Ultrasound-determined healing rates with subscapularis tenotomy versus peel after anatomic shoulder arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Several techniques have been described for mobilizing the subscapularis tendon in anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). The purpose of this study was to compare subscapularis tendon healing rates, as determined by ultrasound, in patients following anatomic TSA with either a subscapularis tenotomy or subscapularis peel. METHODS: This study was a secondary analysis of patients from a previous randomized controlled trial in which patients underwent anatomic TSA and were randomized to either a tenotomy or peel approach. The primary outcome was postoperative tendon healing rates determined on ultrasound at >12 months after surgery. Secondary outcomes included postoperative tendon thickness measured on ultrasound; elbow position (neutral alignment in the belly-press position vs. posterior); internal rotation function measured with the third and fourth questions of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons questionnaire; and Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder index. Radiographs were analyzed in patients with torn tendons. RESULTS: One hundred patients were randomized to a tenotomy (n = 47) or peel (n = 53) approach. Postoperative ultrasound results were available in 88 patients. Tendon healing rates were 95% for tenotomy vs. 75% for peel (P = .011). The mean postoperative tendon thickness was 4 mm (standard deviation, 1.0 mm) and 4 mm (standard deviation, 1 mm) in the tenotomy and peel groups, respectively (P = .37). Internal rotation function was not associated with healing status (P = .77 and P = .22 for questions 3 and 4, respectively, of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons questionnaire), nor was elbow position (P = .2) in the belly-press position. DISCUSSION: We observed that subscapularis tenotomy had a higher healing rate than peel as determined by ultrasound in TSA patients. There was no statistically significant difference in postoperative tendon thickness in intact tendons as measured on ultrasound when comparing subscapularis mobilization techniques, nor was there any association between healing status and internal rotation function or elbow position.

Predatory Publishing in Orthopaedic Research.

BACKGROUND: The open-access model has changed the landscape of academic publishing over the last 20 years. An unfortunate consequence has been the advent of predatory publishing, which exploits the open-access model for monetary gain by collecting publishing fees from authors under the pretense of being a legitimate publication while providing little-to-no peer review. This study aims to investigate the predatory publishing phenomenon in orthopaedic literature. METHODS: We searched Beall's List of Predatory Journals and Publishers and another list of predatory journals for journal titles that are possibly related to orthopaedics. We then searched their web sites for the following information: total number of articles published, journal country of origin, author country of origin, article processing charge (APC), quoted review time, and location of the listed headquarters. We also reported the article quality of a random sample of these journals. We consulted InCites Journal Citation Reports to determine the number of nonpredatory orthopaedic publications that are indexed, and we manually searched a random sample of these legitimate journals for Beall's criteria. Additionally, we searched the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) and PubMed databases for any possible predatory journal titles. RESULTS: We found 104 suspected predatory publishers, representing 225 possible predatory journals. One journal was indexed in the DOAJ, and 20 were indexed in PubMed. Review time was not identified for 56.2% of the journals, and 36.5% quoted a review time of <1 month. Nearly half of the listed addresses of the publishers were either unsearchable or led to residential or empty lots. Eighty-two legitimate journals were identified. The median APC was $420 for predatory journals and $2,900 for legitimate journals. We found that a random sample of the legitimate journals published studies with higher reporting standards, but a few also contained 1 criterion that is found on Beall's list. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the scope of orthopaedic predatory publishing. Possibly predatory journals outnumber legitimate orthopaedic journals. Orthopaedic surgeons should be aware of the suspected predatory journals and consult available online tools to identify them because distinguishing them from legitimate journals can be a challenge.