Single Shot Interscalene Block with Liposomal Bupivacaine versus Non-Liposomal Bupivacaine in Shoulder Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Regional anesthesia is a valuable component of multimodal pain control in total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA), and multiple interscalene block anesthetic options exist, including non-liposomal interscalene bupivacaine (NLIB) and liposomal interscalene bupivacaine (LIB). The purpose of the current of study was to compare pain control and opioid consumption within 48 hours postoperative in those undergoing TSA with either LIB or NLIB. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study at a single academic medical center including consecutive patients undergoing inpatient (>23-hour hospitalization) primary anatomic or reverse TSA from 2016 to 2020 who received either LIB or a NLIB for perioperative pain control. Perioperative patient outcomes were collected including pain levels and opioid usage, as well as 30- and 90-day ED visits or readmissions. The primary outcome was postoperative pain and opioid use. RESULTS: Overall, 489 patients were included in this study (316 LIB and 173 NLIB). Pain scores at 3, 6, 12, and 48 hours postoperatively were not statistically significantly different (p>0.05 for all). However, the LIB group had improved pain scores at 24- and 36-hours postoperative (p<0.05 all). There was no difference in the incidence of severe postoperative pain, defined as a 9 or 10 NRS-11 score, between the two anesthesia groups after adjusting for preoperative pain and baseline opioid use (OR: 1.25; 95% CI: 0.57-2.74; p=0.57). Overall, 99/316 (31.3%) of patients receiving LIB did not require any postoperative opioids compared with 38/173 (22.0%) receiving NLIB; however, this difference was not statistically significant after adjusting for prior opioid use and preoperative pain (p=0.33). No statistically significant differences in postoperative total morphine equivalents or mean daily morphine equivalents consumed between the groups were found during their hospital stays (p>0.05 for both). Finally, no significant differences in 30- and 90-day ED visits or readmission rates were found (all p>0.05). CONCLUSION: LIB and NLIB demonstrated differences in patient reported pain scores at 24- and 36-hours post operation, although these did not reach clinical significance. There were no statistically significant differences in opioid consumption during the hospital stay, including opioid use, total morphine equivalents and daily mean morphine equivalents consumed during the hospital stay. Additionally, no differences were observed in 30- and 90-day ED visits or readmission rates.

Defining Pseudoparalysis & Pseudoparesis - A Consensus Study.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to establish consensus statements via a modified Delphi process on the definition of shoulder pseudoparalysis and pseudoparesis. METHODS: A consensus process on the definition of a diagnosis of pseudoparalysis utilizing a modified Delphi technique was conducted, and 26 shoulder/sports surgeons from 11 countries, selected based on their level of expertise in the field, participated in these consensus statements. Consensus was defined as achieving 80-89% agreement, whereas strong consensus was defined as 90-99% agreement, and unanimous consensus was indicated by 100% agreement with a proposed statement. RESULTS: Three statements regarding the diagnosis of pseudoparalysis reached strong (>89%) consensus: passive range of motion (ROM) should be unaffected, the passive range of abduction should not be considered and diagnosis should be excluded if lidocaine injection produces a substantial improvement in range of motion. Additionally, consensus (>79%) was reached that the active range of external rotation should not be considered for diagnosis, pain as a cause of restricted motion must be excluded, and that distinctions between restricted active flexion and external rotation should be made by ROM rather than tear characteristics. No consensus could be reached on statements regarding the size, number of tendons or chronicity of cuff tears. Nor was there agreement on the active range of flexion permitted or on the difference between pseudoparalysis and pseudoparesis. CONCLUSION: A modified Delphi process was utilized to establish consensus on the definition of shoulder pseudoparalysis and pseudoparesis. Unfortunately, almost half of the statements did not reach consensus, and agreement could not be reached across all domains for a unifying definition for the diagnosis of pseudoparalysis in the setting of RCTs. Furthermore, it was not agreed how or whether pseudoparalysis should be differentiated from pseudoparesis. Based on the lack of a consensus for these terms, studies should report explicitly how these terms are defined when they are used.

Risk Factors for Recurrence Following Arthroscopic Bankart Repair - A Systematic.

BACKGROUND: Recurrent instability remains a major source of morbidity following arthroscopic Bankart repair. Many risk factors and predictive tools have been described, but there remains a lack of consensus surrounding individual risk factors and their contribution to outcomes. PURPOSE: To systematically review the literature to identify and quantify risk factors for recurrence following arthroscopic Bankart repair. METHODS: A literature search was performed using the PubMed/Medline databases based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies were included if they evaluated risk factors for recurrent instability following arthroscopic Bankart repair. RESULTS: Overall, 111 studies were included in the analysis, including a total of 19,307 patients and 2,750 episodes of recurrent instability with 45 risk factors described. Age at operation was reported by 60 studies, with 35 finding increased risk at younger ages. Meta-analysis showed a two-fold recurrence rate of 27.0% (171/634) for patients under 20 years old compared to 13.3% (197/1485) for older patients (p<0.001). Seventeen studies completed multivariable analysis, 13 of which were significant (Odds Ratio 1.3-14.0). Glenoid bone loss was evaluated by 39 studies, with 20 finding an increased risk. Multivariable analysis in 9 studies found OR ranging from 0.7-35.1; 6 were significant. Off-track Hill-Sachs lesions were evaluated in 21 studies (13 significant), with 3 of 4 studies that conducted multivariable analysis finding a significant association with odds ratio of 2.9-8.9 of recurrence. The number of anchors used in repair was reported by 25 studies, with 4 finding increased risk with fewer anchors. Pooled analysis demonstrated a 25.0% (29/156) risk of recurrence with 2 anchors compared to 18.1% (89/491) with 3 or more anchors (p=0.06). Other frequently described risk factors included glenohumeral joint hyperlaxity (46% of studies reporting a significant association), number of preoperative dislocations (31%), contact sport participation (20%), competitive sport participation (46%), patient sex (7%), and concomitant SLAP tear (0%). CONCLUSION: Younger age, glenoid bone loss, and off-track Hill-Sachs lesions, are established risk factors for recurrence following arthroscopic Bankart repair. Other commonly reported risk factors included contact and competitive sports participation, number of fixation devices, and patient sex.

Outcomes of Arthroscopic Stabilization for Posterior Shoulder Instability - A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Posterior shoulder instability makes up approximately 10% of all shoulder instability cases and its diagnosis and treatment is less well understood. Recently, however, there has been increased recognition of posterior instability and posterior stabilization. The purpose of this study was to systematically review the literature to ascertain the outcomes on arthroscopic stabilization of posterior shoulder instability. METHODS: Two independent reviewers conducted a systematic literature search based on PRISMA guidelines, utilizing the MEDLINE database. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they reported postoperative outcomes for posterior shoulder instability following arthroscopic stabilization. RESULTS: A total of 48 studies met inclusion criteria for review including 2307 shoulders. Majority of patients were male (83.3%), with an average age of 26.1 years and a mean follow-up of 46.8 months. The functional outcome score primarily utilized for postoperative assessment was ASES with an average of 84.77. Overall, 90.9% of patients reported being satisfied with their arthroscopic stabilization. Recurrent instability occurred in 7.4% of patients. The total revision rate was 5.2%. 16.6% of patients reported residual pain postoperatively. The rate of return to play was 86.4% with 68.0% of patients returning to play at the same or higher level of play. CONCLUSION: Arthroscopic stabilization of posterior shoulder instability resulted in good outcomes with high patient satisfaction and low rates of recurrent instability, revisions, and residual pain.

Posterior Shoulder Instability, Part I-Diagnosis, Nonoperative Management, and Labral Repair for Posterior Shoulder Instability-An International Expert Delphi Consensus Statement.

PURPOSE: To establish consensus statements on the diagnosis, nonoperative management, and labral repair for posterior shoulder instability. METHODS: A consensus process on the treatment of posterior shoulder instability was conducted, with 71 shoulder/sports surgeons from 12 countries participating on the basis of their level of expertise in the field. Experts were assigned to 1 of 6 working groups defined by specific subtopics within posterior shoulder instability. Consensus was defined as achieving 80% to 89% agreement, whereas strong consensus was defined as 90% to 99% agreement, and unanimous consensus was indicated by 100% agreement with a proposed statement. RESULTS: Unanimous agreement was reached on the indications for nonoperative management and labral repair, which include whether patients had primary or recurrent instability, with symptoms/functional limitations, and whether there was other underlying pathology, or patient's preference to avoid or delay surgery. In addition, there was unanimous agreement that recurrence rates can be diminished by attention to detail, appropriate indication and assessment of risk factors, recognition of abnormalities in glenohumeral morphology, careful capsulolabral debridement and reattachment, small anchors with inferior placement and multiple fixation points that create a bumper with the labrum, treatment of concomitant pathologies, and a well-defined rehabilitation protocol with strict postoperative immobilization. CONCLUSIONS: The study group achieved strong or unanimous consensus on 63% of statements related to the diagnosis, nonoperative treatment, and labrum repair for posterior shoulder instability. The statements that achieved unanimous consensus were the relative indications for nonoperative management, and the relative indications for labral repair, as well as the steps to minimize complications for labral repair. There was no consensus on whether an arthrogram is needed when performing advanced imaging, the role of corticosteroids/orthobiologics in nonoperative management, whether a posteroinferior portal is required. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V, expert opinion.

Outcomes and Complications of Revision Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty Following Failed Primary Anatomical Shoulder Arthroplasty or Hemiarthroplasty: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to systematically review the evidence in the literature to ascertain the functional outcomes, range of motion (ROM) and complication and reoperation rates following revision reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) for a failed primary total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) or hemiarthroplasty (HA). METHODS: Two independent reviewers performed the literature search based on PRISMA guidelines, utilizing the EMBASE, MEDLINE, and The Cochrane Library Databases. Studies were included if they reported clinical outcomes for revision RSA for a failed primary TSA or HA. RESULTS: Our review found 23 studies including 1,041 shoulders (627 TSA, 414 HA) meeting our inclusion criteria. The majority of patients were female (66.1%), with an average age of 69.0 years (range 39-93) with a mean follow-up of 46.3 months. ASES and VAS pain scores improved from 32.6 to 61.9 and 6.7 to 2.7, respectively. ROM results including forward flexion, abduction and external rotation that improved from 59.4° to 107.7°, 50.7° to 104.4°, and 19.8° to 26.3° respectively. Only one out of the ten studies reporting internal rotation found a statistically significant difference with mean internal rotation improving from S1-S3 preoperatively to L4-L5 postoperatively for patients undergoing HA. The overall complication rate and reoperation rate were 23.4% and 12.5% respectively. The most common complications were glenoid component loosening (6.0%), fracture (periprosthetic, intraoperative, or other scapula fractures) (n=4.7%), and infection (n=3.3%). CONCLUSION: Revision RSA for a failed primary TSA and HA has been shown to result in excellent functional outcomes and improved ROM suggesting patients who have failed TSA or HA may benefit from a revision RSA.

Posterior Shoulder Instability Part II - Glenoid Bone-Grafting, Glenoid Osteotomy, and Rehabilitation/Return to Play - An International Expert Delphi Consensus Statement.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to establish consensus statements on glenoid bone-grafting, glenoid osteotomy, rehabilitation, return to play, and follow-up for posterior shoulder instability. METHODS: A consensus process on the treatment of posterior shoulder instability was conducted, with 71 shoulder/sports surgeons from 12 countries participating based on their level of expertise in the field. Experts were assigned to one of 6 working groups defined by specific subtopics within posterior shoulder instability. Consensus was defined as achieving 80-89% agreement, whereas strong consensus was defined as 90-99% agreement, and unanimous consensus was indicated by 100% agreement with a proposed statement. RESULTS: All of the statements relating to rehabilitation, return to play, and follow-up achieved consensus. There was unanimous consensus that the following criteria should be considered: restoration of strength, range of motion, proprioception, and sport-specific skills, with a lack of symptoms. There is no minimum time point required to return to play. Collision athletes and military athletes may take longer to return because of their higher risk for recurrent instability, and more caution should be exercised in clearing them to return to play, with elite athletes potentially having different considerations in returning to play. The relative indications for revision surgery are symptomatic apprehension, multiple recurrent instability episodes, further intra-articular pathologies, hardware failure, and pain. CONCLUSION: The study group achieved strong or unanimous consensus on 59% of statements. Unanimous consensus was reached regarding the criteria for return to play, collision/elite athletes having different considerations in return to play, indications for revision surgery, and imaging only required as routine for those with glenoid bone-grafting/osteotomies at subsequent follow-ups. There was no consensus on optimal fixation method for a glenoid bone-block, the relative indications for glenoid osteotomy, whether fluoroscopy is required or if the labrum should be concomitantly repaired. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V Expert Opinion.

Artificial intelligence in shoulder and elbow surgery: overview of current and future applications.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is amongst the most rapidly growing technologies in orthopedic surgery. With the exponential growth in healthcare data, computing power, and complex predictive algorithms, this technology is poised to aid providers in data processing and clinical decision support throughout the continuum of orthopedic care. Understanding the utility and limitations of this technology is vital to practicing orthopedic surgeons, as these applications will become more common place in everyday practice. AI has already demonstrated its utility in shoulder and elbow surgery for imaging-based diagnosis, predictive modeling of clinical outcomes, implant identification, and automated image segmentation. The future integration of AI and robotic surgery represents the largest potential application of AI in shoulder and elbow surgery with the potential for significant clinical and financial impact. This editorial's purpose is to summarize common AI terms, provide a framework to understand and interpret AI model results, and discuss current applications and future directions within shoulder and elbow surgery.

Long-term outcomes of anterior shoulder instability treated with open latarjet procedure - a systematic review of outcomes at a minimum 15-year follow-up.

Background: To systematically review the literature to evaluate the outcomes following an open Latarjet (OL) procedure at a minimum 15-year follow-up. Methods: Two independent reviewers performed a literature search using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines using 3 databases. Only studies reporting outcomes of OL procedure with a minimum of 15 years of follow-up were included. Results: Nine studies composed of 326 shoulders (78.2% males) in 313 patients were included (average age 26.9 ± 3.2 years (15-58)), with a mean follow-up of 271.9 ± 69.2 months (180-420) At a minimum 15-year follow-up, 93.5% (286 of 306) patients reported being satisfied with their OL procedure, whilst 86.8% (177 of 204) reported good/excellent outcomes at final follow-up. All nine of the included studies reported an overall rate of recurrent instability was 7.7%, with re-dislocations and subluxation at 3.4% and 5.8%, respectively. The rate of surgical revision was 5.15%; 3.5% of cases were revised for recurrent instability. Instability arthropathy was reported across all included studies as 41.0%. Conclusion: The OL procedure results in satisfactory clinical outcomes, low rates of recurrent instability and surgical revision at a minimum 15-year follow-up. Although high levels of radiological instability arthropathy and residual pain are found over the same period, these appear stable from a minimum of 10-year follow-up data. Level of Evidence: IV; a systematic review of all levels of evidence.

Return to play following operative management of anterior shoulder instability in overhead athletes-A systematic review.

Background: The purpose of this study was to systematically review the rate and timing of return to play in overhead athletes following operative management of anterior shoulder instability. Methods: A systematic literature search based on PRISMA guidelines, utilizing the EMBASE, MEDLINE, and The Cochrane Library Databases. Eligible for inclusion were clinical studies reporting on return to play among overhead athletes following arthroscopic Bankart repair, open Latarjet procedure or Remplissage procedure. Results: There are 23 studies included with 961 patients. Among those undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair, the rate of return to play was 86.2%, with 70.6% returning to the same level of play and the mean time to return to play was 7.1 months. Among those undergoing an open Latarjet procedure, the rate of return to play was 80.9%, with 77.7% returning to the same level of play and the mean time to return to play was 5.1 months. Among those undergoing a Remplissage procedure, the rate of return to play was 70.6%, with 70.0% returning to the same level of play or mean time to return to play. Discussion: Overall, there were high rates of return to play following operative management of anterior shoulder instability in overhead athletes.

Utility of Superior Augments in Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty (Exactech, Equinoxe GPS) without Significant Glenoid Deformity.

INTRODUCTION: Superior augment use may help avoid superior tilt while minimizing removal of inferior glenoid bone. Therefore, our goal is to compare superior augments versus no augment baseplates in RSA for patients with rotator cuff dysfunction and no significant superior glenoid erosion. METHODS: A multicenter retrospective analysis of 145 patients who underwent RSA with intraoperative navigation (Exactech, Equinoxe GPS) and three-year follow-up (mean 32-month follow-up, range 20 to 61 months) who had preoperative superior inclination less than 10 degrees and retroversion less than 15 degrees. Patient demographics, radiographic measurements, surgical characteristics, patient-reported outcomes at preoperative and postoperative visit closest to three years, and adverse events at final follow-up were obtained. Operative time, planned inclination, and planned version of the baseplate were obtained. Chi-square test used to compare categorical variables and student t-test used to compare augment and no augment cohorts. RESULTS: The study population consisted of 54 superior augment patients and 91 no augment patients. The augment cohort had lower BMI (27.2 vs. 29.4, p-0.023), higher native superior inclination (5.9 vs. 1.4 degrees, p<0.001). No difference between the augment and no augment cohorts was found regarding age (p=0.643), gender (p=0.314), medical comorbidities (p>0.05), surgical indication (p=0.082), and native glenoid version (p=0.564). The augment cohort had higher internal rotation score (4.6 vs. 3.9, p=0.023), all remaining ROM and PROs preoperatively were not significantly different. At final follow-up, active ROM in all planes was not different between the cohorts. Regarding PROs, the postoperative SAS score was significantly higher (78.0 vs. 73.6, p=0.042), and ASES score trended towards higher (83.6 vs. 77.5, p=0.063) in the augment cohort. The augment cohort had significantly lower proportion of patients planned to have superior baseplate tilt (1.9% vs. 14.3%, p=0.012), and had greater mean inclination correction (6.3 vs. 1.3 degrees, p<0.001), compared to no augment cohort. Adverse events were rare, and there was no significant difference found between the augment and no augment cohorts (5.6% vs. 3.3%, p=0.509). DISCUSSION: Superior augmented baseplate in RSA with minimal superior glenoid erosion is associated with similar ROM and adverse events with somewhat improved postoperative PROs compared to non-augmented baseplates at 3-year follow-up. Additionally, superior augments resulted in a greater proportion of baseplates planned to avoid superior tilt, and trended toward shorter operative times. Further investigation of long-term glenoid baseplate loosening is imperative to fully understand the cost-effectiveness of superior augments in the setting of minimal glenoid deformity.

Evaluation of information from artificial intelligence on rotator cuff repair surgery.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to analyze the quality and readability of information regarding rotator cuff repair surgery available using an online AI software. Methods: An open AI model (ChatGPT) was used to answer 24 commonly asked questions from patients on rotator cuff repair. Questions were stratified into one of three categories based on the Rothwell classification system: fact, policy, or value. The answers for each category were evaluated for reliability, quality and readability using The Journal of the American Medical Association Benchmark criteria, DISCERN score, Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease Score and Grade Level. Results: The Journal of the American Medical Association Benchmark criteria score for all three categories was 0, which is the lowest score indicating no reliable resources cited. The DISCERN score was 51 for fact, 53 for policy, and 55 for value questions, all of which are considered good scores. Across question categories, the reliability portion of the DISCERN score was low, due to a lack of resources. The Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease Score (and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level) was 48.3 (10.3) for the fact class, 42.0 (10.9) for the policy class, and 38.4 (11.6) for the value class. Conclusion: The quality of information provided by the open AI chat system was generally high across all question types but had significant shortcomings in reliability due to the absence of source material citations. The DISCERN scores of the AI generated responses matched or exceeded previously published results of studies evaluating the quality of online information about rotator cuff repairs. The responses were U.S. 10th grade or higher reading level which is above the AMA and NIH recommendation of 6th grade reading level for patient materials. The AI software commonly referred the user to seek advice from orthopedic surgeons to improve their chances of a successful outcome.

Bone Marrow Stimulation for Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: Bone marrow stimulation (BMS) has been proposed to augment healing at the time of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR) by creating several bone marrow vents in the footprint of the rotator cuff, allowing mesenchymal stem cells, platelets, and growth factors to cover the area as a "crimson duvet." PURPOSE: To perform a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the outcomes after BMS and a control for those undergoing ARCR. STUDY DESIGN: Meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 1. METHODS: A literature search of 3 databases was performed based on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. RCTs comparing BMS and a control for ARCR were included. Clinical outcomes were compared, and a P value <.05 was considered to be statistically significant. RESULTS: A total of 7 RCTs with 576 patients were included. Overall, 18.8% of patients treated with BMS and 21.0% of patients treated with a control had a retear (I2 = 43%; P = .61). With BMS, the mean Constant score was 88.2, and with the control, the mean Constant score was 86.7 (P = .12). Additionally, there was no significant difference in the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (94.3 vs 93.2, respectively; P = .31) or visual analog scale score (0.9 vs 0.9, respectively; P = .89). CONCLUSION: The level 1 evidence in the literature did not support BMS as a modality to improve retear rates or clinical outcomes after ARCR.

Tranexamic Acid for Rotator Cuff Repair: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: Several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been conducted to assess the use of tranexamic acid (TXA) in the setting of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR). However, these studies have shown mixed results, with some showing improved intraoperative visualization, subsequent operative times, and pain levels, and others finding no difference. PURPOSE: To perform a systematic review of the RCTs in the literature to evaluate the use of TXA on ARCR. STUDY DESIGN: Meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 1. METHODS: Two independent reviewers performed the literature search based on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, with a third author resolving any discrepancies. RCTs comparing TXA with a control in ARCR were included. Visualization, postoperative pain, operative time, pump pressures, and shoulder swelling were evaluated. A P value < .05 was deemed statistically significant. RESULTS: Six RCTs with 450 patients were included in this review. Overall, 5 studies evaluated intraoperative visualization, with 3 studies finding a significant difference in favor of TXA. With TXA, patients had a lower mean postoperative visual analog scale (VAS) score of 3.3, and with the control, patients had a mean VAS score of 4.1, which was statistically significant (P = .001). With TXA, the mean weighted operation time was 79.3 minutes, and with the control, the mean operation time was 88.8 minutes, which was statistically significant (P = .001). No study found any difference in intraoperative pump pressures or swelling. CONCLUSION: TXA improved visualization, operative time, and subsequent postoperative pain levels in patients undergoing ARCR.

Outcomes After Revision Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR) is one of the most commonly performed orthopaedic procedures; however, it is unclear how to manage patients with symptomatic retears. PURPOSE: To perform a systematic review to evaluate the outcomes of revision ARCR in the literature. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: A systematic literature search based on PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines was performed utilizing the Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Library databases. Eligible for inclusion were clinical studies reporting on revision rotator cuff repair. Clinical outcomes were recorded. RESULTS: The 17 included studies were composed of 888 shoulders in 885 patients. The mean age of the 885 patients was 58.6 ± 9.1 years, with a mean follow-up of 28.1 ± 22.1 months. The mean visual analog scale score was 2.1 ± 1.8, the mean American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score was 75.0 ± 18.3, and the mean Constant score was 67.4 ± 16.6. The overall rate of retears after revision was 25.3%, with an 8.0% reoperation rate including 2.7% undergoing reverse shoulder arthroplasty and 2.0% undergoing subsequent rotator cuff repair. Finally, the complication rate was 8.6%. CONCLUSION: Revision ARCR improved patient-reported outcomes, with 92% of patients free from reoperations at a mean follow-up of 2 years. Overall, 78.4% of patients were satisfied at final follow-up; however, the rate of retears was found to be higher than after primary ARCR.

Evaluation High-Quality of Information from ChatGPT (Artificial Intelligence-Large Language Model) Artificial Intelligence on Shoulder Stabilization Surgery.

PURPOSE: To analyze the quality and readability of information regarding shoulder stabilization surgery available using an online AI software (ChatGPT), using standardized scoring systems, as well as to report on the given answers by the AI. METHODS: An open AI model (ChatGPT) was used to answer 23 commonly asked questions from patients on shoulder stabilization surgery. These answers were evaluated for medical accuracy, quality, and readability using The JAMA Benchmark criteria, DISCERN score, Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease Score (FRES) & Grade Level (FKGL). RESULTS: The JAMA Benchmark criteria score was 0, which is the lowest score, indicating no reliable resources cited. The DISCERN score was 60, which is considered a good score. The areas that open AI model did not achieve full marks were also related to the lack of available source material used to compile the answers, and finally some shortcomings with information not fully supported by the literature. The FRES was 26.2, and the FKGL was considered to be that of a college graduate. CONCLUSIONS: There was generally high quality in the answers given on questions relating to shoulder stabilization surgery, but there was a high reading level required to comprehend the information presented. However, it is unclear where the answers came from with no source material cited. It is important to note that the ChatGPT software repeatedly references the need to discuss these questions with an orthopaedic surgeon and the importance of shared discussion making, as well as compliance with surgeon treatment recommendations. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: As shoulder instability is an injury that predominantly affects younger individuals who may use the Internet for information, this study shows what information patients may be getting online.

Return to Play After Surgical Treatment for Acromioclavicular Joint Dislocation: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Acromioclavicular (AC) joint dislocation is a common clinical problem among young and athletic populations. Surgical management is widely used for high-grade dislocations (Rockwood III-VI) and in high-demand athletes at high risk of recurrence. PURPOSE: To systematically review the evidence in the literature to ascertain the rate and timing of return to play (RTP) and the availability of specific criteria for safe RTP after surgical treatment for AC joint dislocation. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: A systematic literature search based on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines was conducted in the PubMed database. Clinical studies were eligible for inclusion if they reported on RTP after surgical treatment for AC joint dislocation. Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS. RESULTS: We found 120 studies including 4327 cases meeting our inclusion criteria. The majority of patients were male (80.2%), with a mean age of 37.2 years (range, 15-85) and a mean follow-up of 34.5 months. Most were recreational athletes (79%), and the most common sport was cycling. The overall rate of RTP was 91.5%, with 85.6% returning to the same level of play. Among collision athletes, the rate of RTP was 97.3%, with 97.2% returning to the same level of play. In overhead athletes, the rate of RTP was 97.1%, with 79.2% returning to the same level of play. The mean time to RTP was 5.7 months (range, 1.5-15). Specific RTP criteria were reported in the majority of the studies (83.3%); time to return to play was the most commonly reported item (83.3%). Type III Rockwood injuries had the highest RTP rate at 98.7% and the earliest RTP at 4.9 months. Among the different surgical techniques, Kirschner wire fixation had the highest rate of RTP at 98.5%, while isolated graft reconstruction had the earliest RTP at 3.6 months. CONCLUSION: The overall rate of RTP was reportedly high after surgical treatment for AC joint dislocation, with the majority of patients returning to their preinjury levels of sport. There is a lack of consensus in the literature for what constitutes a safe RTP, with further focus on this topic required in future studies.

Estimates of Golf-Related Upper Extremity Injuries in the United States: A 10-Year Epidemiology Study (2011-2020).

BACKGROUND: Golf is one of the most popular sports in the United States (US) and is played by participants of all ages and skill level. Given the popularity and sport-specific demands on the upper torso, golf poses a considerable risk for upper extremity (UE) injuries. Therefore, the aim of the current study was to (1) determine the incidence rate of UE golf injuries presenting to emergency departments (EDs) in the US, (2) determine the most commonly injured body parts and mechanisms of injury, and (3) compare current injury epidemiology with previous trends in the literature. HYPOTHESIS: Male sex, bimodal age extremes (young and elderly), and utilization of golf carts (vs walking) are associated with a higher incidence of golf-related UE injuries. STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive epidemiology study. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3. METHODS: The National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) is a statistically validated injury surveillance system that collects data from ED visits as a representative probability sample of hospitals in the US. We queried the NEISS for the years 2011 to 2020 to examine the following variables for golf-related UE injuries: sociodemographic, diagnosis, body part, and mechanism of injury. RESULTS: From 2011 to 2020, there were a total of 1862 golf-related UE injuries presenting to participating EDs, which correlates to an estimated 70,868 total injuries. Overall, male golf players were disproportionately affected (69.2%) versus female golf players (30.8%) and the most commonly injured age groups were those aged >60 and 10 to 19 years. The most common injuries included fractures (26.8%), strains/sprains (23.4%), and soft tissue injuries (15.9%). The joints injured most frequently were the shoulder (24.8%), wrist (15.6%), and joints in the hand (12.0%). The most common mechanisms of injury were cart accidents (44.63%), falling/tripping (29.22%), and golf club swinging/mechanics (10.37%). CONCLUSION: Golf-related UE injuries can be acute or due to chronic overuse. Male athletes >60 years of age were the population most commonly presenting to the ED with a golf-related injury. Further, the shoulder, forearm, and wrist were most commonly injured. These findings are consistent with previous epidemiological trends in the literature. Interventions to reduce the incidence of injury should be sport-specific and focus primarily on equipment and golf cart safety and swing modification to optimize the biomechanical function of the UEs. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Our findings indicate that golf-related injury prevention programs should target UE injuries, particularly among young (<19) and older (>60 years) golfers with poor swing mechanics.

Majority of Studies Show Similar Rates of Return to Play After Arthroscopic Bankart Repair or Latarjet Procedure: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: To systematically review the current evidence in the literature to compare return to play following arthroscopic Bankart repair versus open Latarjet procedure for the treatment of anterior shoulder instability. METHODS: A literature search was performed based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Comparative studies reporting return to play following arthroscopic Bankart repair versus open Latarjet procedure were included. Return to play was compared, with all statistical analysis performed using Review Manager, Version 5.3. RESULTS: Nine studies with 1,242 patients (mean age: 15-30 years) were included. The rate of return to play was 61% to 94.1% among those undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair and 72% to 96.8% in those undergoing an open Latarjet procedure. Two studies (Bessiere et al. and Zimmerman et al.) found a significant difference in favor of the Latarjet procedure (P < .05 for both, I2 = 37%). The rate of return to play at preinjury level was 9% to 83.8% among those undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair and 19.4% to 80.6% in those undergoing an open Latarjet procedure, with no study finding a significant difference (P > .05 for all, I2 = 0%). The mean time of return to play was 5.4 to 7.3 months among those undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair and 5.5 to 6.2 months in those undergoing an open Latarjet procedure, with no study finding a significant difference (P > .05 for all, I2 = 39%). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the majority of studies showed no significant difference in rates of return to play or timing following arthroscopic Bankart repair or open Latarjet procedure. Furthermore, no study has found a significant difference in rate of return to play at pre-injury level, or rate of return to play among collision athletes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, systematic review of Level I-III studies.