Race and Socioeconomic Status Are Associated With Inferior Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Following Rotator Cuff Repair.

PURPOSE: To investigate the impact social determinants of health (SDOH) have on National Institutes of Health Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) computer adaptive test scores and postoperative health care use in patients who undergo rotator cuff repair (RCR). METHODS: All patients who underwent RCR surgery by 3 shoulder and/or sports medicine fellowship-trained orthopaedic surgeons between July 2017 and January 2020 were included. The electronic medical record (EMR) was used to identify SDOH for each patient. PROMIS computer adaptive test measures of Upper Extremity function, Pain Interference, and Depression were completed preoperatively and postoperatively (6 months and 1 year). Postoperative health care use (clinical visits, virtual encounters, imaging encounters, and physical therapy visits) were recorded as well. Univariate associations, multiple linear regressions, and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to analyze mean differences between patient groups based on SDOH. RESULTS: Three hundred thirty-eight patients who underwent RCR were included. Patients who were Black, in lower median household income quartiles, had public insurance, and female reported lower PROMIS scores compared with their counterparts. Smokers and White patients attended fewer postoperative office visits whereas Black patients had more physical therapy and nonvisit encounters compared with their respective counterparts. CONCLUSIONS: Black race and lower socioeconomic status are associated with worse function and pain outcomes post-RCR compared with White race. Similarly, Black race and positive smoking status are associated with differential use of health care following RCR. Further attention may be required for these patients to address health care disparities. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, retrospective cohort study.

Athletes Perceive Weighted Baseballs to Carry a Notable Injury Risk, yet Still Use Them Frequently: A Multicenter Survey Study.

INTRODUCTION: Weighted baseball use in throwing programs is widespread; however, their use remains controversial. Prior research shows that weighted baseball programs can increase ball velocity but potentially increase throwing arm injuries. This study aims to ascertain perceptions of weighted baseballs among elite baseball players. METHODS: A created online survey questioned common practices, throwing regimens, injury risk factors, and weighted baseball program use. The questions were modeled to ascertain the perceptions of elite baseball players to understand their experience with weighted baseballs. Descriptive statistical analysis was conducted. RESULTS: Three hundred seventy-six baseball players with a mean age of 20 ± 2 years completed the survey; 64% of the players (239/376) were pitchers. 71% (267/376) reported the use of weighted baseballs. Of those, 75% (199/267) thought it made them a better player. Overall, 73% (275/377) thought weighted baseballs are a risk for injury. 17% (46/267) attributed their injury to using weighted baseballs. Overall, participants reported a mean 72% ± 30% likelihood of future weighted baseball use. CONCLUSION: Most of the participating elite adult baseball players reported prior weighted baseball use with a corresponding improvement in pitching performance despite a perceived increased injury risk. Nearly 20% of the players attributed pain or injury to weighted baseball use. Moreover, the players surveyed intend to continue using weighted baseballs because of the perceived performance benefit.

Preoperative Opioid Use Is Associated With Inferior Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Scores Following Rotator Cuff Repair.

PURPOSE: To determine the influence of preoperative opioid use on Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) scores pre- and postoperatively in patients undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (RCR). METHODS: A retrospective review of all RCR patients aged >18 years old was performed. PROMIS pain interference ("PROMIS PI"), upper extremity function ("PROMIS UE"), and depression ("PROMIS D") scores, were reviewed. These measures were collected at preoperative, 6-month, and 1-year postoperative time points. A prescription drug-monitoring program was queried to track opioid prescriptions. Patients were categorized as chronic users, acute users, and nonusers based on prescriptions filled. Comparison of means were carried out using analysis of variance and least squares means. Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals were calculated. RESULTS: In total, 184 patients who underwent RCR were included. Preoperatively, nonusers (n = 92) had superior PROMIS UE (30.6 vs 28.9 vs 26.1; P < .05) and PI scores (61.5 vs 64.9 vs 65.3; P < .001) compared with acute users (n = 65) and chronic users (n = 27), respectively. At 6 months postoperatively; nonusers demonstrated significantly greater PROMIS UE (41.7 vs 35.6 vs. 33.5; P < .001), lower PROMIS D (41.6 vs 45.8 vs 51.1; P < .001), and lower PROMIS PI scores (50.7 vs 56.3 vs 58.1; P < .01) when compared with acute and chronic users, respectively. Nonusers had lower PROMIS PI (47.9 vs 54.3 vs 57.4; P < .0001) and PROMIS D (41.6 vs 48.3 vs 49.2; P = .0002) scores compared with acute and chronic users at 1-year postoperatively. Nonusers experienced a significantly greater magnitude of improvement in PROMIS D 6 months postoperatively compared with chronic opioid users (-5.9 vs 0.0; P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing RCR demonstrated superior PROMIS scores pre- and postoperatively if they did not use opioids within 3 months before surgery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, retrospective comparative trial.

Risk factors for failure to achieve minimal clinically important difference and significant clinical benefit in PROMIS computer adaptive test domains in patients undergoing rotator cuff repair.

BACKGROUND: The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) has emerged as a valid and efficient means of collecting outcomes in patients with rotator cuff tears. The purpose of this study was to establish threshold score changes to determine minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) in PROMIS computer adaptive test (CAT) scores following rotator cuff repair (RCR). Additionally, we sought to identify potential risk factors for failing to achieve MCID and SCB. METHODS: Patients undergoing arthroscopic RCR were identified over a 24-month period. Only patients who completed both preoperative and postoperative PROMIS CAT assessments were included in this cohort. PROMIS CAT forms for upper extremity physical function (PROMIS-UE), pain interference (PROMIS-PI), and depression (PROMIS-D) were used with a minimum of 1.5-year follow-up. Statistical analysis was performed to determine threshold score changes to determine anchor-based MCID and SCB, as well as risk factors for failure to achieve significant clinical improvement following surgery. RESULTS: Of 198 eligible patients, 168 (84.8%) were included in analysis. ΔPROMIS-UE values of 5.8 and 9.7 (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.906 and 0.949, respectively) and ΔPROMIS-PI values of -11.4 and -12.9 (AUC = 0.875 and 0.938, respectively) were identified as threshold predictors of MCID and SCB achievement. On average, 81%, 65%, and 55% of patients achieved MCID for PROMIS-UE, PROMIS-PI, and PROMIS-D whereas 71%, 61%, and 38% of patients in the cohort, respectively, achieved SCB. MCID achievement in PROMIS-UE significantly differed according to risk factors, including smoking status (likelihood ratio [LR]: 9.8, P = .037), tear size (LR: 10.4, P < .001), distal clavicle excision (LR: 6.1, P = .005), and prior shoulder surgery (LR: 19.2, P < .001). Factors influencing SCB achievement for PROMIS-UE were smoking status (LR: 9.3, P = .022), tear size (LR: 8.0, P = .039), and prior shoulder surgery (11.9, P < .001). Significantly different rates of MCID and SCB achievement in PROMIS-PI for smoking status (LR: 7.0, P = .030, and LR: 5.2, P = .045) and prior shoulder surgery (LR: 9.1, P = .002, and LR: 7.4, P = .006) were also identified. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The majority of patients showed clinically significant improvements that exceeded the established MCID for PROMIS-UE and PROMIS-PI following RCR. Patients with larger tear sizes, a history of prior shoulder surgery, tobacco users, and those who received concomitant distal clavicle excision were at risk for failing to achieve MCID in PROMIS-UE. Additionally, smokers and patients who underwent prior shoulder surgery demonstrated significantly lower improvements in pain scores following surgery.

Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function Instruments Compare Favorably With Legacy Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Upper- and Lower-Extremity Orthopaedic Patients: A Systematic Review of the Literature.

PURPOSE: To compare Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function (PF) with traditional ("legacy") patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in regard to correlations, ease of use, and quality criteria for upper (UE) and lower extremity (LE) orthopaedic conditions. METHODS: A systematic search of the PubMed/MEDLINE database was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to identify published articles that referenced the various PROMIS PF measures. Two authors independently reviewed selected studies. The search returned 857 studies, 85 of which were selected for independent review by 2 authors. Of these, 54 were selected for inclusion. Mixed linear models were performed to assess for differences between legacy PROMs and PROMIS measures. RESULTS: The combined sample size of all included studies yielded 6,074 UE and 9,366 LE patients. Overall, PROMIS PF measures demonstrated strong correlations with legacy PROMs among UE (weighted Pearson correlation, 0.624, standard error [SE] = 0.042; weighted Spearman correlation, 0.566, SE = 0.042) and LE patients (weighted Pearson correlation, 0.645, SE = 0.062; weighted Spearman correlation, 0.631, SE = 0.041). PROMIS PF questionnaires completed by UE patients had fewer questions than legacy PROMs (5.9 vs 17.7, P = .0093) and were completed in less time (90.5 vs 223.8 seconds, P = .084). PROMIS PF questionnaires completed by LE patients had fewer questions than legacy PROMs (4.81 vs 15.33, P < .001) and were completed in less time (63.6 vs 203.2 seconds, P = .0063). The differences for the reliability measures were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: PROMIS PF scores correlate strongly with commonly used legacy PROMs in orthopaedics, particularly in UE and LE patients. PROMIS PF forms can be administered efficiently and to a broad patient population while remaining highly reliable. Therefore, they can be justified for standardized use among orthopaedic patients with UE and LE conditions, improving the ability to aggregate and compare outcomes in orthopaedic research. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level I-IV evidence.

Trends in Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Scores Exist Between Day of Surgical Scheduling and Day of Surgery.

PURPOSE: To examine trends in Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) scores among orthopedic sports medicine patients undergoing surgery who completed PROMIS forms both in the ambulatory (preoperative) setting at the time of surgical scheduling, as well as on the day of surgery (perioperative) prior to their procedure. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing various sports medicine-related surgeries were recruited. Patients were included if they were scheduled for surgery and completed preoperative PROMIS on the day of surgical scheduling and on the day of surgery. Patients were excluded if they refused the questionnaire or had been administered perioperative anesthesia, which would interfere with questionnaire completion. Paired samples t-tests were run between preoperative and perioperative PROMIS scores to determine statistical significance. RESULTS: 153 patients were included with an average age of 46.5 years. The average (SD) time between completion of PROMIS questionnaires was 46.5 (44.4) days. The absolute value change in scores between preoperative and perioperative visits was 4.09 for PROMIS UE, 3.59 for PROMIS PF, 3.67 for PROMIS PI, and 4.13 for PROMIS D. The overall net change of scores between preoperative and perioperative visits were -.57 for PROMIS UE CAT, .16 points for PROMIS PF CAT, -.85 points for PROMIS PI CAT, and -2.14 points for PROMIS D CAT. Statistically significant differences in preoperative and perioperative PROMIS PI (P =.042) and PROMIS D (P =.004) scores were found. CONCLUSIONS: Health states-as measured by PROMIS CAT forms completed among patients undergoing orthopedic surgery-can either improve or worsen preoperatively between the time of administration in both the ambulatory and perioperative setting. Despite the existence of these preoperative trends, it is important to consider patient and surgery-specific causes, such as the anatomic region, type of surgical intervention, and timing of preoperative PROMIS administration. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, prognostic.

Quadriceps Tendon Repair Using Double-Row Suture Anchor Fixation.

Quadriceps tendon ruptures compromise the knee extensor mechanism and cause an inability to ambulate and significant functional limitations. Therefore, the vast majority of quadriceps tendon ruptures are indicated for operative intervention to restore patient mobility and function. Although these injuries were traditionally repaired using a transosseous repair technique, recent literature has shown that suture anchor repair may offer biomechanical advantages. Additionally, research in other areas of orthopaedics has found that a double-row suture anchor construct can offer additional biomechanical strength to tendinous repair. This technical note describes a safe and effective quadriceps tendon repair using a double-row suture anchor construct.

Patients With Preoperative Clinical Depression Symptomology Experience Significant Improvements in Postoperative Pain, Function, and Depressive Symptoms Following Rotator Cuff Repair.

PURPOSE: To determine the impact of clinical depression on outcomes after rotator cuff repair (RCR), as measured by Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Computer Adaptive Test (CAT) health domains. METHODS: RCR patients were given PROMIS CAT assessments for physical function (PROMIS UE), pain interference (PROMIS PI), and depression (PROMIS D) during preoperative and postoperative clinic visits. PROMIS D scores ≥55 correlate with mild clinical depression; thus patients with PROMIS D scores ≥ 55 were placed in the clinical depression (CD) group, whereas patients with scores <55 were placed in the "no clinical depression" (NCD) group. Categorical variables were compared at preoperative and postoperative (6 months and ≥1 year) timepoints using χ2 tests. Continuous variables were compared using Student's t-tests. RESULTS: Of the 340 RCR patients included in this study, 65 (19.1%) were found to have mild clinical depression preoperatively, with that number being reduced to 23 (6.8%) at 6 months and 19 (5.6%) at ≥1 year after surgery. Compared with preoperative PROMIS scores, CD patients had significant postoperative improvements at 6 months and ≥1 year in mean PROMIS UE (26.7 vs 35.5 vs 38.9; P < .001) and PROMIS PI (67.6 vs 56.7 vs 56.4; P < .001). NCD patients had similar postoperative improvements at 6 months and ≥1 year in mean PROMIS UE (30.8 vs 38.6 vs 46.9; P < .001) and PROMIS PI (61.7 vs 53.0 vs 47.6; P < .001). The improvement in PROMIS scores was similar for the CD and NCD groups in both PROMIS UE (12.2 vs 16.1, respectively) and PROMIS PI (-11.2 vs -14.1, respectively). CONCLUSION: Despite starting with worse PROMIS UE and PROMIS PI scores, patients undergoing RCR with symptoms of CD experienced significant improvement in function, pain, and depressive symptoms. Preoperative depression should not be a contraindication to arthroscopic RCR in patients who are otherwise appropriate operative candidates. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative trial.