Sports Medicine, Arthroscopy, and Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy. Data were extracted blinded and in duplicate fashion by 2 of us. The authors then extracted P value data for primary end points, since RCTs are most often powered for these end points. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Google Forms were used for data extraction and STATA 15.1 for the data analysis. Results In total, 275 primary end points were identified from 132 trials. Analysis of primary end points found 45.8% (126/275) had a P value less than .05 and were classified as statistically significant under the current threshold, whereas 54.2% (149/275) had a P value greater than .05 and were not classified as suggestive. Of those end points that were previously considered statistically significant, 38.9% (49/126) were less than .005, whereas 61.1% (77/126) were between .005 and .05 and thereby would be reclassified as suggestive rather than statistically significant under the proposed threshold. Overall, when analyzing the 275 primary end points, we found only 49 (17.8%) of the end points were less than .005 and would hold statistical significance with the proposed threshold. Conclusions The results suggest that if the threshold of statistical significance were to change to .005, the significance of orthopaedic sports medicine RCTs would be heavily altered. The authors also acknowledge the many issues research faces in regard to P value reliability and therefore interpretation of study results. Because P values from RCTs can often influence the ways physicians choose interventions, it is important to implement methodology that decreases incidence of bias and misrepresentation of these results. However, the authors also understand that lowering the P value could increase the needed sample size and by consequence increase study costs as well, while not directly correlating to clinical significance. Thus, the authors recommend that this proposed threshold should be further evaluated and cautiously interpreted. Clinical Relevance If the statistical significance threshold is changed, clinical practice guideline recommendations also may be affected.

Background Results from systematic reviews and meta-analyses, which have the highest level of evidence (Level I), often drive clinical decision-making and health policy. Often, unpublished trial data are omitted from systematic reviews, raising concerns about the extent of the reliability and validity of results that have been drawn from systematic reviews. We aimed to determine the extent to which systematic review authors include searches of clinical trial registries for unpublished data when conducting systematic reviews in orthopaedic surgery. Methods Systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses were gathered from the top 5 orthopaedic surgery journals based on the h5-index from Google Scholar Metrics. Systematic reviews that had been published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, which requires the inclusion of a clinical trial registry search, served as controls. For the primary outcome, each systematic review from the top 5 orthopaedic journals was screened to determine whether the authors of each study searched for unpublished data in clinical trial registries. We then compared the rate of registry searches with those in the control group. For the secondary analysis, a search of ClinicalTrials.gov was performed for unpublished trial data for 100 randomized systematic reviews. Results All 38 of the Cochrane systematic reviews (100%) included clinical trial registry searches, while the top 5 orthopaedic journals had only 31 of 480 studies (6.5%) that looked at clinical trial registries. The secondary analysis yielded 59 of 100 systematic review articles (59.0%) that could have included unpublished clinical trial data from ≥1 studies to their sample. Conclusions Systematic reviews that have been published in the top orthopaedic surgery journals seldom included a search for unpublished clinical trial data. Clinical relevance The exclusion of clinical trial registry searches potentially contributes to publication bias within the orthopaedic literature. Moving forward, systematic review authors should include clinical trial registry searches for unpublished clinical trial data to provide the most accurate representation of the available evidence for systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Context The combination of osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis affects nearly one-fourth of Americans. Many of the risk factors for arthritis are lifestyle related, such as obesity, physical activity, dietary behaviors, and alcohol and tobacco use. Objective To analyze lifestyle behaviors of patients with vs. those without arthritis. Methods A cross-sectional analysis of 2017 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) data was conducted on patients with and without a history of arthritis. Physical activity, smoking status, alcohol use, and dietary behaviors were extracted. Logistic regression models were constructed to calculate adjusted risk ratios (ARRs). All confidence intervals (CIs) were reported at 95%. Results The median response rate for the 2017 BRFSS survey was 45.1% (sample n=292,808; population N=118,751,156). The overall prevalence of arthritis was 44% (n=128,850). Respondents with arthritis were significantly more likely to be physically inactive than nonarthritic respondents, with a significant gender interaction (male absolute risk reduction [ARR], 1.2 [CI, 1.15–1.25]; female ARR, 1.29 [CI, 1.24–1.33]). Those with arthritis were also more likely to be current smokers (ARR 1.1; CI, 1.05–1.15) and less likely to have attempted to quit smoking in the last 12 months (ARR, 0.91; CI, 0.87–0.96). Finally, men with arthritis were more likely to drink alcohol heavily (ARR, 1.14; CI, 1.02–1.27]). Conclusion Patients with arthritis were more likely to be women, White, current smokers, and physically inactive, and to have poor mental health, lower education levels, and difficulty paying for healthcare and medications than those without arthritis. Further efforts should be made to address these findings through resource allocation in the care of patients with arthritis. Practitioners should also seek increased understanding of the psychological, social, and economic impacts of physical activity and smoking in patients with arthritis.

Purpose: The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons produces clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of orthopedic injuries. We examined the strength of the evidence underlying these recommendations in order to answer the following questions: (1) Have AAOS work groups improved guideline creation practices to locate evidence to generate strong recommendations? (2) Is there variability in the available evidence based on anatomic site or stage of care? (3) Has the level of evidence supporting improved over time? Methods: Twenty-two current guidelines of the Academy were examined which yielded 408 individual recommendations. These recommendations were assigned one of five strength of evidence ratings (strong, moderate, limited, inconclusive, consensus) by the guideline panel, based on the availability and quality of the supporting evidence. From these guidelines, we extracted all of the recommendations and their corresponding evidence ratings. We then classified the recommendations by stage of care, year, and anatomical site. Results: The distribution of the levels of evidence was as follows: 77 (18.9%) were based on consensus; 53 (13.0%) were inconclusive; 93 (22.8%) were based on limited evidence; 112 (27.5%) were based on moderate evidence; and 73 were based on (17.9%) strong evidence. Strong strength of evidence was found in 45.2% of the recommendations for preventive/screening/diagnostic care, 41.1% of nonsurgical treatment, 45.1% of surgical treatment, 51.1% of rehabilitation/postoperative treatment, and 45.5% of the recommendations that had mixed stages of care. Inconclusive strength of evidence was found to be prevalent from 2009–2013, but was eliminated starting in 2014. Conclusions: Only 73 (17.9%) recommendations generated by the Academy in its 22 clinical practice guidelines are based on a “strong” strength of evidence. More robust research is needed in orthopedics to bolster confidence in the recommendations in future guideline updates.