Common Finger Injuries: Treatment Guidelines for Emergency and Primary Care Providers.

INTRODUCTION: Finger and hand injuries are among the most common musculoskeletal conditions presenting to emergency departments and primary care providers. Many rural and community hospitals may not have immediate access to an orthopedic surgeon on-site. Furthermore, military treatment facilities, both within the continental United States and in austere deployment environments, face similar challenges. Therefore, knowing how to treat basic finger and hand injuries is paramount for patient care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Armed Forces Health Surveillance Branch operates the Defense Medical Surveillance System, a database that serves as the central repository of medical surveillance data for the armed forces. The Defense Medical Surveillance System was queried for ICD-10 codes associated with finger injuries from 2015 to 2019 among active duty service members across the major branches of the military. RESULTS: The most commonly reported finger injuries were open wounds to fingers without damage to nails, metacarpal fractures, phalanx fractures, and finger subluxation/dislocation. Emergency departments were the most commonly reported treatment facility type accounting for 35% of initial finger injuries, followed by 32.2% at orthopedic surgery clinics, 22.2% at family medicine clinics, and 10.8% at urgent care centers. CONCLUSIONS: Finger injuries are common in the military setting and presenting directly to an orthopedic surgeon does not appear the norm. Fingertip injuries, fractures within the hand, and finger dislocations can often be managed without the need for a subspecialist. By following simple guidelines with attention to "red flags," primary care providers can manage most of these injuries with short-term follow-up with orthopedics.

Femoral Neck Stress Fractures in Athletes and the Military.

➤: Femoral neck stress fractures (FNSFs) are an infrequent condition in athletic and military populations. ➤: A high index of suspicion with liberal use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is vital for early recognition and treatment initiation. ➤: An associated hip effusion on MRI is a risk factor for an evolving stress injury and requires close assessment and consideration for repeat MRI. ➤: Stress reactions and stable, incomplete FNSFs (<50% of femoral neck width) can be treated nonsurgically. ➤: Surgical intervention is accepted for high-risk, incomplete (≥50% of femoral neck width), and complete FNSFs. ➤: Overall, there is a paucity of high-quality literature on the rates of return to activity following FNSF.

Capsular release following total shoulder arthroplasty: an analysis of early outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to analyze the outcomes of open and arthroscopic capsular release following total shoulder arthroplasty. METHODS: Over 15 years, 19 patients experienced persistent shoulder stiffness after anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty refractory to nonoperative treatment, requiring either open (n = 5) or arthroscopic (n = 14) capsular release. There were seven (39%) patients who had a prior diagnosis of stiffness before the primary arthroplasty. RESULTS: At a follow-up of 2.3 years (1-5.5), there were changes in range of motion, including forward flexion (77°-117°), abduction (49°-98°), external rotation (9°-19°), internal rotation at 0° (Sacrum to L1), and pain (4.1-2.3) scores (p < 0.01). There were seven (37%) patients that required a reoperation following the initial capsular release. The survival-free of reoperation at 2 and 5 years was 76% and 53%, respectively, while the survival-free of revision surgery at 2 and 5 years was 83%. Furthermore, three (16%) patients required a repeat capsular release. Overall, there were 11 (58%) complications, including stiffness (n = 9), infection (n = 1), subscapularis rupture (n = 2), glenoid loosening (n = 3), and pain with weakness requiring reoperation (n = 1). CONCLUSIONS: Shoulder stiffness after total shoulder arthroplasty is a very difficult pathology to treat, with high rates of complications and reoperations after capsular release. Overall, in patients that do not develop glenoid loosening, capsular release does improve the patient's pain and shoulder motion. Furthermore, when patients develop stiffness, it is critical to rule out other etiologies, such as glenoid loosening, prior to proceeding with capsular release. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: Retrospective case series.

Latarjet Procedure for the Treatment of Anterior Glenohumeral Instability.

Anterior glenohumeral instability is common, with 21.9 first-time dislocations per 100,000 individuals per year. Recurrent instability is more likely to occur in patients who are younger, of male sex, and have bone defects or ligament laxity. The open Latarjet procedure is effective for the treatment of recurrent anterior glenohumeral instability and is preferred over arthroscopic Bankart repair in the presence of glenoid bone loss. The Latarjet procedure involves transferring the coracoid to the anterior aspect of the glenoid in the following steps. Step 1: Preoperative planning includes an assessment of glenoid deformation and the integrity of the rotator cuff. The degree of bone loss is measured with use of the circle-line method. Step 2: The patient is in the beach-chair position with the arm in a pneumatic arm holder. A parallel drill guide system with 3.75-mm cannulated screws is utilized. Step 3: A 5-to-6-cm incision is made along the anterior axillary line. The deltopectoral interval is established, and the cephalic vein is mobilized laterally. The coracoacromial ligament is transected 15 mm lateral to the coracoid to allow later repair to the anterior capsule. The pectoralis minor is released subperiosteally off the medial coracoid. A 90° oscillating saw is used to transect the coracoid medially to laterally. The coracohumeral ligament is released. Step 4: Two 4.0-mm drill-holes are made 1 cm apart through the coracoid. The undersurface is decorticated. Step 5: The subscapularis is split at the junction of the upper two-thirds and lower one-third. A longitudinal capsulotomy is performed parallel to the glenoid. Step 6: Soft tissue, including the capsule and labrum, is removed from the anterior aspect of the glenoid. The bone is decorticated with an osteotome and a rasp. Step 7: The coracoid is positioned flush or 1 mm recessed relative to the glenoid. Two 1.6-mm guidewires are placed with use of a parallel drill guide followed by a cannulated reamer and two 3.75-mm cannulated screws. Step 8: The coracoacromial ligament is repaired to the capsule. Step 9: The subscapularis split is repaired laterally. The deltopectoral interval and skin are closed in a standard fashion. A standardized rehabilitation protocol is employed postoperatively. The Latarjet procedure results in significantly lower rates of recurrent glenohumeral instability and revision compared with the arthroscopic Bankart procedure (3% and 1% compared with 28.4% and 21%, respectively); however, complication rates as high as 30% have been reported, as well as a risk for nerve injury. The videos included in this article highlight the critical steps required to optimize outcomes and minimize complications when performing the Latarjet procedure.

The impact of the reverse prosthesis on revision shoulder arthroplasty: analysis of a high-volume shoulder practice.

BACKGROUND: Since the approval of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) in 2004, the use of shoulder arthroplasty increased dramatically. Although the success of RSA in the revision setting has been demonstrated, there remains a paucity of studies examining the epidemiology of RSA in revision arthroplasty. This study describes trends of revision arthroplasty during the "era of the reverse," from 2005 through 2016. METHODS: In a multicenter retrospective analysis, we analyzed 274 revision shoulder arthroplasties converted to a RSA (n = 182), anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA, n = 68), or hemiarthroplasty (n = 24) from 2005 to 2016. Demographics, surgical indications, and types of prosthesis were analyzed. RESULTS: The number of revision arthroplasties increased over 12 years. From 2005 to 2010, TSA (33%) or hemiarthroplasty (16%) were used in similar rates as RSA (51%). From 2011 to 2016, there was a much higher incidence of revision arthroplasty with RSA (78%) compared with TSA (19%) or hemiarthroplasty (3%). Specifically, the number of RSAs increased in 2011 to 2016 compared with 2005 to 2010 in patients aged younger than 60 years, obese patients, patients with indications of glenoid loosening, and those with a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus or rheumatoid arthritis. CONCLUSIONS: The use of RSA for revision arthroplasty increased over the "era of the reverse" and became the majority by 2016. The reverse prosthesis has had expanding indications regarding both patient demographics and pathology. This study demonstrates the reverse prosthesis has had a similar and even more profound effect on revision shoulder arthroplasty than what has previously been well documented in the primary setting.

Establishing benchmarks for the volume-outcome relationship for common lumbar spine surgical procedures.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The importance of surgeon volume as a quality measure has been defined for a number of surgical specialties. Meaningful procedural volume benchmarks have not been established, however, particularly with respect to lumbar spine surgery. PURPOSE: We aimed to establish surgeon volume benchmarks for the performance of four common lumbar spine surgical procedures (discectomy, decompression, lumbar interbody fusion, and lumbar posterolateral fusion). STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective review of data in the Florida Statewide Inpatient Dataset (2011-2014) was carried out. PATIENT SAMPLE: Patients who underwent one of the four lumbar spine surgical procedures under study comprised the study sample. OUTCOME MEASURE: The development of a complication or hospital readmission within 90 days of the surgical procedure was the surgical outcome. METHODS: For each specific procedure, individual surgeon volume was separately plotted against the number of complications and readmissions in a spline analysis that adjusted for co-variates. Spline cut-points were used to create a categorical variable of procedure volume for each individual procedure. Log-binomial regression analysis was then separately performed using the categorical volume-outcome metric for each individual procedure and for the outcomes of 90-day complications and 90-day readmissions. RESULTS: In all, 187,185 spine surgical procedures met inclusion criteria, performed by 5,514 different surgeons at 178 hospitals. Spline analysis determined that the procedure volume cut-point was 25 for decompressions, 40 for discectomy, 43 for interbody fusion, and 35 for posterolateral fusions. For surgeons who failed to meet the volume metric, there was a 63% increase in the risk of complications following decompressions, a 56% increase in the risk of complications following discectomy, a 15% increase in the risk of complications following lumbar interbody fusions, and a 47% increase in the risk of complications following posterolateral fusions. Findings were similar for readmission measures. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this work allow us to identify meaningful volume-based benchmarks for the performance of common lumbar spine surgical procedures including decompression, discectomy, and fusion-based procedures. Based on our determinations, readily achievable goals for individual surgeons would approximate an average of four discectomy and lumbar interbody fusion procedures per month, three posterolateral lumbar fusions per month, and at least one decompression surgery every other week.

Predicting 1-Year Postoperative Visual Analog Scale Pain Scores and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Function Scores in Total and Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty.

Shared decision-making provides patients a measure of autonomy in making choices for their health and their future. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) use clinically sensitive and specific metrics to evaluate a patient's self-reported pain, functional ability, and mental state. We conducted a study to create an evidence-based clinical decision-making tool. We used PROMs to create a predictive model of a patient's outcome to help set patient expectations and facilitate a collaborative decision-making environment for patient and physician. The study used a comprehensive prospective database that stores preoperative and 1-year postoperative patient demographics and total shoulder arthroplasty PROM data. Linear regression models were used to evaluate the predictive ability of each factor and the overall predictive ability of each model. One model predicts 1-year postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) pain scores; the other predicts 1-year postoperative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) Function scores. The total number of observations was 1004 for modeling 1-year postoperative VAS pain scores and 986 for modeling 1-year postoperative ASES Function scores. Regression coefficients and P and ω2 values are reported. Preoperative VAS pain scores predicted 1-year postoperative VAS pain scores (P < .001) but not 1-year postoperative ASES Function scores (P = .485). Preoperative Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey (VR-12) mental health component summary (MCS) scores predicted self-reported pain and function (Ps < .001) 1 year after surgery. In these models, preoperative VR-12 MCS score was the most predictive PROM for 1-year postoperative VAS pain score (ω2 = .023) and 1-year postoperative ASES Function score (ω2 = .029). Together, a patient's preoperative VAS pain score, ASES Function score, VR-12 MCS score, age, sex, and type of arthroplasty can provide significant predictive value that may aid in setting appropriate expectations for pain and function 1 year after surgery.