The Perfect Circle Technique Shows Poor Inter-rater Reliability in Measuring Anterior Glenoid Bone Loss on Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

Purpose: To evaluate the reliability of the perfect circle methodology for measurement of glenoid bone loss in patients with anterior glenohumeral instability. Methods: We performed a chart review of retrospectively collected patients who underwent isolated arthroscopic anterior labral repair between January 1 and June 30, 2021, using our institution's electronic medical records. The inclusion criteria included isolated anterior shoulder instability with anterior labral repair and corroborated tears on magnetic resonance imaging. A total of 9 raters, either sports or shoulder and elbow fellowship-trained orthopaedic surgeons, each evaluated the affected shoulder magnetic resonance imaging scans twice, with a minimum of 2 weeks between measurements. Measurements followed the "perfect circle" technique and included projected anterior-to-posterior glenoid diameter, amount of posterior bone loss, and percentage of posterior bone loss. Intrarater reliability and inter-rater reliability were then determined by calculating intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Results: Ten consecutive patients meeting the selection criteria were chosen for inclusion in this analysis. Average estimated bone loss for the cohort was 2.45 mm, and the mean estimated glenoid diameter of the involved shoulder was 28.82 mm. The average percentage of bone loss measured 8.54%. The ICC for interobserver reliability was 0.55 for the perfect circle diameter and 0.17 for the anterior bone loss measurement (poorly to moderately reliable). The ICC for intraobserver reliability was 0.69 for the perfect circle diameter and 0.71 for anterior bone loss (moderately reliable). Conclusions: The perfect circle technique for estimating anterior glenoid bone loss on magnetic resonance imaging was found to have moderate intrarater reliability; however, reliability between observers was found to be moderate to poor. Level of Evidence: Level IV, diagnostic case series.

The Perfect-Circle Technique Demonstrates Poor Inter-Rater Reliability in Measuring Posterior Glenoid Bone Loss on Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

Purpose: To evaluate the reliability of the "perfect-circle" methodology for measurement of glenoid bone loss with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients with posterior glenohumeral instability. Methods: A prospective chart review was performed on patients who underwent isolated arthroscopic posterior labral repairs in our institution's electronic medical records between January 1, 2021, and June 30, 2021. Inclusion criteria included isolated posterior shoulder instability with posterior labral repair and corroborated tears on MRI. A total of 9 raters, either sports or shoulder and elbow fellowship-trained orthopaedic surgeons, each evaluated the affected shoulder MRI scans twice, at over 2 weeks apart. Measurements followed the "perfect-circle" technique and included projected anterior-to-posterior (AP) glenoid diameter, amount of posterior bone loss, and percentage of posterior bone loss. Results: Ten consecutive patients between the ages of 17 and 46 years with diagnosed posterior glenohumeral instability were selected. The average age was 28 ± 10 years, and 60% of patients were male. The patient's dominant arm was affected in 40%, and 50% of cases involved the right shoulder. The average glenoid diameter was 29.62 ± 3.69 mm, and the average measured bone loss was 2.8 ± 1.74 mm. The average percent posterior glenoid bone loss was 9.41 ± 5.78%. The inter-rater reliability was poor for the AP diameter and for the posterior glenoid bone loss with intraclass correlation coefficients at 0.30 (0.12-0.62) and 0.22 (0.07-0.54) respectively. The intrarater reliability was poor for AP diameter and moderate for posterior glenoid bone loss, with intraclass correlation coefficients at 0.41 (0.22-0.57) and 0.50 (0.33-0.64), respectively. Conclusions: Using the "perfect-circle" technique for evaluating posterior glenohumeral bone loss has poor-to-moderate inter- and intrarater reliability from MRI. Level of Evidence: Level IV, prospective diagnostic study.

Complication and revision rates after reverse total shoulder revision from hemiarthroplasty: a systematic review.

Background: Thus, the purpose of the present study was to (1) characterize common postoperative complications and (2) quantify the rates of revision in patients undergoing hemiarthroplasty to reverse total shoulder arthroplasty revisional surgery. We hypothesize that hardware loosenings will be the most common complication to occur in the sample, with the humeral component being the most common loosening. Methods: This systematic review adhered to PRISMA reporting guideline. For our inclusion criteria, we included any study that contained intraoperative and/or postoperative complication data, and revision rates on patients who had undergone revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty due to a failed hemiarthroplasty. Complications include neurologic injury, deep surgical site infections, hardware loosening/prosthetic instability, and postoperative fractures (acromion, glenoid, and humeral fractures). Results: The study contained 22 studies that assessed complications from shoulders that had revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty from a hemiarthroplasty, with a total sample of 925 shoulders. We found that the most common complication to occur was hardware loosenings (5.3%), and of the hardware loosenings, humeral loosenings (3.8%) were the most common. The revision rate was found to be 10.7%. Conclusion: This systematic review found that revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for failed hemiarthroplasty has a high overall complication and reintervention rates, specifically for hardware loosening and revision rates.

Reoperation and Complication Rates Following Patellar Fracture Repair with Plates: A Retrospective Analysis with Patient-Reported Outcomes at More than 1 Year of Follow-up.

Recent work has suggested good clinical and functional results with dorsal surface plating of patellar fractures. The primary outcome measurement of this study was reoperation rates for patellar fractures that had been treated with dorsal plating. Methods: This work consists of a retrospective review of clinical and functional outcome data following repair of patellar fractures with dorsal plates. We obtained institutional review board approval for this study and conducted a review of 9 consecutive years of our group's trauma practice. We also contacted patients to assess patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after 12 months. Results: Eighty-five patellar fractures were treated with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) via plating over 9 years. Eight (9.41%) of the patients required reoperation. Of the 72 patients with complete follow-up of ≥12 weeks, 3 (4.17%) had nonunion of the fracture site and 4 (5.56%) had loss of reduction of the fracture. The average Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score among our sample was 18.84 (slight symptoms); 72.41% of the patients in our sample had slight or no symptoms at ≥12 months postoperatively. Conclusions: Our results indicated that plating of comminuted patellar fractures is a safe, viable treatment strategy. The PROs at ≥12 months of follow-up data were promising. Additionally, dorsal plating may allow for early return of function and less postoperative bracing. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Clinical Trial Registry Use in Orthopaedic Surgery Systematic Reviews.

BACKGROUND: Results from systematic reviews and meta-analyses, which have the highest level of evidence (Level I), often drive clinical decision-making and health policy. Often, unpublished trial data are omitted from systematic reviews, raising concerns about the extent of the reliability and validity of results that have been drawn from systematic reviews. We aimed to determine the extent to which systematic review authors include searches of clinical trial registries for unpublished data when conducting systematic reviews in orthopaedic surgery. METHODS: Systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses were gathered from the top 5 orthopaedic surgery journals based on the h5-index from Google Scholar Metrics. Systematic reviews that had been published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, which requires the inclusion of a clinical trial registry search, served as controls. For the primary outcome, each systematic review from the top 5 orthopaedic journals was screened to determine whether the authors of each study searched for unpublished data in clinical trial registries. We then compared the rate of registry searches with those in the control group. For the secondary analysis, a search of ClinicalTrials.gov was performed for unpublished trial data for 100 randomized systematic reviews. RESULTS: All 38 of the Cochrane systematic reviews (100%) included clinical trial registry searches, while the top 5 orthopaedic journals had only 31 of 480 studies (6.5%) that looked at clinical trial registries. The secondary analysis yielded 59 of 100 systematic review articles (59.0%) that could have included unpublished clinical trial data from ≥1 studies to their sample. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic reviews that have been published in the top orthopaedic surgery journals seldom included a search for unpublished clinical trial data. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The exclusion of clinical trial registry searches potentially contributes to publication bias within the orthopaedic literature. Moving forward, systematic review authors should include clinical trial registry searches for unpublished clinical trial data to provide the most accurate representation of the available evidence for systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Clinical characteristics and lifestyle behaviors among individuals with arthritis: an analysis of 2017 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System data.

CONTEXT: The combination of osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis affects nearly one-fourth of Americans. Many of the risk factors for arthritis are lifestyle related, such as obesity, physical activity, dietary behaviors, and alcohol and tobacco use. OBJECTIVE: To analyze lifestyle behaviors of patients with vs. those without arthritis. METHODS: A cross-sectional analysis of 2017 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) data was conducted on patients with and without a history of arthritis. Physical activity, smoking status, alcohol use, and dietary behaviors were extracted. Logistic regression models were constructed to calculate adjusted risk ratios (ARRs). All confidence intervals (CIs) were reported at 95%. RESULTS: The median response rate for the 2017 BRFSS survey was 45.1% (sample n=292,808; population N=118,751,156). The overall prevalence of arthritis was 44% (n=128,850). Respondents with arthritis were significantly more likely to be physically inactive than nonarthritic respondents, with a significant gender interaction (male absolute risk reduction [ARR], 1.2 [CI, 1.15-1.25]; female ARR, 1.29 [CI, 1.24-1.33]). Those with arthritis were also more likely to be current smokers (ARR 1.1; CI, 1.05-1.15) and less likely to have attempted to quit smoking in the last 12 months (ARR, 0.91; CI, 0.87-0.96). Finally, men with arthritis were more likely to drink alcohol heavily (ARR, 1.14; CI, 1.02-1.27]). CONCLUSION: Patients with arthritis were more likely to be women, White, current smokers, and physically inactive, and to have poor mental health, lower education levels, and difficulty paying for healthcare and medications than those without arthritis. Further efforts should be made to address these findings through resource allocation in the care of patients with arthritis. Practitioners should also seek increased understanding of the psychological, social, and economic impacts of physical activity and smoking in patients with arthritis.

The Potential Effect of Lowering the Threshold of Statistical Significance From P < .05 to P < .005 in Orthopaedic Sports Medicine.

PURPOSE: To determine how changing the P value threshold of statistical significance from .05 to .005 could affect the statistical significance of findings in previously published orthopaedic sports medicine randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: The authors searched PubMed from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2017, for RCTs published in the American Journal of Sports Medicine, Arthroscopy, and Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy. Data were extracted blinded and in duplicate fashion by 2 of us. The authors then extracted P value data for primary end points, since RCTs are most often powered for these end points. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Google Forms were used for data extraction and STATA 15.1 for the data analysis. RESULTS: In total, 275 primary end points were identified from 132 trials. Analysis of primary end points found 45.8% (126/275) had a P value less than .05 and were classified as statistically significant under the current threshold, whereas 54.2% (149/275) had a P value greater than .05 and were not classified as suggestive. Of those end points that were previously considered statistically significant, 38.9% (49/126) were less than .005, whereas 61.1% (77/126) were between .005 and .05 and thereby would be reclassified as suggestive rather than statistically significant under the proposed threshold. Overall, when analyzing the 275 primary end points, we found only 49 (17.8%) of the end points were less than .005 and would hold statistical significance with the proposed threshold. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that if the threshold of statistical significance were to change to .005, the significance of orthopaedic sports medicine RCTs would be heavily altered. The authors also acknowledge the many issues research faces in regard to P value reliability and therefore interpretation of study results. Because P values from RCTs can often influence the ways physicians choose interventions, it is important to implement methodology that decreases incidence of bias and misrepresentation of these results. However, the authors also understand that lowering the P value could increase the needed sample size and by consequence increase study costs as well, while not directly correlating to clinical significance. Thus, the authors recommend that this proposed threshold should be further evaluated and cautiously interpreted. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: If the statistical significance threshold is changed, clinical practice guideline recommendations also may be affected.

Evaluation of the Clarity and Completeness of Reporting in Orthopedic Clinical Practice Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) can positively affect the quality of patient care offered by physicians because they decrease variability in clinical practice and may help reduce unnecessary testing, promoting a more responsible use of resources. Building on existing framework for reporting guideline development, including the work of the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research Network, the Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) Working Group created a 2016 checklist of 35 items considered essential for high-quality reporting of CPGs. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate how many previously published CPGs in orthopedic surgery met the RIGHT criteria and assess how improvements can be made in future orthopedic CPGs based on any found deficiencies. METHODS: All 18 CPGs published before January 1, 2018, by the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS) are publicly available on orthoguidelines.org. Two authors downloaded each file and both of those authors independently scored each CPG using piloted abstraction RIGHT checklist forms. RESULTS: Of the 35 RIGHT criteria outlined in 22 checklist items, 23 (65.7%) were met across all AAOS guidelines, 6 (17.1%) were not met by any of the AAOS guidelines, and 6 (17.2%) were met by some of the AAOS guidelines. CONCLUSION: Overall, the AAOS guidelines addressed many important recommendations within the RIGHT checklist. Assessing adherence to the RIGHT checklist can help ensure that future guidelines are more effectively communicated, hopefully assisting end users in efficient implementation and increasing the level of evidence-based patient care.