Bilateral Anterior Shoulder Dislocation: A Systematic Review.

Objectives: To compile the existing literature on bilateral anterior shoulder dislocation (BASD) and analyze patient demographics, mechanisms of injury, injury characteristics, management, and outcome. Methods: This systematic review was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Online databases, including Ovid Medline 1946-, Embase.com 1947-, Scopus 1960-, Cochrane Central, and Clinicaltrials.gov were systematically queried. Studies eligible for inclusion were case reports or case-series, documenting BASD. Two reviewers independently screened and applied a set of a priori exclusion criteria to each returned study. Data were extracted, compiled, and synthesized from each reported case of BASD. Contingency tables/Chi-Square Analyses, T-tests, and univariate regression analyses were conducted to assess relationships between different variables. Results: Eighty-one studies (87 cases of BASD) were included. Patients were 41.1 (SD± 19.5) years old and most were male (n=63; 72.4%). Around a quarter of patients (28.7%) had a history of epilepsy/seizures or were being worked-up for such. Younger males were more likely to have BASD due to a seizure or electrocution (P<0.05). Close to a third of cases (n=27; 31.0%) were delayed in presentation. Those sustaining seizures or electrocutions were more likely to be delayed in presentation (P=0.013). Most events resulted in simple dislocations that were closed reduced successfully. BASD resulting from seizures or electrocutions were more likely to be fracture-dislocations (P=0.018); and in younger patients with fracture-dislocations, closed reduction was more often to fail or not be attempted (P<0.05). Median follow-up was 6 months (IQR: 3 months - 12 months). Seven patients (10.6%) had complications and 4 (2.3%) demonstrated recurrent instability. Conclusion: In young males presenting with BASD without known trauma, suspicion should be high for a convulsant event. In patients with a known seizure disorder who present with chronic bilateral shoulder or arm pain, BASD should be considered and work-up should be expedited to avoid misdiagnosis.

Virtual Reality and Surgical Simulation Training for Orthopaedic Surgery Residents: A Qualitative Assessment of Trainee Perspectives.

Background: The demonstrated benefits of virtual reality (VR) in orthopaedic surgical training are numerous. However, it is relatively unknown how best to implement VR into an already established orthopaedic resident education curriculum and how trainees will engage and use these technologies longitudinally. Methods: This was an exploratory, qualitative research study performed in accordance with Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research guidelines. Orthopaedic surgery residents at a single institution were recruited during the 2022 to 2023 academic year. Semistructured interviews were conducted. Data were analyzed through grounded theory methodology, beginning with open coding, followed by axial coding, and concluding with selective coding that describes orthopaedic surgery residents' current perceptions of VR as a training tool. Results: Six residents participated in interviews before thematic saturation was achieved. Average interview length was 13:27 (±2:59) minutes. Residents felt that currently, VR is most useful for interns and junior residents as an educational adjunct for learning anatomy, surgical exposures, and the steps of a procedure in a risk- and judgment-free arena. There seems to be a "ceiling effect" with VR given current technological limitations, and residents remarked that there is an associated "opportunity cost" with using VR technology. Some residents may find it more time-efficient to study texts, videos, or surgical guides rather than use VR. Cost (limited number of headsets) and technological barriers (i.e., hardware, software, and Wi-Fi issues) were some of the described barriers to VR utilization. Residents felt that there needs to be dedicated technological support to help with these issues. At this time, given these limitations of VR, many preferred VR as an optional educational adjunct rather than as a required curricular tool or assessment of surgical competency. Conclusions: There is current utility for VR in orthopaedic surgical training. Future technological advances may make VR more central to resident education. This study describes resident perceptions about the technology and best use practices for the technology. Level of Evidence: Qualitative Study, Level V Evidence.

Who doesn't fit? A multi-institutional study using machine learning to uncover the limits of opioid prescribing guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Many U.S. institutions have adopted postsurgical opioid-prescribing guidelines to standardize prescribing practices, and yet there is inherent variability in patients' opioid consumption after surgery. The utility of these guidelines is limited by the fact that some patients' needs will inevitably exceed them, and yet there are no evidence-based tools to help providers identify these patients. In this study we aimed to maximize the value of these guidelines by training machine learning models to predict patients whose needs will be met by these smaller recommended prescriptions, and patients who may require an additional degree of personalization. The aim of the present study was to develop predictive models for determining whether a surgical patient's postdischarge opioid requirement will fall above or below common opioid prescribing guidelines. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of surgical patients at one institution from 2017 to 2018. Patients were called after discharge to collect opioid consumption data. Machine learning models were used to identify outlier opioid consumers (ie, exceeding our institutional prescribing guidelines) using diagnosis codes, medical history, in-hospital opioid use, and perioperative factors as predictors. External validation was performed on opioid consumption data collected at a second institution from 2020 to 2021, and sensitivity analysis was performed using a third institution's prescribing guidelines. RESULTS: The development and external validation cohorts included 1,867 and 498 patients, respectively. Age, body mass index, tobacco use, preoperative opioid exposure, and in-hospital opioid consumption were the strongest predictors of postdischarge consumption. A lasso regression model exhibited an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.74 (95% confidence interval 0.67-0.81) in predicting postdischarge opioid consumption. External validation of a limited lasso model yielded an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.67 (0.60-0.74). Performance was preserved when evaluated on another institution's guidelines (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.76 [0.72-0.80]). CONCLUSION: Patient characteristics reliably predict postdischarge opioid consumption in relation to prescribing guidelines for both opioid-naive and exposed populations. This model may be used to help providers confidently follow prescribing guidelines for patients with typical opioid responsiveness and correctly pursue more personalized prescribing for others.

Evaluation of U.S. state opioid prescribing restrictions using patient opioid consumption patterns from a single, urban, academic institution.

Background: Since 2017, states, insurers, and pharmacies have placed blanket limits on the duration and quantity of opioid prescriptions. In many states, overlapping duration and daily dose limits yield maximum prescription limits of 150-350 morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs). There is limited knowledge of how these restrictions compare with actual patient opioid consumption; while changes in prescription patterns and opioid misuse rates have been studied, these are, at best, weak proxies for actual pain control consumption. We sought to determine how patients undergoing surgery would be affected by opioid prescribing restrictions using actual patient opioid consumption data. Methods: We constructed a prospective database of post-discharge opioid consumption: patients undergoing surgery at one institution were called after discharge to collect opioid consumption data. Patients whose opioid consumption exceeded 150 and 350 MME were identified. Results: Two thousand nine hundred and seventy-one patients undergoing 54 common surgical procedures were included in our study. Twenty-one percent of patients consumed more than the 150 MME limit. Only 7% of patients consumed above the 350 MME limit. Typical (non-outlier) opioid consumption, defined as less than the 75th percentile of consumption for any given procedure, exceeded the 150 MME and 350 MME limits for 41 and 7% of procedures, respectively. Orthopedic, spinal/neurosurgical, and complex abdominal procedures most commonly exceeded these limits. Conclusions: While most patients undergoing surgery are unaffected by recent blanket prescribing limits, those undergoing a specific subset of procedures are likely to require more opioids than the restrictions permit; providers should be aware that these patients may require a refill to adequately control post-surgical pain. Real consumption data should be used to guide these restrictions and inform future interventions so the risk of worsened pain control (and its troublesome effects on opioid misuse) is minimized. Procedure-specific prescribing limits may be one approach to prevent misuse, while also optimizing post-operative pain control.