Internal Rotation Limitation is Prevalent Following Modern Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty and Negatively Affects Patients' Subjective Rating of the Procedure.

BACKGROUND: While forward elevation, abduction, and external rotation are often successfully restored, internal rotation (IR) is frequently not satisfactorily recovered following reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA), affecting patients' ability to perform certain daily activities. This study examined the prevalence of limited IR in patients receiving modern RSA and its impact on clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction with their RSA. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted on patients who had undergone primary RSA using a modern RSA prosthesis with a minimum one-year follow-up. Patients returned for a research visit where they were examined for range of motion and surveyed for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and subjective rating of the success level of their RSA. Postoperative range of motion data were compared with the preoperative data. The relationship of postoperative IR with PROMs and patients' subjective rating of RSA was analyzed. Logistic regression was performed to identify factors affecting patients' subjective rating of RSA. RESULTS: A total of 78 patients met the criteria and completed the study. A significant portion (59%) reported subjective IR limitations, and 41% showed objective IR limitations. Comparison of preoperative and postoperative IR showed that 24% had worsened IR, while 33% improved. Limited IR was associated with lower patients' subjective rating of RSA and negatively impacted PROMs, especially when the dominant side was operated on. Regression analysis showed that limited IR was the only independent determining factor that was significantly associated with lower subjective rating of RSA. DISCUSSION: Despite advancements in RSA design, limited IR remains a prevalent issue, significantly affecting patients' satisfaction and clinical outcomes. This study underscores the need for setting appropriate expectations regarding IR through patient education and focused efforts to improve IR limitations in RSA patients, particularly on the dominant side.

A standardised method for improving patient education material readability for orthopaedic trauma patients.

PURPOSE: While the National Institutes of Health and American Medical Association recommend patient education materials (PEMs) should be written at the sixth-grade reading level or below, many patient education materials related to traumatic orthopaedic injuries do not meet these recommendations. The purpose of this study is to create a standardised method for enhancing the readability of trauma-related orthopaedic PEMs by reducing the use of ≥ three syllable words and reducing the use of sentences >15 words in length. We hypothesise that applying this standardized method will significantly improve the objective readability of orthopaedic trauma PEMs. METHODS: A patient education website was queried for PEMs relevant to traumatic orthopaedic injuries. Orthopaedic trauma PEMs included (N = 40) were unique, written in a prose format, and <3500 words. PEM statistics, including scores for seven independent readability formulae, were determined for each PEM before and after applying this standard method. RESULTS: All PEMs had significantly different readability scores when comparing original and edited PEMs (p < 0.01). The mean Flesch Kincaid Grade Level of the original PEMs (10.0 ± 1.0) was significantly higher than that of edited PEMs (5.8 ± 1.1) (p < 0.01). None of the original PEMs met recommendations of a sixth-grade reading level compared with 31 (77.5%) of edited PEMs. CONCLUSIONS: This standard method that reduces the use of ≥ three syllable words and <15 word sentences has been shown to significantly reduce the reading-grade level of PEMs for traumatic orthopaedic injuries. Improving the readability of PEMs may lead to enhanced health literacy and improved health outcomes.

Readability of spine-related patient education materials: a standard method for improvement.

PURPOSE: Orthopaedic patient education materials (PEMs) have repeatedly been shown to be well above the recommended reading level by the National Institute of Health and American Medical Association. The purpose of this study is to create a standardized method to improve the readability of PEMs describing spine-related conditions and injuries. It is hypothesized that reducing the usage of complex words (≥ 3 syllables) and reducing sentence length to < 15 words per sentence improves readability of PEMs as measured by all seven readability formulas used. METHODS: OrthoInfo.org was queried for spine-related PEMs. The objective readability of PEMs was evaluated using seven unique readability formulas before and after applying a standardized method to improve readability while preserving critical content. This method involved reducing the use of > 3 syllable words and ensuring sentence length is < 15 words. Paired samples t-tests were conducted to assess relationships with the cut-off for statistical significance set at p < 0.05. RESULTS: A total of 20 spine-related PEM articles were used in this study. When comparing original PEMs to edited PEMs, significant differences were seen among all seven readability scores and all six numerical descriptive statistics used. Per the Flesch Kincaid Grade level readability formula, one original PEM (5%) versus 15 edited PEMs (75%) met recommendations of a sixth-grade reading level. CONCLUSION: The current study shows that using this standardized method significantly improves the readability of spine-related PEMs and significantly increased the likelihood that PEMs will meet recommendations for being at or below the sixth-grade reading level.

Operative differences for posterior spinal fusion after vertebral body tethering: Are we fusing more levels in the end?

PURPOSE: Little is known about the perioperative characteristics associated with a posterior spinal fusion (PSF) in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients previously treated with vertebral body tethering (VBT). We aimed to determine if operative time, estimated blood loss, postoperative length of stay, instrumentation type, and implant density differed in patients that received a PSF (i.e., PSF-Only) or a PSF following a failed VBT (i.e., PSF-VBT). METHODS: We retrospectively assessed matched cohort data (PSF-VBT = 22; PSF-Only = 22) from two multi-center registries. We obtained: (1) operative time, (2) estimated blood loss, (3) postoperative length of stay, (4) instrumentation type, and (5) implant density. Theoretical fusion levels prior to the index procedure were obtained for PSF-VBT and compared to the actual levels fused. RESULTS: We observed no difference in operative time, estimated blood loss, or postoperative length of stay. Instrumentation type was all-screw in PSF-Only and varied in PSF-VBT with nearly 25% of patients exhibiting a hybrid construct. There was no added benefit to removing anterior instrumentation prior to fusion; however, implant density was higher in PSF-Only (1.9 ± 0.2) than when compared to PSF-VBT (1.7 ± 0.3). An additional two levels were fused in 50% of PSF-VBT patients, most of which were added to the distal end of the construct. CONCLUSIONS: We found that operative time, estimated blood loss, and postoperative length of stay were similar in both cohorts; however, the length of the fusion construct in PSF-VBT is likely to be two levels longer when a failed VBT is converted to a PSF.