Increasing rates of ulnar collateral ligament repair outpace reconstruction in isolated injuries: review of a Texas surgical database.

Background: The gold standard of treatment for ulnar collateral ligament (UCL) injuries has been reconstruction. Despite early repair studies yielding less than satisfactory results, there has been recent renewed interest in UCL repair due to improved outcomes and new technologies. Data regarding clinical use of these procedures are lacking. The purpose of this study was to define the epidemiological trends of UCL repair and reconstruction surgery from 2010 to 2019, compare demographic characteristics of patients undergoing either procedure, and determine incidence of concomitant procedures in each surgical group as well as comparing respective patient-level charges. Methods: A retrospective database analysis of UCL surgeries was performed through the Texas Healthcare Information Collection database, a comprehensive and publicly available statewide billing dataset. Inclusion criteria were defined using Current Procedural Terminology billing codes for elbow UCL repair and reconstruction between 2010 through 2019, excluding patients who had concomitant elbow fractures or lateral collateral ligament tears indicative of high-energy trauma. Procedural volume changes, patient demographics, and commonly performed concomitant procedures including elbow arthroscopy, ulnar nerve surgery, and platelet-rich plasma injection were compared. Total patient-level charges were compared across groups. Results: A total of 1664 patients were included, consisting of 484 UCL repairs and 1180 reconstructions. Total UCL surgeries increased eleven-fold when corrected for population growth from 2010 (N = 25) to 2019 (N = 315). In 2010, repair constituted 23% of all UCL tear surgeries and increased to 40% by the end of 2019. The annual frequency of UCL repair increased at a 5.4% faster rate than UCL reconstruction from 2010 to 2019 (P < .001). There were no significant differences between any demographic data between UCL repair and reconstruction except for rural surgical settings which demonstrated 1.8 times greater odds of undergoing reconstruction (P = .05). There were no differences among commonly associated procedures including ulnar nerve surgery (P = .217), elbow arthroscopy (P = .092), and platelet-rich plasma injection (P = .837) with no differences in patient-level charges at any time point (P = .47). Conclusion: While reconstruction remains more common, the annual frequency of UCL repair is increasing at a faster rate. Since were no demographic differences aside from surgical setting, it can be inferred that patients who were previously receiving reconstruction are instead undergoing repair. This highlights the need for future studies to further identify surgical indications for the two interventions.

Trends in Acromioplasty Utilization During Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair: An Epidemiological Study of 139,586 Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Acromioplasty remains very common during rotator cuff repair (RCR) despite limited evidence of clinical efficacy. This study observed the incidence of acromioplasty from 2010 to 2018 in Texas using a publicly available database. METHODS: A total of 139,586 records were analyzed from the Texas Healthcare Information Collection database ranging from 2010 to 2018. These cases were divided into those with and without acromioplasty (N = 107,427 and N = 32,159, respectively). Acromioplasty use was standardized as the number of acromioplasties per RCR (acromioplasty rate). Two subgroup analyses were conducted: surgical institution type and payor status. RESULTS: In 2010, acromioplasty occurred in 84% of all RCR cases with nearly continuous decline to 74% by 2018 (P < 0.001). All subgroups followed this pattern except teaching hospitals which displayed insignificant change from 2010 to 2018 (P = 0.99). The odds of receiving acromioplasty in patients with neither Medicare nor Medicaid was higher than those with Medicare or Medicaid coverage (odds ratio = 1.36, P < 0.001). DISCUSSION: Overall acromioplasty rates decreased modestly, but markedly, beginning in 2012. Despite this small decrease in acromioplasty rate, it remains a commonly performed procedure in conjunction with RCR. Both the academic status of the surgical facility and the payor status of the patient affect the acromioplasty rate.

Is outpatient shoulder arthroplasty safe in patients aged ≥65 years? A comparison of readmissions and complications in inpatient and outpatient settings.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies indicate that outpatient total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) is cost-effective and may have a low complication rate similar to inpatient TSA. However, existing studies have included younger patient cohorts who typically possess fewer medical comorbidities. Patients aged ≥65 years are commonly enrolled in Medicare, which has traditionally designated TSA as an inpatient-only procedure. The purpose of this study was to compare surgical complication rates and 90-day readmission rates between inpatient and outpatient TSA performed in adults aged ≥65 years. METHODS: Medical records for all patients aged ≥65 years who underwent primary anatomic or reverse TSA by a single surgeon from July 2015 to May 2020 were reviewed. Patients were preselected for outpatient or inpatient surgery based on lack of significant cardiopulmonary comorbidities and patient preference. Demographics, body mass index (BMI), and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores were collected in addition to emergency department (ED) visits and readmissions within 90 days of the index surgery. Relationships among frequency and types of complications and surgical setting (inpatients vs. outpatient) were assessed. Complication rates and demographic variables between inpatient and outpatient procedures were compared. Logistic regressions were performed to account for interacting predictor variables on the odds of having complications. RESULTS: A total of 145 shoulders (138 patients; 95 male, 43 female) were included in the analysis, of which 98 received inpatient TSA and 47 received outpatient TSA. Average age was 75.5 ± 7.2 for inpatient TSA and 70.5 ± 4.5 for outpatient TSA (P < .001). Patient age (P < .001), ASA score ≥3 (P < .001), and reverse TSA (P = .002) were significantly positively correlated with receiving inpatient surgery. There were 16 complications (16.3%) in the inpatient group and 9 complications (19.1%) in the outpatient group (P = .648). There were no significant differences in the frequency of postoperative complications, return to the ED, or reoperations between inpatient and outpatient procedures (P > .05). Each 1-year increase in age increased the predicted odds of having a surgical complication by 14% (odds ratio = 1.14; P = .021), irrespective of surgical setting. Those who underwent inpatient TSA had a significantly higher frequency of 90-day readmission (inpatient=16, outpatient=1; P = .034). CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative complications and ED returns were not significantly different between inpatient and outpatient TSA. Each 1-year increase in age increased the odds of postoperative surgical complications by 14%, regardless of surgical setting. Outpatient TSA was found to be safe for appropriately selected patients aged ≥65 years, and re-evaluation of TSA as an inpatient-only procedure should be considered.