ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: To determine the reasons and factors that contribute to the cancellations of shoulder surgeries at a tertiary referral center and to analyze the characteristics of these patients. METHODS: Patients scheduled for shoulder surgery from June 2017 to July 2019 were allocated to a surgery group (n=224) or a cancellation group (n=96). These groups were compared with respect to patient characteristics, types of surgery, distance from patient's home to the hospital, traveling time to the hospital, and waiting period before surgery. Reasons for cancellation and responses were acquired using a telephone interview and were subsequently analyzed. RESULTS: The cancellation group was older, had a less frequent history of trauma, and had a lower proportion of patients undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair than the surgery group (p=0.009, p=0.014, and p=0.017, respectively). In addition, mean distance from the patients' homes to the hospital and preoperative waiting time were both longer in the cancellation group (p=0.001 and p<0.01, respectively). The most common reason given for cancellation was another medical condition (28.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Older age, need for arthroscopic rotator cuff repair surgery, longer distance from the patient's home to the hospital, and longer waiting period significantly increased the chance of cancellation. The main reason for canceling surgery was a concurrent medical condition. Therefore, identification of other medical conditions in advance is an important consideration when surgeons recommend shoulder surgery to patients. Surgeons should also consider patient's age, type of surgery, distance from the hospital, and waiting time when assessing the possibility of surgery cancellation.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The acetabular index and center-edge angle are widely used radiographic parameters. However, the exact landmarks for measuring these parameters are not clearly defined. Although their measurement is straightforward when the lateral osseous margin of the acetabular roof coincides with the lateral end of the acetabular sourcil, where these two landmarks disagree, recommendations have differed about which landmark should be used. Using a radiographic parameter with high reliability for predicting residual hip dysplasia helps avoid unnecessary treatment. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We aimed to (1) compare two landmarks (the lateral osseous margin of the acetabular roof and the lateral end of the acetabular sourcil) for measuring the acetabular index and center-edge angle with respect to intraobserver and interobserver reliability and the predictability of residual hip dysplasia in patients with developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) and (2) evaluate longitudinal change in the acetabular edge's shape after closed reduction with the patient under general anesthesia. METHODS: Between February 1985 and July 2006, we performed closed reduction with the patient under general anesthesia as well as cast immobilization in 116 patients with DDH. To be included in this study, a patient had to have dislocated-type DDH. We excluded patients with a hip dislocation associated with neuromuscular disease, arthrogryposis, or congenital anomalies of other organs or systems (n = 9); hips that underwent osteotomy within 1 year since closed reduction (n = 8); hips that underwent open reduction because of re-dislocation after closed reduction (n = 4); and hips with Type III or IV osteonecrosis according to Bucholz-Ogden's classification (n = 4). Ninety-one patients were eligible. We excluded 19% (17 of 91) of the patients, who were lost to follow-up before they were 8 years old, leaving 81% (74 of 91 patients) with full preoperative and most-recent data. Ninety-seven percent (72 patients) were girls and 3% (two patients) were boys. The mean ± standard deviation age was 14.0 months ± 6.4 months (range 3-40 months) at the time of closed reduction and 12.1 years ± 2.3 years (range 8.0-16.0 years) at the time of the latest follow-up examination, the duration of which averaged 11 years ± 2.2 years (range 6.5-15.4 years). To investigate whether longitudinal change in the acetabular edge's shape differed among hips with DDH, contralateral hips, and control hips, we identified control participants after searching our hospital's database for patients with a diagnosis of congenital idiopathic hemihypertrophy from October 2000 to November 2006 who had AP hip radiographs taken at 3 years old and then at older than 8 years. From 29 patients who met these criteria, we randomly excluded two male patients to match for sex because girls were predominant in the DDH group. We excluded another female patient from the control group because of a hip radiograph that revealed unacceptable rotation. Eventually, 26 patients were assigned to the control group. Control patients consisted of 24 girls (92%) and two boys (8%). The demographic characteristics of control patients was not different from those of 67 patients with unilateral DDH, except for laterality (left-side involvement: 64% [43 of 67] in the DDH group versus 38% [10 of 26] in the control group; odds ratio 1.7 [95% confidence interval, 1.0-2.8]; p = 0.035). The acetabular index and center-edge angle at 3 years old were measured using the lateral osseous margin of the acetabular roof (AIB and CEAB) and the lateral end of the acetabular sourcil (AIS and CEAS). The treatment outcome was classified as satisfactory (Severin Grade I or II) or unsatisfactory (Grade III or IV). The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to compare the intraobserver and interobserver reliability of each method. We compared the predictability of residual hip dysplasia of each method at 3 years old as a proxy using the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUC) curve. To evaluate longitudinal change in the acetabular edge's shape, we compared the proportion of hips showing coincidence of the two landmarks between 3 years old and the latest follow-up examination. To investigate whether the longitudinal change in the acetabular edge's shape differs among hips with DDH, contralateral hips, and control hips, we compared the proportion of coincidence among the three groups at both timepoints. RESULTS: Intraobserver and interobserver reliabilities were higher for the CEAB (ICC 0.96; 95% CI, 0.94-0.98 and ICC 0.88; 95% CI, 0.81-0.92, respectively) than for the CEAS (ICC 0.81; 95% CI, 0.70-0.88 and ICC 0.69; 95% CI, 0.55-0.79, respectively). The AIB (AUC 0.88; 95% CI, 0.80-0.96) and CEAB (AUC 0.841; 95% CI, 0.748-0.933) predicted residual hip dysplasia better than the AIS (AUC 0.776; 95% CI, 0.67-0.88) and CEAS (AUC 0.72; 95% CI, 0.59-0.84) (p = 0.03 and p = 0.01, respectively). The proportion of hips showing coincidence of the two landmarks increased from 3 years old to the latest follow-up examination in hips with DDH (37% [25 of 67] to 81% [54 of 67]; OR = 8.8 [95% CI, 3.1-33.9]; p < 0.001), contralateral hips (42% [28 of 67] to 85% [57 of 67]; OR = 16.5 [95% CI, 4.2-141.9]; p < 0.001), and control hips (38% [10 of 26] to 88% [23 of 26]; OR = 14 [95% CI, 2.1-592.0]; p = 0.001). The proportion of coincidence in hips with DDH was not different from that in the contralateral hips and control hips at both timepoints. CONCLUSIONS: Measuring the acetabular index and center-edge angle at 3 years old using the lateral osseous margin of the acetabular roof has higher reliability for predicting residual hip dysplasia than that using the lateral end of the acetabular sourcil in patients with DDH treated with closed reduction. Measuring the acetabular index and center-edge angle at an early age using the lateral end of the sourcil may lead to overdiagnosis of residual hip dysplasia and unnecessary treatment. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, diagnostic study.
