Effect of BMI on Complications Following Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Population-Wide Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Evidence regarding the effect of body mass index (BMI) on complications following anatomic shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) and reverse shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) remains controversial. This high-powered study examines the effect of BMI on surgical and medical complications following anatomic shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) and reverse shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA). METHODS: This retrospective cohort study was conducted using the Premier Healthcare Database (PHD) to query all adult patients who underwent primary, elective TSA (aTSA, rTSA) from 2016 to 2020. Patients eligible for inclusion were identified using ICD-10 and CPT codes for primary TSA. Patients were stratified into three subgroups based on BMI (BMI <30 kg/m2, BMI 30-35 kg/m2, BMI > 35 kg/m2). The primary endpoints assessed were 90-day risks of postoperative complications, revisions, and readmissions among the three BMI groups undergoing primary TSA. RESULTS: A total of 32,645 patients were analyzed; 10,951 patients underwent aTSA and 21,694 patients underwent rTSA. Patient populations for aTSA and rTSA differed significantly across all BMI categories in terms of age, sex, cost of care, and insurance status. After multivariate regression analysis, there was no increased risk of surgical complications in the aTSA and rTSA cohorts with BMI 30-35 kg/m2 and BMI > 35 kg/m2. In the aTSA cohort, rates of acute respiratory failure (adjusted Odds Ratio (aOR) 2.65) was all significantly higher in the BMI > 35 kg/m2 group. As for rTSA cohort, acute respiratory failure (aOR 1.67) and acute renal failure (aOR 1.53) were significantly higher in the BMI > 35 kg/m2 group. CONCLUSION: While we found no increased risk of immediate postoperative surgical risks, patients with a BMI > 35 kg/m2 demonstrated greater risk of medical complications after rTSA. Given this trend, providers should exercise caution in patient selection for TSA and counsel obese patients as to these increased risks. Future studies should aim to provide a more comprehensive picture of the effect of BMI on functional outcomes after TSA.

Reporting Bias in the Form of Positive Spin Is Highly Prevalent in Abstracts of Systematic Reviews on Primary Repair of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament.

PURPOSE: To analyze reporting bias in the form of spin present in systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the topic of primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair. METHODS: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed throughout this study. Peer-reviewed systematic reviews were collected from 3 databases (PubMed, Scopus, and SPORTDiscus), and their abstracts were assessed for the 15 most common types of spin. Articles were excluded if they were not published in English, had no evidence, were retracted, were published without an abstract, did not have full text available, or included cadaveric or nonhuman subjects. Full text quality was assessed using AMSTAR 2 (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews Version 2). Fisher exact tests were used to examine associations between the different types of spin and other study characteristics such as AMSTAR 2 confidence rating, study design, and level of evidence. RESULTS: Spin was present in the abstracts of 13 of 15 articles (86.7%). There were significant associations between PRISMA adherence and lower incidences of spin types 3, 6, and 8 (P = .029 for each). A critically low AMSTAR 2 confidence rating was significantly associated with an increased incidence of spin type 9 (P = .01), and a higher AMSTAR 2 score was significantly associated with decreased spin type 4 and type 5 (P = .039 and P = .048, respectively). A more recent year of publication was correlated with a lower incidence of spin type 14 (P = .044). CONCLUSIONS: Spin is present in most systematic reviews and meta-analyses regarding primary repair of the ACL, with two-thirds of abstracts spinning evidence in favor of ACL repair. Standardized guidelines including the PRISMA guidelines and the AMSTAR 2 assessment tool were negatively correlated with spin. More recently published articles were found to contain significantly less spin, as were articles published in journals with higher Clarivate Impact Factors and Scopus CiteScores. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level V, systematic review of Level III through V studies.

Evaluation of Spin in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Minimally Invasive Surgical Techniques and Standard Microdiscectomies for Treating Lumbar Disc Herniation.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. OBJECTIVES: Spin in scientific literature is defined as bias that overstates efficacy and/or underestimates harms of procedures undergoing review. While lumbar microdiscectomies (MD) are considered the gold standard for treating lumbar disc herniations (LDH), outcomes of novel procedures are being weighed against open MD. This study identifies the quantity and type of spin in systematic reviews and meta-analyses of LDH interventions. METHODS: A search was conducted on the PubMed, Scopus, and SPORTDiscus databases for systematic reviews and meta-analyses evaluating the outcomes of MD against other LDH interventions. Each included study's abstract was assessed for the presence of the 15 most common types of spin, with full texts reviewed during cases of disagreement or for clarification. Full texts were used in the assessment of study quality per AMSTAR 2. RESULTS: All 34 included studies were observed to have at least 1 form of spin, in either the abstract or full text. The most common type of spin identified was type 5 ("The conclusion claims the beneficial effect of the experimental treatment despite a high risk of bias in primary studies"), which was observed in ten studies (10/34, 29.4%). There was a statistically significant association between studies not registered with PROSPERO and the failure to satisfy AMSTAR type 2 (P < .0001). CONCLUSION: Misleading reporting is the most common category of spin in literature related to LDH. Spin overwhelmingly tends to go in the positive direction, with results inappropriately favoring the efficacy or safety of an experimental intervention.

Harms reporting in randomized controlled trials underpinning the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons clinical practice guidelines for glenohumeral osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND: Glenohumeral osteoarthritis is one of the most common causes of shoulder pain. As such, the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) has developed clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to address the management of glenohumeral osteoarthritis. These CPG recommendations stem from the findings of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which have been shown to influence clinical decision making and health policy. Therefore, it is essential that trial outcomes, including harms data (ie, adverse events), are adequately reported. We intend to evaluate the reporting quality of harms-related data in orthopedic literature specifically relating to AAOS CPG recommendations on the management of glenohumeral osteoarthritis. METHODS: We adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA) as well as guidance for reporting meta-research. The AAOS CPGs for glenohumeral osteoarthritis were obtained from orthoguidelines.org, and 2 authors independently screened the guidelines for the RCTs referenced. A total of 14 studies were identified. Data were extracted from the 14 included studies independently by the same 2 authors. Adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Extension for Harms Checklist was assessed using an 18-item scoring chart, with 1 point being awarded for meeting a checklist item and 0 points being awarded for not meeting a checklist item. Descriptive statistics, such as frequencies, percentages, and 95% confidence intervals were used to summarize RCT adherence to the CONSORT checklist. RESULTS: The average score among the studies included was 7.36/18 items (39% adherence). No study adhered to all criteria, with the highest-performing study meeting 11 of 18 items (58%) and the lowest meeting 3 of 18 items (16%). A positive correlation between checklist score and year of publication was observed, with studies published more recently receiving a higher score on the CONSORT checklist (P < .05). Studies that disclosed funding information received a higher score than those that did not (P < .05), but there was no significant difference when the different funding sources were compared. Finally, double-blinded studies scored higher on the checklist than those with lower levels of blinding (single or no blinding, P < .05). CONCLUSION: Adverse events are poorly reported amongst RCTs cited as supporting evidence for AAOS Management of Glenohumeral Osteoarthritis CPGs, evidenced by a CONSORT checklist compliance rate of only 41% in this study. We recommend the development of an updated checklist with information that makes it easier for authors to recognize, evaluate, and report on harms data. Additionally, we encourage authors to include information about adverse events or negative outcomes in the abstract.

Evaluation of spin in systematic reviews on the use of tendon transfer for massive irreparable rotator cuff tears.

PURPOSE: To identify, describe and account for the incidence of spin in systematic reviews and meta-analyses of tendon transfer for the treatment of massive, irreparable rotator cuff tears. The secondary objective was to characterize the studies in which spin was identified and to determine whether identifiable patterns exist among studies with spin. METHODS: This study was conducted per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Each abstract was assessed for the presence of the 15 most common types of spin derived from a previously established methodology. General data that were extracted included study title, authors, publication year, journal, level of evidence, study design, funding source, reported adherence to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, preregistration of the study protocol, and methodologic quality per A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews Version 2 (AMSTAR 2). RESULTS: The search yielded 53 articles, of which 13 were included in the final analysis. Articles were excluded if they were not published in a peer reviewed journal, not written in English, utilized cadaveric or nonhuman models, or lacked an abstract with accessible full text. 53.8% (7/13) of the included studies contained at least 1 type of spin in the abstract. Type 5 spin ("The conclusion claims beneficial effect of the experimental treatment despite a high risk of bias in primary studies") was the most common, appearing in 23.1% (3/13) of included abstracts. Nine of the spin categories did not appear in any of the included abstracts. A lower AMSTAR 2 score was significantly associated with the presence of spin in the abstract (P < .006). CONCLUSION: Spin is highly prevalent in the abstracts of systematic reviews and meta-analyses concerning tendon transfer for massive rotator cuff tears. A lower overall AMSTAR 2 rating was associated with a higher incidence of spin. Future studies should continue to explore the prevalence of spin in orthopedic literature and identify any factors that may contribute to its presence.

Volume, indications, and number of surgeons performing reverse total shoulder arthroplasty continue to expand: a nationwide cohort analysis from 2016-2020.

Background: Since its approval, reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA) has continued to increase in usage, with expanding indications beyond rotator cuff arthropathy. Existing literature has captured further increased utilization over the last decade through 2017. However, this data has not been updated to include a contemporary cohort of patients. This study sought to determine the trends of anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA), rTSA, and hemiarthroplasty (HA) usage based on primary diagnosis and total number of surgeons performing each procedure annually from 2016-2020. Methods: Patients who underwent primary rTSA, aTSA, and HA from 2016-2020 were identified in the Premier Healthcare Database. Primary indication diagnoses for procedures were identified using International Classification of Diseases 10th edition codes. Temporal trends in patient and hospital demographics, primary indication, and procedure utilization were captured on an annualized basis. The number of surgeons performing each procedure annually was noted. Descriptive statistics were employed with significance set at P < .05. Results: From 2016 to 2020, 154,499 patients undergoing primary shoulder arthroplasty were identified: 48,890 aTSA, 95,808 rTSA, and 9801 HA. In 2016, rTSA comprised a slight majority (55%) of all arthroplasty cases but increased to nearly 70% of all arthroplasty cases in 2020. The absolute numbers of aTSA and HA cases decreased over time, while rTSA volume increased from 14,781 in 2016 to a high of 23,644 cases in 2019. There was a corresponding 12% increase in the number of surgeons performing rTSA across the same time period, contrasted with a 42.1% decrease in surgeons performing HA and a 14.3% decrease for aTSA. Glenohumeral osteoarthritis remains the most common indication for rTSA and aTSA, while HA is used primarily for proximal humerus fractures or hardware complications. Conclusion: The volume of primary rTSA in the United States has continued to increase from 2016 to 2020 with concurrent decreases in the number of primary aTSA and HA cases performed. Primary rTSA accounts for nearly 70% of all primary shoulder arthroplasty cases. The number of surgeons performing rTSA continues to increase, while there has been a decrease in the number of surgeons performing aTSA and HA.

Evaluation of Spin in the Clinical Literature of Suture Tape Augmentation for Ankle Instability.

Background: Spin is defined as the use of specific reporting strategies to highlight the beneficial effect of a treatment despite nonsignificant results. The presence of spin in peer-reviewed literature can negatively impact clinical and research practices. The purpose of this study was to identify the quantity and types of spin present in primary studies and systematic reviews using suture tape augmentation for ankle instability as a model. Methods: This study was conducted per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Each abstract was assessed for the presence of the 15 most common types of spin. Extracted data included study title, authors, publication year, journal, level of evidence, study design, funding, reported adherence to PRISMA guidelines, and PROSPERO registration. Full texts of systematic reviews were used in the assessment of study quality per A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews Version 2 (AMSTAR 2). Results: Nineteen studies were included in the final sample. At least 1 type of spin was identified in each study except one (18 of 19, 94.7%). The most common type of spin observed was type 3 ("selective reporting or overemphasis on efficacy outcomes or analysis favoring the beneficial effect of the experimental intervention") (6 of 19, 31.6%), The second most reported category of spin was type 4 ("the conclusion claims safety based on non-statistically significant results with a wide confidence interval") (4 of 19, 21.1%). Among systematic reviews, we identified type 5 ("the conclusion claims the beneficial effect of the experimental treatment despite a high risk of bias in primary studies") in 4 out of 6 (66.7%) of the articles that were included. No significant associations were found between study characteristics and type of spin. Conclusion: In this exploration of the introduction of a new technology, we identified spin to be highly present in the abstracts of primary studies and systematic reviews concerning suture tape augmentation for ankle instability. Steps should be taken by scientific journals to ensure that spin is minimized in the abstract to accurately reflect the quality of the intervention.