Search

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to assess racial disparities in total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) in the United States and to determine whether these disparities were affected by the COVID-19 pandemic., Methods: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) 100% sample was used to examine primary TSA volume from April to December from 2019 to 2020. Utilization was assessed for White, Black, Hispanic, and Asian populations to determine if COVID-19 affected these groups differently. A regression model adjusted for age, sex, CMS-hierarchical condition categories (HCC) score, dual enrollment (proxy for socioeconomic status), time-fixed effects, and core-based statistical area fixed effects was used to study difference across groups., Results: In 2019, the TSA volume per 1000 beneficiaries was 1.51 for White and 0.57 for non-White, with a 2.6-fold difference. In 2020, the rate of TSA in White patients (1.30/1000) was 2.9 times higher than non-White (0.45/1000) during the COVID-19 pandemic ( P  < .01). There was an overall 14% decrease in TSA volume per 1000 Medicare beneficiaries in 2020; non-White patients had a larger percentage decrease in TSA volume than White (21% vs. 14%, estimated difference; 8.7%, P  = .02). Black patients experienced the most pronounced disparity with estimated difference of 10.1%, P  = .05, compared with White patients. Similar disparities were observed when categorizing procedures into anatomic and reverse TSA, but not proximal humerus fracture., Conclusions: During the COVID-19 pandemic, overall TSA utilization decreased by 14% with White patients experiencing a decrease of 14%, and non-White patients experiencing a decrease of 21%. This trend was observed for elective TSA, while disparities were less apparent for proximal humerus fracture., (© 2022 The Author(s).)

Background: The treatment of complex proximal humerus fractures with hemiarthroplasty is associated with a high failure rate due to secondary displacement of the tuberosities. It was the aim of this in-vitro study to compare the mechanical stability of tuberosity reattachment obtained with the so-called "Cow-Hitch" (CH) cerclage compared with conventional tuberosity reattachment., Methods: A 4-part proximal humerus fracture was created in 10 fresh-frozen, human cadaveric shoulders. The greater and lesser tuberosity were reattached to the hemiarthroplasty stem with in total 4 CH Cerclages in the Cow-Hitch group. The conventional technique-recommended for the tested implant-was used in the control group using 6 sutures. A total of 5000 loading cycles with forces of 350N were applied, while motion (in mm) of the tuberosities was recorded in 3 directions (anteroposterior = AP, mediolateral = ML, inferosuperior = IS) with a telecentric camera., Results: After 5000 loading cycles, the CH group showed less fragment displacement (AP: 2.3 ± 2.3 mm, ML: 1.8 ± 0.9 mm, IS: 1.3 ± 0.5 mm) than the conventional group (AP: 9.8 ± 12.3 mm, ML: 5.5 ± 5.6 mm, IS: 4.5 ± 4.7 mm). The differences were not statistically significant (AP: P  = .241; ML: P  = .159; IS: P  = .216). The lesser tuberosity fragment displacement in the CH group after 5000 cycles was less in the AP (2.3 ± 3.3 vs. 4.0 ± 2.8, P  = .359) and IS (1.9 ± 1.2 vs. 3.1 ± 1.8; P  = .189) directions but higher in the ML direction (7.2 ± 5.7 vs 6.3 ± 3.6, P  = .963)., Conclusions: In-vitro, "Cow-Hitch" cerclage results in mean greater tuberosity displacements of 2 mm and reliably prevents displacements greater than 5 mm. In contrast, the conventional fixation technique yields unreliable, variable stability with low to complete displacement upon cyclical loading., (© 2021 The Authors.)

Background: Shoulder surgery results in several months of rehabilitation, which is often underestimated by patients preoperatively. Currently, there is little written about this process of recovery. Information on this would help patients to anticipate the trajectory of their recovery. This would also provide a reference point allowing surgeons to compare a patient's progress in their recovery. The purpose of our study was to analyze and document the expected rate of recovery for the most common shoulder operations., Methods: A retrospective analysis of all patients who underwent total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA), reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA), arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR), and arthroscopic biceps tenodesis (BT) using prospectively collected data from the Surgical Outcomes System registry was performed. All patients included had a complete 2-year follow-up data set. The pain score (visual analog scale) was measured preoperatively at 2, 6, and 12 weeks and 6, 12, and 24 months. The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) and Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) score were recorded preoperatively and after 6, 12, and 24 months. The speed of recovery, defined as the percentage of total improvement, for each procedure was assessed as the primary outcome parameter at all time points., Results: All shoulder interventions resulted in significant improvement of the pain, SANE, and ASES scores 2 years after shoulder surgery. The speed of recovery of all 3 scores was highest after TSA at all measured time points and slowest after ARCR and BT. Measured by the pain score, 90% and 82% of the total improvement after TSA and RTSA was completed after 6 weeks compared to 58% and 59% after ARCR and BT, respectively. Six months postoperatively the ASES recovery rate was significantly higher after arthroplasty (TSA 96% and RTSA 85%) compared to ARCR and BT (76% and 77%, respectively). The SANE score recovery rate was between 82% and 92% (TSA 92%, RTSA 89%, ARCR 87%, BT 82%) 6 months after surgery. After 1 year all patient groups reached 89% or more of the total improvement in all scores, except for the pain after ARCR (89%)., Conclusion: The improvement in pain is fastest after TSA and slowest after ARCR and BT. After TSA and RTSA, >80% of the total pain reduction is achieved 6 weeks postoperatively, whereas after ARCR and BT, >80% of the pain reduction is achieved only 6 months postoperatively. At 12 months postoperatively, the differences in recovery curves were not significant., (© 2021 The Authors.)

Background: This study aimed to determine the working relationships of shoulder surgeons and surgical device representatives, and benefits or detractors to the operating environment., Methods: An electronic survey was distributed to all members of the Codman Shoulder Society, an international group of fellowship-trained shoulder surgeons., Results: The response rate was 44% (59 of 134). Mean yearly case volume was estimated as 253.3 ± 126.7, with 205.7 ± 119.6 cases having a surgical device representative present (81.2%). Among respondents, 41.1% (23 of 56) expressed wishes for the increased presence of device representatives during cases. A majority, 78.6% (44 of 56), felt that the presence of a device representative improved the efficiency of the operating room, with 7.3% (4 of 55) identifying an inability to use certain equipment without instruction. Valued qualities of device representatives were identified as attentiveness, organized, knowledgeable, honest, and available, whereas qualities not valued were pushiness/salesmanship, unpreparedness, disengagement, and disorganized. Median working time with the same representative was 5 years (0.5-20 years) with 94.4% (53 of 56) of respondents identifying desire for familiarity. A large proportion, 42.9% (24 of 56), identified changing their implants based on qualities of device representatives. Only 26.8% (15 of 56) felt that the presence of a device representative should be disclosed to a patient., Conclusions: High-volume shoulder surgeons partially dictate the use of surgically implanted devices and make decisions based on valued or disvalued surgical device representative traits. Working relationships between the shoulder surgeon and device representatives proceed longitudinally and are significant in establishing long-term company relationships., (© 2020 Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons.)

Virtual Reality (VR) in orthopedic surgery has significantly increased in popularity in the areas of preoperative planning, intraoperative usage, and for education and training; however, its utilization lags behind other surgical disciplines and industries. The use of VR in orthopedics is largely focused on education and is currently endorsed by North American and European training committees. The use of VR in shoulder and elbow surgery has varying levels of evidence, from I to IV, and typically involves educational randomized controlled trials. To date, however, the terms and definitions surrounding VR technology used in the literature are often redundant, confusing, or outdated. The purpose of this review, therefore, was to characterize previous uses of VR in shoulder and elbow surgery in preoperative, intraoperative, and educational domains including trauma and elective surgery. Secondary objectives were to provide recommendations for updated terminology of immersive VR (iVR) as well as provide a framework for standardized reporting of research surrounding iVR in shoulder and elbow surgery., (© 2020 The Authors.)