Pub Date : 2024-09-10DOI: 10.1097/corr.0000000000003250
B Sonny Bal
{"title":"Medicolegal Sidebar: Taking Care of Professional Athletes-Is It Worth the Risk?","authors":"B Sonny Bal","doi":"10.1097/corr.0000000000003250","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1097/corr.0000000000003250","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":10404,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2024-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142170684","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-09-10DOI: 10.1097/corr.0000000000003248
Ruth H Jones,Samuel A Beber,Akshitha Adhiyaman,Olivia C Tracey,Emilie Lijesen,Daniel W Green,Peter D Fabricant
BACKGROUNDRecent evidence has identified a strong association between growth hormone therapy and physeal injuries in the lower extremity; however, few studies have investigated this association in the upper extremity.QUESTIONS/PURPOSES(1) Do pediatric patients with physeal tension injuries of the shoulder and elbow have higher odds of having exposure to recombinant growth hormone therapy than matched controls? (2) Are the odds of having exposure to recombinant growth hormone therapy in physeal tension injuries different when stratified by shoulder and elbow injuries?METHODSUsing a matched case-control study design, patients between 4 and 18 years of age treated at a large, urban, academic center from February 1, 2016, to November 6, 2023, were identified by ICD-10 codes using EPIC SlicerDicer, an electronic medical record-based data mining tool. Patients diagnosed with physeal tension injuries in the shoulder or elbow were included in the case group, and those with midshaft radius, metaphyseal radius, or both-bone forearm fractures were included in the control group. A total of 618 patients with physeal injuries and 1244 with non-physeal fractures were identified and screened for inclusion. After further chart review to confirm diagnoses, 46% (283) of patients with physeal injuries and 54% (670) of patients with non-physeal fractures were included. A further 6% (16) of patients with physeal injuries and 2% (15) of patients with non-physeal injuries were excluded due concomitant dislocations or missing data, resulting in 267 eligible patients with physeal injuries and 655 eligible patients with non-physeal fractures. Two patients with concurrent elbow and shoulder physeal injuries were additionally excluded from stratified analyses. Patients with physeal injuries and non-physeal fractures were 1:1 matched by age ± 0.5 years, sex, and BMI ± 2 kg/m2. In all, 522 patients were included in the analysis, including 261 patients with physeal injuries and 261 with non-physeal fractures. The mean ± SD ages for both patient groups was 13 ± 2 years (p = 0.44), 88% (229 of 261) of all participants were male, and the mean BMIs were 19.9 ± 3.0 kg/m2 and 19.4 ± 3.0 kg/m2 (p = 0.11), respectively. Growth hormone exposure was compared between patients with physeal injuries and non-physeal fractures using a conditional logistic regression model.RESULTSOverall, 4% (10 of 261) of patients with physeal injuries had exposure to growth hormone therapy as compared with 2% (4 of 261) of patients with non-physeal fractures (OR 2.5 [95% confidence interval 0.8 to 8.0]). Subgroup analyses of shoulder and elbow injuries demonstrated no difference in growth hormone exposure between patients with physeal injuries and non-physeal fractures (OR 2 [95% CI 0.4 to 10.2] and OR 3 [95% CI 0.6 to 14.9], respectively).CONCLUSIONIn light of these results, clinicians may not need to advise precaution against sports or other activities that put the upper extremity physes under stress when
{"title":"No Association Between Growth Hormone Therapy and Upper Extremity Physeal Tension Injuries: A Matched Case-control Study.","authors":"Ruth H Jones,Samuel A Beber,Akshitha Adhiyaman,Olivia C Tracey,Emilie Lijesen,Daniel W Green,Peter D Fabricant","doi":"10.1097/corr.0000000000003248","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1097/corr.0000000000003248","url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUNDRecent evidence has identified a strong association between growth hormone therapy and physeal injuries in the lower extremity; however, few studies have investigated this association in the upper extremity.QUESTIONS/PURPOSES(1) Do pediatric patients with physeal tension injuries of the shoulder and elbow have higher odds of having exposure to recombinant growth hormone therapy than matched controls? (2) Are the odds of having exposure to recombinant growth hormone therapy in physeal tension injuries different when stratified by shoulder and elbow injuries?METHODSUsing a matched case-control study design, patients between 4 and 18 years of age treated at a large, urban, academic center from February 1, 2016, to November 6, 2023, were identified by ICD-10 codes using EPIC SlicerDicer, an electronic medical record-based data mining tool. Patients diagnosed with physeal tension injuries in the shoulder or elbow were included in the case group, and those with midshaft radius, metaphyseal radius, or both-bone forearm fractures were included in the control group. A total of 618 patients with physeal injuries and 1244 with non-physeal fractures were identified and screened for inclusion. After further chart review to confirm diagnoses, 46% (283) of patients with physeal injuries and 54% (670) of patients with non-physeal fractures were included. A further 6% (16) of patients with physeal injuries and 2% (15) of patients with non-physeal injuries were excluded due concomitant dislocations or missing data, resulting in 267 eligible patients with physeal injuries and 655 eligible patients with non-physeal fractures. Two patients with concurrent elbow and shoulder physeal injuries were additionally excluded from stratified analyses. Patients with physeal injuries and non-physeal fractures were 1:1 matched by age ± 0.5 years, sex, and BMI ± 2 kg/m2. In all, 522 patients were included in the analysis, including 261 patients with physeal injuries and 261 with non-physeal fractures. The mean ± SD ages for both patient groups was 13 ± 2 years (p = 0.44), 88% (229 of 261) of all participants were male, and the mean BMIs were 19.9 ± 3.0 kg/m2 and 19.4 ± 3.0 kg/m2 (p = 0.11), respectively. Growth hormone exposure was compared between patients with physeal injuries and non-physeal fractures using a conditional logistic regression model.RESULTSOverall, 4% (10 of 261) of patients with physeal injuries had exposure to growth hormone therapy as compared with 2% (4 of 261) of patients with non-physeal fractures (OR 2.5 [95% confidence interval 0.8 to 8.0]). Subgroup analyses of shoulder and elbow injuries demonstrated no difference in growth hormone exposure between patients with physeal injuries and non-physeal fractures (OR 2 [95% CI 0.4 to 10.2] and OR 3 [95% CI 0.6 to 14.9], respectively).CONCLUSIONIn light of these results, clinicians may not need to advise precaution against sports or other activities that put the upper extremity physes under stress when ","PeriodicalId":10404,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2024-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142170687","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-09-10DOI: 10.1097/corr.0000000000003253
Lyn Jones
{"title":"Letter to the Editor: A Conversation With … Emily Wilson PhD, Contemporary Interpreter of the Iliad, on Listening, Hearing, and Communicating.","authors":"Lyn Jones","doi":"10.1097/corr.0000000000003253","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1097/corr.0000000000003253","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":10404,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2024-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142170683","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-09-09DOI: 10.1097/corr.0000000000003196
Emily Pilc,Sri Vibhaav Bankuru,Sarah F Brauer,John W Cyrus,Nirav K Patel
BACKGROUNDPoor sleep quality is a common complaint after total joint arthroplasty (TJA), and it is associated with reports of higher pain and worse functional outcomes. Several interventions have been investigated with the intent to reduce the incidence of postoperative sleep disturbance with varying effectiveness. An aggregate of the best available evidence, along with an evaluation of the quality of those studies, is needed to provide valuable perspective to physicians and to direct future research.QUESTIONS/PURPOSESIn this systematic review, we asked: (1) What is the reported efficacy of the most commonly studied medications and nonpharmacologic approaches, and (2) what are their side effects and reported complications?METHODSThis systematic review was conducted in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A search using a combination of controlled vocabulary and keywords was performed utilizing Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Cochrane Central, and Web of Science databases from database inception to 2023, with the last search occurring October 24, 2023, to identify studies that evaluated a sleep intervention on the effect of patient-reported sleep quality after THA or TKA. Inclusion criteria were clinical trials, comparative studies, and observational studies on adult patients who underwent primary TKA or THA for osteoarthritis and who completed validated sleep questionnaires to assess sleep quality postoperatively. We excluded studies on patients younger than 18 years, patients with sleep apnea, TKA or THA because of trauma or conditions other than osteoarthritis, revision TJA, studies in languages other than English, and studies from nonindexed journals or preprint servers. Two investigators independently screened 1535 studies for inclusion and exclusion criteria and extracted data from the included studies. Ultimately, 14 studies were included in this systematic review, including 12 randomized controlled trials and 2 prospective comparative studies. A total of 2469 participants were included, with a mean ± SD age of 65 ± 7 years and 38% men in control groups and 65 ± 7 years and 39% men in intervention groups. Sleep quality questionnaires utilized included the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, Self-Rating Scale of Sleep, 100-mm VAS - Sleep, Sleep Disturbance Numeric Rating Scale, Likert scales, and one institutionally designed questionnaire. Quality analysis was performed utilizing the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist for Randomized Controlled Trials, where higher scores of 13 indicated a more reliable study, and the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale for Cohort Studies, where higher scores of 9 indicated a more reliable study and scores < 5 represented a high risk of bias. Two of the randomized controlled trials scored a 12 of 13, and the remaining 10 met every criteria of the JBI checklist. Both comparative studies scored 5 of 9 possible points of th
{"title":"Which Interventions Are Effective in Treating Sleep Disturbances After THA or TKA? A Systematic Review.","authors":"Emily Pilc,Sri Vibhaav Bankuru,Sarah F Brauer,John W Cyrus,Nirav K Patel","doi":"10.1097/corr.0000000000003196","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1097/corr.0000000000003196","url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUNDPoor sleep quality is a common complaint after total joint arthroplasty (TJA), and it is associated with reports of higher pain and worse functional outcomes. Several interventions have been investigated with the intent to reduce the incidence of postoperative sleep disturbance with varying effectiveness. An aggregate of the best available evidence, along with an evaluation of the quality of those studies, is needed to provide valuable perspective to physicians and to direct future research.QUESTIONS/PURPOSESIn this systematic review, we asked: (1) What is the reported efficacy of the most commonly studied medications and nonpharmacologic approaches, and (2) what are their side effects and reported complications?METHODSThis systematic review was conducted in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A search using a combination of controlled vocabulary and keywords was performed utilizing Medline (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Cochrane Central, and Web of Science databases from database inception to 2023, with the last search occurring October 24, 2023, to identify studies that evaluated a sleep intervention on the effect of patient-reported sleep quality after THA or TKA. Inclusion criteria were clinical trials, comparative studies, and observational studies on adult patients who underwent primary TKA or THA for osteoarthritis and who completed validated sleep questionnaires to assess sleep quality postoperatively. We excluded studies on patients younger than 18 years, patients with sleep apnea, TKA or THA because of trauma or conditions other than osteoarthritis, revision TJA, studies in languages other than English, and studies from nonindexed journals or preprint servers. Two investigators independently screened 1535 studies for inclusion and exclusion criteria and extracted data from the included studies. Ultimately, 14 studies were included in this systematic review, including 12 randomized controlled trials and 2 prospective comparative studies. A total of 2469 participants were included, with a mean ± SD age of 65 ± 7 years and 38% men in control groups and 65 ± 7 years and 39% men in intervention groups. Sleep quality questionnaires utilized included the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, Self-Rating Scale of Sleep, 100-mm VAS - Sleep, Sleep Disturbance Numeric Rating Scale, Likert scales, and one institutionally designed questionnaire. Quality analysis was performed utilizing the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist for Randomized Controlled Trials, where higher scores of 13 indicated a more reliable study, and the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale for Cohort Studies, where higher scores of 9 indicated a more reliable study and scores < 5 represented a high risk of bias. Two of the randomized controlled trials scored a 12 of 13, and the remaining 10 met every criteria of the JBI checklist. Both comparative studies scored 5 of 9 possible points of th","PeriodicalId":10404,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2024-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142170688","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-09-06DOI: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000003234
Tanios Dagher, Emma P Dwyer, Hayden P Baker, Senthooran Kalidoss, Jason A Strelzow
<p><strong>Background: </strong>Artificial intelligence (AI) is engineered to emulate tasks that have historically required human interaction and intellect, including learning, pattern recognition, decision-making, and problem-solving. Although AI models like ChatGPT-4 have demonstrated satisfactory performance on medical licensing exams, suggesting a potential for supporting medical diagnostics and decision-making, no study of which we are aware has evaluated the ability of these tools to make treatment recommendations when given clinical vignettes and representative medical imaging of common orthopaedic conditions. As AI continues to advance, a thorough understanding of its strengths and limitations is necessary to inform safe and helpful integration into medical practice.</p><p><strong>Questions/purposes: </strong>(1) What is the concordance between ChatGPT-4-generated treatment recommendations for common orthopaedic conditions with both the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and an orthopaedic attending physician's treatment plan? (2) In what specific areas do the ChatGPT-4-generated treatment recommendations diverge from the AAOS CPGs?</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Ten common orthopaedic conditions with associated AAOS CPGs were identified: carpal tunnel syndrome, distal radius fracture, glenohumeral joint osteoarthritis, rotator cuff injury, clavicle fracture, hip fracture, hip osteoarthritis, knee osteoarthritis, ACL injury, and acute Achilles rupture. For each condition, the medical records of 10 deidentified patients managed at our facility were used to construct clinical vignettes that each had an isolated, single diagnosis with adequate clarity. The vignettes also encompassed a range of diagnostic severity to evaluate more thoroughly adherence to the treatment guidelines outlined by the AAOS. These clinical vignettes were presented alongside representative radiographic imaging. The model was prompted to provide a single treatment plan recommendation. Each treatment plan was compared with established AAOS CPGs and to the treatment plan documented by the attending orthopaedic surgeon treating the specific patient. Vignettes where ChatGPT-4 recommendations diverged from CPGs were reviewed to identify patterns of error and summarized.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>ChatGPT-4 provided treatment recommendations in accordance with the AAOS CPGs in 90% (90 of 100) of clinical vignettes. Concordance between ChatGPT-generated plans and the plan recommended by the treating orthopaedic attending physician was 78% (78 of 100). One hundred percent (30 of 30) of ChatGPT-4 recommendations for fracture vignettes and hip and knee arthritis vignettes matched with CPG recommendations, whereas the model struggled most with recommendations for carpal tunnel syndrome (3 of 10 instances demonstrated discordance). ChatGPT-4 recommendations diverged from AAOS CPGs for three carpal tunnel syndrome vignettes; tw
{"title":"\"Dr. AI Will See You Now\": How Do ChatGPT-4 Treatment Recommendations Align With Orthopaedic Clinical Practice Guidelines?","authors":"Tanios Dagher, Emma P Dwyer, Hayden P Baker, Senthooran Kalidoss, Jason A Strelzow","doi":"10.1097/CORR.0000000000003234","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000003234","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Artificial intelligence (AI) is engineered to emulate tasks that have historically required human interaction and intellect, including learning, pattern recognition, decision-making, and problem-solving. Although AI models like ChatGPT-4 have demonstrated satisfactory performance on medical licensing exams, suggesting a potential for supporting medical diagnostics and decision-making, no study of which we are aware has evaluated the ability of these tools to make treatment recommendations when given clinical vignettes and representative medical imaging of common orthopaedic conditions. As AI continues to advance, a thorough understanding of its strengths and limitations is necessary to inform safe and helpful integration into medical practice.</p><p><strong>Questions/purposes: </strong>(1) What is the concordance between ChatGPT-4-generated treatment recommendations for common orthopaedic conditions with both the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and an orthopaedic attending physician's treatment plan? (2) In what specific areas do the ChatGPT-4-generated treatment recommendations diverge from the AAOS CPGs?</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Ten common orthopaedic conditions with associated AAOS CPGs were identified: carpal tunnel syndrome, distal radius fracture, glenohumeral joint osteoarthritis, rotator cuff injury, clavicle fracture, hip fracture, hip osteoarthritis, knee osteoarthritis, ACL injury, and acute Achilles rupture. For each condition, the medical records of 10 deidentified patients managed at our facility were used to construct clinical vignettes that each had an isolated, single diagnosis with adequate clarity. The vignettes also encompassed a range of diagnostic severity to evaluate more thoroughly adherence to the treatment guidelines outlined by the AAOS. These clinical vignettes were presented alongside representative radiographic imaging. The model was prompted to provide a single treatment plan recommendation. Each treatment plan was compared with established AAOS CPGs and to the treatment plan documented by the attending orthopaedic surgeon treating the specific patient. Vignettes where ChatGPT-4 recommendations diverged from CPGs were reviewed to identify patterns of error and summarized.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>ChatGPT-4 provided treatment recommendations in accordance with the AAOS CPGs in 90% (90 of 100) of clinical vignettes. Concordance between ChatGPT-generated plans and the plan recommended by the treating orthopaedic attending physician was 78% (78 of 100). One hundred percent (30 of 30) of ChatGPT-4 recommendations for fracture vignettes and hip and knee arthritis vignettes matched with CPG recommendations, whereas the model struggled most with recommendations for carpal tunnel syndrome (3 of 10 instances demonstrated discordance). ChatGPT-4 recommendations diverged from AAOS CPGs for three carpal tunnel syndrome vignettes; tw","PeriodicalId":10404,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2024-09-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142153290","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-09-05DOI: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000003237
Seth S Leopold
{"title":"Editor's Spotlight/Take 5: What Is the Patient-reported Outcome and Complication Incidence After Operative Versus Nonoperative Treatment of Minimally Displaced Tibial Plateau Fractures?","authors":"Seth S Leopold","doi":"10.1097/CORR.0000000000003237","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000003237","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":10404,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2024-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142139507","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-09-05DOI: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000003247
Mark Haft, Steve S Li, Zachary C Pearson, Uzoma Ahiarakwe, Amie F Bettencourt, Umasuthan Srikumaran
<p><strong>Background: </strong>Bovine bioinductive collagen implants (herein, "bovine collagen implant") can be used to augment rotator cuff repair. Concern exists that these bovine collagen implants may not yield clinical benefits and may actually increase postoperative stiffness and the need for reoperation.</p><p><strong>Questions/purposes: </strong>Among patients who underwent primary rotator cuff repair with or without a bovine collagen implant, we asked: (1) Did the proportion of patients undergoing reoperation for postoperative stiffness and inflammation differ between the bovine collagen implant and control groups? (2) Did short-term patient-reported outcomes differ between the two groups? (3) Did the proportion of patients receiving postoperative methylprednisolone prescriptions and corticosteroid injections differ between the two groups?</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a retrospective, matched, comparative study of patients 18 years and older with minimum 2-year follow-up who underwent primary arthroscopic repair of partial or full-thickness rotator cuff tears diagnosed by MRI. All procedures were performed by one surgeonbetween February 2016 and December 2021. During the period in question, this surgeon broadly offered the bovine collagen implant to all patients who underwent rotator cuff repair and who (1) consented to xenograft use and (2) had surgery at a facility where the bovine collagen implant was available. The bovine collagen implant was used in rotator cuff tears of all sizes per the manufacturer's instructions. A total of 312 patients were considered for this study (243 control, 69 implant). Minimum 2-year clinical follow-up data were available for 83% (201 of 243) of patients in the control group and 90% (62 of 69) of patients in the bovine collagen implant group. After we applied the exclusion criteria, 163 control and 47 implant group patients remained and were eligible for matching. Propensity score matching was conducted to balance cohorts by age, gender, race (Black, White, other), ethnicity (Hispanic, non-Hispanic), health insurance status, Area Deprivation Index, BMI, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification, diabetes, smoking, rotator cuff tear size, concomitant surgical procedures, preoperative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV), VAS score for pain, and shoulder ROM. We included 141 patients (47 in the implant group and 94 in the control group) after matching. Patients were categorized according to whether they received the bovine collagen implant. Before matching, the control cohort was older (mean ± SD 57 ± 10 years versus 52 ± 11 years; p = 0.004), more likely to be White (58% versus 23%; p < 0.001), with a smaller proportion of concomitant distal clavicle excisions (43% versus 21%; p = 0.003), and a smaller proportion of "other" concomitant procedures (17% versus 6%; p = 0.011) compared with the implant cohort. After match
{"title":"No Short-term Clinical Benefit to Bovine Collagen Implant Augmentation in Primary Rotator Cuff Repair: A Matched Retrospective Study.","authors":"Mark Haft, Steve S Li, Zachary C Pearson, Uzoma Ahiarakwe, Amie F Bettencourt, Umasuthan Srikumaran","doi":"10.1097/CORR.0000000000003247","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000003247","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Bovine bioinductive collagen implants (herein, \"bovine collagen implant\") can be used to augment rotator cuff repair. Concern exists that these bovine collagen implants may not yield clinical benefits and may actually increase postoperative stiffness and the need for reoperation.</p><p><strong>Questions/purposes: </strong>Among patients who underwent primary rotator cuff repair with or without a bovine collagen implant, we asked: (1) Did the proportion of patients undergoing reoperation for postoperative stiffness and inflammation differ between the bovine collagen implant and control groups? (2) Did short-term patient-reported outcomes differ between the two groups? (3) Did the proportion of patients receiving postoperative methylprednisolone prescriptions and corticosteroid injections differ between the two groups?</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a retrospective, matched, comparative study of patients 18 years and older with minimum 2-year follow-up who underwent primary arthroscopic repair of partial or full-thickness rotator cuff tears diagnosed by MRI. All procedures were performed by one surgeonbetween February 2016 and December 2021. During the period in question, this surgeon broadly offered the bovine collagen implant to all patients who underwent rotator cuff repair and who (1) consented to xenograft use and (2) had surgery at a facility where the bovine collagen implant was available. The bovine collagen implant was used in rotator cuff tears of all sizes per the manufacturer's instructions. A total of 312 patients were considered for this study (243 control, 69 implant). Minimum 2-year clinical follow-up data were available for 83% (201 of 243) of patients in the control group and 90% (62 of 69) of patients in the bovine collagen implant group. After we applied the exclusion criteria, 163 control and 47 implant group patients remained and were eligible for matching. Propensity score matching was conducted to balance cohorts by age, gender, race (Black, White, other), ethnicity (Hispanic, non-Hispanic), health insurance status, Area Deprivation Index, BMI, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification, diabetes, smoking, rotator cuff tear size, concomitant surgical procedures, preoperative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV), VAS score for pain, and shoulder ROM. We included 141 patients (47 in the implant group and 94 in the control group) after matching. Patients were categorized according to whether they received the bovine collagen implant. Before matching, the control cohort was older (mean ± SD 57 ± 10 years versus 52 ± 11 years; p = 0.004), more likely to be White (58% versus 23%; p < 0.001), with a smaller proportion of concomitant distal clavicle excisions (43% versus 21%; p = 0.003), and a smaller proportion of \"other\" concomitant procedures (17% versus 6%; p = 0.011) compared with the implant cohort. After match","PeriodicalId":10404,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2024-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142139508","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-09-05DOI: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000003241
Joseph Bernstein
{"title":"Not the Last Word: Restrictive Covenants Can be Liberating.","authors":"Joseph Bernstein","doi":"10.1097/CORR.0000000000003241","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000003241","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":10404,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2024-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142132045","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-09-03DOI: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000003245
Ahmed Atherley O'Meally, Giovanni Rizzi, Monica Cosentino, Hisaki Aiba, Ayano Aso, Konstantina Solou, Laura Campanacci, Federica Zuccheri, Barbara Bordini, Davide Maria Donati, Costantino Errani
<p><strong>Background: </strong>Proximal femur reconstruction after bone tumor resection in children is a demanding surgery for orthopaedic oncologists because of the small bone size and possible limb-length discrepancy at the end of skeletal growth owing to physis loss. The most commonly used reconstruction types used for the proximal femur are modular prostheses and allograft-prosthesis composites. To our knowledge, there are no previous studies comparing the outcomes after modular prosthesis and allograft-prosthesis composite reconstruction of the proximal femur in children with primary bone tumors.</p><p><strong>Questions/purposes: </strong>(1) What was the cumulative incidence of reoperation for any reason after allograft-prosthesis composite and modular prosthesis reconstructions of the proximal femur in children with primary bone tumors? (2) What was the cumulative incidence of reconstruction removal or revision arthroplasty in those two treatment groups? (3) What complications occurred in those two treatment groups that were managed without further surgery or with surgery without reconstruction removal?</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Between 2000 and 2021, 54 children with primary bone tumors underwent resection and reconstruction of the proximal femur at a single institution. During that time, allograft-prosthesis composite reconstruction was used in very young children, in whom we prioritize bone stock preservation for future surgeries, and children with good response to chemotherapy, while modular prosthesis reconstruction was used in older children and children with metastatic disease at presentation and poor response to chemotherapy. We excluded three children in whom limb salvage was not possible and 11 children who underwent either reconstruction with free vascularized fibular graft and massive bone allograft (n = 3), an expandable prosthesis (n = 3), a massive bone allograft reconstruction (n = 2), a rotationplasty (n = 1), standard (nonmodular) prosthesis (n = 1), or revision of preexisting reconstruction (n = 1). Further, we excluded two children who were not treated surgically, three children with no medical or imaging records, and three children with no follow-up. All the remaining 32 children with reconstruction of the proximal femur (12 children treated with modular prosthesis and 20 children treated with allograft-prosthesis composite reconstruction) were accounted for at a minimum follow-up time of 2 years. Children in the allograft-prosthesis group were younger at the time of diagnosis than those in the modular prosthesis group (median 8 years [range 1 to 16 years] versus 15 years [range 9 to 17 years]; p = 0.001]), and the follow-up in the allograft-prosthesis composite group was longer (median 5 years [range 1 to 23 years] versus 3 years [range 1 to 15 years]; p = 0.37). Reconstruction with hemiarthroplasty was performed in 19 of 20 children in the allograft-prosthesis composite group and in 9 of 12 children in the mod
{"title":"What Are the Complications, Reconstruction Survival, and Functional Outcomes of Modular Prosthesis and Allograft-prosthesis Composite for Proximal Femur Reconstruction in Children With Primary Bone Tumors?","authors":"Ahmed Atherley O'Meally, Giovanni Rizzi, Monica Cosentino, Hisaki Aiba, Ayano Aso, Konstantina Solou, Laura Campanacci, Federica Zuccheri, Barbara Bordini, Davide Maria Donati, Costantino Errani","doi":"10.1097/CORR.0000000000003245","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000003245","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Proximal femur reconstruction after bone tumor resection in children is a demanding surgery for orthopaedic oncologists because of the small bone size and possible limb-length discrepancy at the end of skeletal growth owing to physis loss. The most commonly used reconstruction types used for the proximal femur are modular prostheses and allograft-prosthesis composites. To our knowledge, there are no previous studies comparing the outcomes after modular prosthesis and allograft-prosthesis composite reconstruction of the proximal femur in children with primary bone tumors.</p><p><strong>Questions/purposes: </strong>(1) What was the cumulative incidence of reoperation for any reason after allograft-prosthesis composite and modular prosthesis reconstructions of the proximal femur in children with primary bone tumors? (2) What was the cumulative incidence of reconstruction removal or revision arthroplasty in those two treatment groups? (3) What complications occurred in those two treatment groups that were managed without further surgery or with surgery without reconstruction removal?</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Between 2000 and 2021, 54 children with primary bone tumors underwent resection and reconstruction of the proximal femur at a single institution. During that time, allograft-prosthesis composite reconstruction was used in very young children, in whom we prioritize bone stock preservation for future surgeries, and children with good response to chemotherapy, while modular prosthesis reconstruction was used in older children and children with metastatic disease at presentation and poor response to chemotherapy. We excluded three children in whom limb salvage was not possible and 11 children who underwent either reconstruction with free vascularized fibular graft and massive bone allograft (n = 3), an expandable prosthesis (n = 3), a massive bone allograft reconstruction (n = 2), a rotationplasty (n = 1), standard (nonmodular) prosthesis (n = 1), or revision of preexisting reconstruction (n = 1). Further, we excluded two children who were not treated surgically, three children with no medical or imaging records, and three children with no follow-up. All the remaining 32 children with reconstruction of the proximal femur (12 children treated with modular prosthesis and 20 children treated with allograft-prosthesis composite reconstruction) were accounted for at a minimum follow-up time of 2 years. Children in the allograft-prosthesis group were younger at the time of diagnosis than those in the modular prosthesis group (median 8 years [range 1 to 16 years] versus 15 years [range 9 to 17 years]; p = 0.001]), and the follow-up in the allograft-prosthesis composite group was longer (median 5 years [range 1 to 23 years] versus 3 years [range 1 to 15 years]; p = 0.37). Reconstruction with hemiarthroplasty was performed in 19 of 20 children in the allograft-prosthesis composite group and in 9 of 12 children in the mod","PeriodicalId":10404,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2024-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142132046","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-09-03DOI: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000003216
Julia Blackburn
{"title":"CORR Insights®: Ultrasound-guided Hydrogel Injection Provides Better Therapeutic Effects After Hand Tendon Surgery Than Intraoperative Injection: A Randomized Controlled Trial.","authors":"Julia Blackburn","doi":"10.1097/CORR.0000000000003216","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000003216","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":10404,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.2,"publicationDate":"2024-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142153292","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：