Introduction: Quantifying patient outcomes is integral in orthopaedic practice, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) assist with this goal and assist clinicians in assessing subjective outcomes (pain, satisfaction, etc.). This study seeks to identify the most highly used PROMs in the shoulder literature and analyze their usage trends. Methods: PubMed was queried for all shoulder-based articles published in eight selected journals from 2007 to 2017. Articles were assessed for PROM usage, surgical approach, surgical procedure, and disease pathology. Frequency analyses identified the most used PROMs overall, and for each approach, procedure, and pathology. Last, usage trends, question number, validation, and clinician dependence of PROMs with ≥20 uses were analyzed. Results: In total, 1,740 of 2,462 articles (71%) used 105 unique PROMs 4,394 times during the study. PROM usage increased 18%, and the use of multiple PROMs increased by 20%. PROMs with a clinician component increased 21% slower than the baseline. Twenty-two PROMs (17%) had >20 uses, with the most used PROMs being the Constant-Murley Score (783), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Shoulder Score (731), Visual Analog Scale (685), Simple Shoulder Test (372), and the University of California, Los Angeles, Shoulder Rating Scale (274). PROMs demonstrating the greatest usage increase were the EuroQol 5-Dimensions Questionnaire (1,282%), Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (638%), Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (632%), Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder Index (582%), and Oxford Shoulder Score (462%)—all without a clinician component. Discussion: PROM usage is increasing, often with multiple PROMs being used to evaluate patient outcomes. PROMs without a clinician component are growing at higher rates than their clinician-dependent counterparts, highlighting an emphasis on patient reporting of outcomes. This study suggests that the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Shoulder Score, Oxford Shoulder Score, Visual Analog Scales—all without a mandatory clinician component and high levels of use—will be the most highly used PROMs moving forward to assess shoulder function.

Orthopedic surgeons frequently encounter medical malpractice claims. The purpose of this study was to assess trends and risk factors in lawsuits brought against orthopedic surgeons using a national legal database. A legal research service was used to search publicly available settlement and verdict reports between 1988 and 2013 by terms “orthopaedic or orthopedic” and “malpractice.” Temporal trends were evaluated, and logistic regression was used to identify independent risk factors for case outcomes. A total of 1562 publicly reported malpractice cases brought against orthopedic surgeons, proceeding to trial during a 26-year period, were analyzed. The plaintiffs won 462 (30%) cases, with a mean award of $1.4 million. The frequency of litigation and pay-outs for plaintiffs increased 215% and 280%, respectively, between the first and last 5-year periods. The mean payout for plaintiff-favorable verdicts was highest in pediatrics ($2.6 million), followed by spine ($1.7 million) and oncology ($1.6 million). Fracture fixation (363 cases), arthroplasty (290 cases), and spine (231 cases) were the most commonly litigated procedures, while plaintiffs were most successful for fasciotomy (48%), infection-treating procedures (43%), and carpal tunnel release (37%). When analyzing data by state and region, adjusted for population, northeastern states had a higher frequency of lawsuits. Malpractice liability has increased during the past 3 decades while orthopedic surgeons continue to win most of the cases making it to court. As patients search for medical care via publicly available information, it is important for orthopedic surgeons to understand what aspects of their own practice carry different risks of litigation. [ Orthopedics . 2019; 42(2):e260–e267.]

Level III: Retrospective, comparative study.

INTRODUCTION: Pathologic fractures often contribute to adverse events in metastatic bone disease, and prophylactic fixation offers to mitigate their effects. This study aims to analyze patient selection, complications, and in-hospital costs that are associated with prophylactic fixation compared with traditional acute fixation after completed fracture. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Nationwide Inpatient Sample database was queried from 2002 to 2014 for patients with major extremity pathologic fractures. Patients were divided by fixation technique (prophylactic or acute) and fracture location (upper or lower extremity). Patient demographics, comorbidities, complications, hospitalization length, and hospital charges were compared between cohorts. Preoperative variables were analyzed for potential confounding, and χ2 tests and Student’s t tests were used to compare fixation techniques. RESULTS: Cumulatively, 43,920 patients were identified, with 14,318 and 28,602 undergoing prophylactic and acute fixation, respectively. Lower extremity fractures occurred in 33,582 patients, and 10,333 patients had upper extremity fractures. A higher proportion of prophylactic fixation patients were white ( P = .043), male ( P = .046), age 74 years or younger ( P < .001), and privately insured ( P < .001), with decreased prevalence of obesity ( P = .003) and/or preoperative renal disease ( P = .008). Prophylactic fixation was also associated with decreased peri- and postoperative blood transfusions ( P < .001), anemia ( P < .001), acute renal failure ( P = .010), and in-hospital mortality ( P = .031). Finally, prophylactic fixation had decreased total charges (−$3,405; P = .001), hospitalization length ( P = .004), and extended length of stay (greater than 75th percentile; P = .012). CONCLUSION: Prophylactic fixation of impending pathologic fractures is associated with decreased complications, hospitalization length, and total charges, and should be considered in appropriate patients.

Background: Meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT) has been developed as a treatment for meniscal deficiency. Despite promising outcomes, there are no real-time methods to evaluate graft survivorship and predict functional outcomes. Hypothesis: Assessment of serum and urine biomarkers could be used to develop biomarker panels—prognostic (1- and 3-month postsurgical time points) and diagnostic (6-month time point)—based on strong associations with clinically relevant outcome metrics obtained 6 months after surgery. Study Design: Descriptive laboratory study. Methods: Twelve adult purpose-bred research hounds were included and underwent medial meniscal release to induce meniscal deficiency. Three months after meniscal release surgery, medial menisci were replaced with fresh-frozen meniscus (n = 4), fresh meniscus (n = 4), or fresh meniscotibial osteochondral allograft (n = 4) such that a spectrum of pain and functional outcomes could be anticipated. Serum and urine from all dogs were collected preoperatively and at 1, 3, and 6 months after MAT surgery. Dogs were assessed for pain-related and functional outcomes at the same time points. To develop a prognostic panel of biomarkers, biomarker data from the 1- and 3-month post-MAT surgery time points were used to model 6-month clinical outcomes. A diagnostic panel of biomarkers was developed using data from the 6-month post-MAT surgery to model 6-month clinical outcomes. Primary outcomes for pain and function were visual analog scale (VAS) and operated limb percentage total pressure index (%TPI), respectively. Using random subject effects, linear mixed models were used to develop prognostic biomarker panels, and linear fixed-effect models were used to develop diagnostic biomarker panels, with variance explained for each panel reported ( R2) along with individual biomarker relationships. Results: Across prognostic biomarker panels, a panel including serum IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, and IL-18 was fit for the primary functional outcome, operated limb %TPI ( R2 = 0.450), whereas a panel including serum CTX-II and OPG was fit for the primary pain-related outcome, VAS ( R2 = 0.516). Across diagnostic biomarker panels, a panel including serum MMP-1 and MMP-3 and urine PINP and TIMP-1 was fit for %TPI ( R2 = 0.863). Separately, a panel including urine CTX-I, CTX-II, IL-8, MMP-2, and TIMP-1 was fit as diagnostic biomarkers for the VAS for pain ( R2 = 0.438). Conclusion: Biomarker panels of selected serum and/or urine proteins can model clinically relevant metrics for function and pain in a preclinical model of MAT. Clinical Relevance: Biomarker panels could be used to provide real-time diagnostic and prognostic data regarding outcomes after MAT.

Background: While providing effective analgesia following shoulder arthroplasty, an interscalene block has known complications. Local infiltration analgesia (LIA) using ropivacaine has been successfully employed in other joint arthroplasties, but its efficacy in shoulder arthroplasty has not been studied extensively. The purpose of this study was to compare pain and opioid consumption between LIA and an interscalene block following shoulder arthroplasty.Methods: Patients undergoing primary shoulder arthroplasty were prospectively randomized into 2 groups: the block group received an interscalene block using liposomal bupivacaine, and the injection group received an LIA injection intraoperatively. The LIA injection included ropivacaine, epinephrine, ketorolac, and normal saline solution. Postoperative visual analog scale pain scores, opioid consumption in morphine milligram equivalents, and complications were compared between the groups. The mean pain scores during the first 24 hours postoperatively were used to test noninferiority of LIA compared with an interscalene block. Results:The study included 74 patients (52 men and 22 women with a mean age of 69 years; 37 were in the injection group and 37 in the block group). There was no significant difference between the groups with respect to pain scores at any postoperative time points (p > 0.05), except for the 8-hour time point, when the injection group had a significantly higher pain score than the block group (p = 0.01). There was no significant difference in opioid consumption between the groups at any time points postoperatively (p > 0.05). The amount of intraoperative opioid consumption was significantly higher in the injection group (p < 0.001). In noninferiority testing for the mean pain scores during the first 24 hours, the injection group was found to be noninferior to the block group. One patient in the block group developed transient phrenic nerve palsy. One patient in the injection group developed dislocation after reverse arthroplasty related to noncompliance. The mean procedure hospital charge was $1,718 for an interscalene block and $157 for LIA.Conclusions: LIA and an interscalene block provided similar analgesia during the first 24 hours after primary shoulder arthroplasty. LIA was associated with worse pain at 8 hours postoperatively and more intraoperative opioid consumption but was also substantially less costly.

Posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) injuries commonly occur in association with participation in sporting or recreational activities or due to a direct trauma. Cartilage and meniscal lesions are prevalent in PCL-injured knees with increasing likelihood and severity based on extent and duration of trauma to the knee. As such, comprehensive diagnostics should be performed to ascertain all related pathology, and patients should be thoroughly educated regarding treatment options, likely sequelae including posttraumatic osteoarthritis, and associated outcomes. Treatments should address the joint as an organ, ensuring stability, alignment, and functional tissue restoration are optimized by the most efficient and effective means possible. Compliance with patient- and procedure-specific postoperative management protocols is critical for optimizing successful outcomes for these complex cases. The objectives of this review article are to highlight the likelihood and importance of osteochondral and meniscal pathology in the PCL-injured knee, and to provide the best current evidence regarding comprehensive evaluation and management for PCL-injured knees with cartilage and/or meniscal comorbidities.

No abstract