Background: The benefits of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) for the treatment of rotator cuff tears remain inconclusive, as it is administered either as an adjuvant to surgical repair or as a primary infiltration without targeting the index lesion, which could dilute its effect. Purpose: To determine whether PRP infiltrations are superior to saline solution infiltrations (placebo) at improving healing, pain, and function when injected under ultrasound guidance within isolated interstitial supraspinatus tears. Study Design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. Methods: In this single-center, double-blinded, randomized controlled trial, 80 adults with symptomatic isolated interstitial tears of the supraspinatus, confirmed by magnetic resonance arthrography, were randomized to PRP or saline injections. Each patient received 2 injections with a 1-month interval. The primary outcome was the change in lesion volume, calculated on magnetic resonance arthrography, at 7 months. The secondary outcomes were improvements in shoulder pain and the Single Assessment Numerical Evaluation (SANE) score at >12 months. Results: Preoperative patient characteristics did not differ between the 2 groups. At 7 months, there were no significant differences between the PRP and control groups in terms of a decrease in lesion size (–0.3 ± 23.6 mm3 vs –8.1 ± 84.7 mm3, respectively; P = .175); reduction of pain on a visual analog scale (VAS) (–2.3 ± 3.0 vs –2.0 ± 3.0, respectively; P = .586); and improvement in SANE (16.7 ± 20.0 vs 14.9 ± 29.0, respectively; P = .650), Constant (8.6 ± 13.0 vs 10.7 ± 19.0, respectively; P = .596), and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (19.5 ± 20.0 vs 21.9 ± 28.0, respectively; P = .665) scores. At >12 months, there were no significant differences between the PRP and control groups in terms of a reduction of pain on a VAS (–3.3 ± 2.6 vs –2.3 ± 3.2, respectively; P = .087) or improvement in the SANE score (24.4 ± 27.5 vs 23.4 ± 24.9, respectively; P = .846). At 19.5 ± 5.3 months, the incidence of adverse effects (pain >48 hours, frozen shoulder, extension of lesion) was significantly higher in the PRP group than the control group (54% vs 26%, respectively; P = .020). Conclusion: PRP injections within interstitial supraspinatus tears did not improve tendon healing or clinical scores compared with saline injections and were associated with more adverse events. Registration: NCT02672085 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier).

Objectives: Patients are commonly advised to wear a sling for 4-6 weeks after rotator cuff repair (RCR) despite negative effects of early immobilization and benefits of motion rehabilitation. The study aimed to compare clinical and radiographic outcomes up to 6 months following RCR with sling immobilization and without sling immobilization. Methods: We randomized 80 patients scheduled for arthroscopic repair of small or medium superior rotator cuff tears into 2 equal groups: 'sling' and 'no-sling' groups. Passive mobilization was performed in both groups during the first 4 postoperative weeks followed by a progressive active mobilization. Patients were evaluated clinically at 10 days, 1.5, 3 and 6 months, and using ultrasound at 6 months. Uni-and multi-variable analyses were performed to determine if postoperative scores are associated with gender, age at surgery, immobilization, arm dominance, biceps procedure, resection of the distal clavicle, as well as preoperative scores. Results: The two groups had similar preoperative patient characteristics, function, or adjuvant procedures. At 10 days, there was no difference in pain among the two groups (5.2±2.3 vs 5.2±1.9, p=0.996). In comparison to the sling group, the no-sling group showed greater external rotation (23.5±15.6 vs 15.3±14.6, p=0.017) and active elevation (110.9±31.9 vs 97.0±25.0, p=0.038) at 1.5 months, as well as better active elevation (139.0±24.7 vs 125.8±24.4, p=0.015) and internal rotation (>T12 in 50% vs 27.5%, p=0.011) at 3 months. Ultrasound revealed no differences at 6 months in tendon thickness anteriorly (p=0.472) or posteriorly (p=639), bursitis (p=1.000), echogenicity (p=0.422), or repair integrity (p=0.902). Multi-variable analyses confirmed that ASES score increased with patient age (beta, 0.60; p=0.009), SANE decreased with sling immobilization (beta,-6.3; p=0.014), and that pain increased with sling immobilization (beta, 0.77; p=0.022). Conclusion: No immobilization after RCR is associated with better early mobility and functional scores in comparison to sling immobilization. Postoperative immobilization with slings may therefore not be required for patients treated for small or medium tears.

Background: Patients are commonly advised to wear a sling for 4 to 6 weeks after rotator cuff repair despite negative effects of early immobilization and benefits of motion rehabilitation. The aim of this study was to compare clinical and radiographic outcomes up to 6 months following rotator cuff repair with and without postoperative sling immobilization. Methods: We randomized 80 patients scheduled for arthroscopic repair of a small or medium superior rotator cuff tear into sling and no-sling groups (40 patients each). Passive mobilization was performed in both groups during the first 4 postoperative weeks, and this was followed by progressive active mobilization. Patients were evaluated clinically at 10 days and 1.5, 3, and 6 months and using ultrasound at 6 months. Univariable and multivariable analyses were performed to determine if postoperative scores were associated with sex, age at surgery, immobilization, arm dominance, a biceps procedure, resection of the distal part of the clavicle, or preoperative scores. Results: The sling and no-sling groups had similar preoperative patient characteristics, function, and adjuvant procedures. At 10 days, there was no difference in pain between the 2 groups (mean pain score [and standard deviation], 5.2 ± 2.3 versus 5.2 ± 1.9, p = 0.996). In comparison with the sling group, the no-sling group showed greater mean external rotation (23.5° ± 15.6° versus 15.3° ± 14.6°, p = 0.017) and active elevation (110.9° ± 31.9° versus 97.0° ± 25.0°, p = 0.038) at 1.5 months as well as better mean active elevation (139.0° ± 24.7° versus 125.8° ± 24.4°, p = 0.015) and internal rotation (T12 or above in 50% versus 28%, p = 0.011) at 3 months. Ultrasound evaluation revealed no significant differences at 6 months in tendon thickness anteriorly (p = 0.472) or posteriorly (p = 0.639), bursitis (p = 1.000), echogenicity (p = 0.422), or repair integrity (p = 0.902). Multivariable analyses confirmed that the mean American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score increased with patient age (beta, 0.60; p = 0.009), the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) decreased with sling immobilization (beta, −6.33; p = 0.014), and pain increased with sling immobilization (beta, 0.77; p = 0.022). Conclusions: No immobilization after rotator cuff repair is associated with better early mobility and functional scores in comparison with sling immobilization. Postoperative immobilization with a sling may therefore not be required for patients treated for a small or medium tendon tear. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Diagnosing hypermobile Ehlers–Danlos syndrome (hEDS) remains challenging, despite new 2017 criteria. Patients not fulfilling these criteria are considered to have hypermobile spectrum disorder (HSD). Our first aim was to evaluate whether patients hEDS were more severely affected and had higher prevalence of extra-articular manifestations than HSD. Second aim was to compare their outcome after coordinated physical therapy. Patients fulfilling hEDS/HSD criteria were included in this real-life prospective cohort (November 2017/April 2019). They completed a 16-item Clinical Severity Score (CSS-16). We recorded bone involvement, neuropathic pain (DN4) and symptoms of mast cell disorders (MCAS) as extra-articular manifestations. After a standardized initial evaluation (T0), all patients were offered the same coordinated physical therapy, were followed-up at 6 months (T1) and at least 1 year later (T2), and were asked whether or not their condition had subjectively improved at T2. We included 97 patients (61 hEDS, 36 HSD). Median age was 40 (range 18–73); 92.7% were females. Three items from CSS-16 (pain, motricity problems, and bleeding) were significantly more severe with hEDS than HSD. Bone fragility, neuropathic pain and MCAS were equally prevalent. At T2 (20 months [range 18–26]) 54% of patients reported improvement (no difference between groups). On multivariable analysis, only family history of hypermobility predicted (favorable) outcome (p = 0.01). hEDS and HDS patients showed similar disease severity score except for pain, motricity problems and bleeding, and similar spectrum of extra-articular manifestations. Long-term improvement was observed in > 50% of patients in both groups. These results add weight to a clinical pragmatic proposition to consider hEDS/HSD as a single entity that requires the same treatments.

Background Automated medical history–taking devices (AMHTDs) are emerging tools with the potential to increase the quality of medical consultations by providing physicians with an exhaustive, high-quality, standardized anamnesis and differential diagnosis. Objective This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of an AMHTD to obtain an accurate differential diagnosis in an outpatient service. Methods We conducted a pilot randomized controlled trial involving 59 patients presenting to an emergency outpatient unit and suffering from various conditions affecting the limbs, the back, and the chest wall. Resident physicians were randomized into 2 groups, one assisted by the AMHTD and one without access to the device. For each patient, physicians were asked to establish an exhaustive differential diagnosis based on the anamnesis and clinical examination. In the intervention group, residents read the AMHTD report before performing the anamnesis. In both the groups, a senior physician had to establish a differential diagnosis, considered as the gold standard, independent of the resident’s opinion and AMHTD report. Results A total of 29 patients were included in the intervention group and 30 in the control group. Differential diagnosis accuracy was higher in the intervention group (mean 75%, SD 26%) than in the control group (mean 59%, SD 31%; P=.01). Subgroup analysis showed a between-group difference of 3% (83% [17/21]-80% [14/17]) for low complexity cases (1-2 differential diagnoses possible) in favor of the AMHTD (P=.76), 31% (87% [13/15]-56% [18/33]) for intermediate complexity (3 differential diagnoses; P=.02), and 24% (63% [34/54]-39% [14/35]) for high complexity (4-5 differential diagnoses; P=.08). Physicians in the intervention group (mean 4.3, SD 2) had more years of clinical practice compared with the control group (mean 5.5, SD 2; P=.03). Differential diagnosis accuracy was negatively correlated to case complexity (r=0.41; P=.001) and the residents’ years of practice (r=0.04; P=.72). The AMHTD was able to determine 73% (SD 30%) of correct differential diagnoses. Patient satisfaction was good (4.3/5), and 26 of 29 patients (90%) considered that they were able to accurately describe their symptomatology. In 8 of 29 cases (28%), residents considered that the AMHTD helped to establish the differential diagnosis. Conclusions The AMHTD allowed physicians to make more accurate differential diagnoses, particularly in complex cases. This could be explained not only by the ability of the AMHTD to make the right diagnoses, but also by the exhaustive anamnesis provided.

BackgroundWith the growth of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA), it is becoming increasingly necessary to establish the most cost-effective methods for the procedure. The surgical approach is one factor that may influence the cost and outcome of RSA. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical results of a subscapularis- and deltoid-sparing (SSCS) approach to a traditional deltopectoral (TDP) approach for RSA. The hypothesis was that the SSCS approach would be associated with decreased length of stay (LOS), equal complication rate, and better short-term outcomes compared to the TDP approach.MethodsA prospective evaluation was performed on patients undergoing RSA over a 2-year period. A deltopectoral incision was used followed by either an SSCS approach or a traditional tenotomy of the subscapularis (TDP). LOS, adverse events, physical therapy utilization, and patient satisfaction were collected in the 12 months following RSA.ResultsLOS was shorter with the SSCS approach compared to the TDP approach (from 8.2 ± 6.4 days to 15.2 ± 11.9 days; P = 0.04). At 3 months postoperative, the single assessment numeric evaluation score (80 ± 11% vs 70 ± 6%; P = 0.04) and active elevation (130 ± 22° vs 109 ± 24°; P = 0.01) were higher in the SSCS group. The SSCS approach resulted in a net cost savings of $5900 per patient. Postoperative physical therapy, pain levels, and patient satisfaction were comparable in both groups. No immediate intraoperative complications were noted.ConclusionUsing a SSCS approach is an option for patients requiring RSA. Overall LOS is minimized compared to a TDP approach with subscapularis tenotomy. The SSCS approach may provide substantial healthcare cost savings, without increasing complication rate or decreasing patient satisfaction.

Aims The aim of this study was to report the outcomes of different treatment options for glenoid loosening following reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) at a minimum follow-up of two years. Patients and Methods We retrospectively studied the records of 79 patients (19 men, 60 women; 84 shoulders) aged 70.4 years (21 to 87) treated for aseptic loosening of the glenosphere following RSA. Clinical evaluation included pre- and post-treatment active anterior elevation (AAE), external rotation, and Constant score. Results From the original cohort, 29 shoulders (35%) were treated conservatively, 27 shoulders (32%) were revised by revision of the glenosphere, and 28 shoulders (33%) were converted to hemiarthroplasty. At last follow-up, conservative treatment and glenoid revision significantly improved AAE, total Constant score, and pain, while hemiarthroplasty did not improve range of movement or clinical scores. Multivariable analysis confirmed that conservative treatment and glenoid revision achieved similar improvements in pain (glenoid revision vs conservative, beta 0.44; p = 0.834) but that outcomes were significantly worse following hemiarthroplasty (beta -5.00; p = 0.029). Conclusion When possible, glenoid loosening after RSA should first be treated conservatively, then by glenosphere revision if necessary, and last by salvage hemiarthroplasty Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:461–469.

No abstract