Faculty Bibliography

STUDY DESIGN/UNASSIGNED:Retrospective cohort study. OBJECTIVES/UNASSIGNED:The interactions between hip osteoarthritis (OA) and spinal malalignment are poorly understood. The purpose of this study was to assess the influence of total hip arthroplasty (THA) on standing spinopelvic alignment. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:In this retrospective cohort study, patients undergoing THA for OA with pre-and postoperative full-body radiographs were included. Standing spinopelvic parameters were measured. Contralateral hip was graded on the Kellgren-Lawrence scale. Pre-and postoperative alignment parameters were compared by paired t-test. The severity of preoperative thoracolumbar deformity was measured using TPA. Linear regression was performed to assess the impact of preoperative TPA and changes in spinal alignment. Patients were separated into low and high TPA (<20 or >/=20 deg) and change in parameters were compared between groups by t-test. Similarly, the influence of K-L grade, age, and PI were also tested. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:= .004). Preoperative TPA was significantly associated with the change in PI-LL, SVA, and TPA. High TPA patients significantly decreased SVA more than low TPA patients. There was no significant impact of contralateral hip OA, PI, or age on change in alignment parameters. CONCLUSION/UNASSIGNED:Spinopelvic alignment changes after THA, evident by a reduction in SVA. Preoperative spinal sagittal deformity impacts this change. Level of evidence: III.

BACKGROUND:The objective of this study is to assess patient satisfaction and preference for telemedicine- versus in-person visits for outpatient shoulder and elbow musculoskeletal consultation during the COVID-19 pandemic and in the future. METHODS:Patients who had telemedicine visits for shoulder and elbow musculoskeletal complaints at a single institution from March through June, 2020, were invited to respond to a post-visit survey. The survey included a standardized questionnaire that focused on the patient's satisfaction with the telemedicine visit(s) during the pandemic and preference for using the telemedicine platform in the future following the pandemic. Additional details regarding their virtual visits (severity of their medical condition, previous virtual- or ER visits) were also obtained. Data regarding patient demographics and visit details (primary diagnosis, type of visit, length of visit, treating physician) were extracted from electronic medical records. RESULTS:In total, 153 patients participated in the study. Overall, high satisfaction scores regarding the telemedicine visit were noted: 91% of patients reported that their concerns were adequately addressed, 89% would recommend telemedicine to a friend and 94% stated that they would use this platform again in the presence of a situation like the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the majority of patients (76%) reported a preference for in-person visits for the same musculoskeletal complaint if it were not for COVID-19. A telemedicine visit duration of more than 10 minutes and a first-time telemedicine visit correlated with higher satisfaction rates (P=0.037 and P=0.001, respectively). CONCLUSIONS:COVID-19 has provided a boost to the use of our telemedicine platform, with a high satisfaction rate among patients with shoulder and elbow musculoskeletal complaints, largely due to safety reasons and limited access to in-person doctor visits. However, a considerable number of patients would have preferred in-person visits for similar health complaints if there were no pandemic. Further research on optimizing the selection of patients for telemedicine visits and addressing their expectations and concerns regarding their visits will improve patients' preference for future telemedicine visits.

BACKGROUND:To measure functional outcome, patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are most often used but biomechanical tests can provide valuable supplementary data. The objective of this study was to investigate instrumented insoles for measuring ground-to-foot forces during basic activities. METHODS:Three groups were evaluated: normal controls, preoperative, and postoperative total knees. The Knee Society Scoring System (KSS) Short Form was used, and with foot pressure sensor insoles, a timed-up-and-go (TUG) test and a sit-to-stand (STS) test was used. RESULTS:Comparing preoperative to postoperative and control groups, there were significant differences in most parameters. There were no significant differences between controls and postoperative knees. Of the 33 correlation coefficients between three PROM parameters and six biomechanical parameters for the three groups, only five coefficients were greater than 0.5. CONCLUSIONS:The biomechanical data was substantially independent of the PROM data and provided additional functional evaluation. The most useful parameters were the left-right force ratios during sit-to stand (STS) and the timed-up-and-go (TUG) time.

BACKGROUND:We propose a new clinical assessment tool constructed using machine learning, called the Shoulder Arthroplasty Smart (SAS) score to quantify outcomes following total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). METHODS:Clinical data from 3667 TSA patients with 8104 postoperative follow-up reports were used to quantify the psychometric properties of validity, responsiveness, and clinical interpretability for the proposed SAS score and each of the Simple Shoulder Test (SST), Constant, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form (ASES), University of California Los Angeles (UCLA), and Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) scores. RESULTS:Convergent construct validity was demonstrated, with all 6 outcome measures being moderately to highly correlated preoperatively and highly correlated postoperatively when quantifying TSA outcomes. The SAS score was most correlated with the UCLA score and least correlated with the SST. No clinical outcome score exhibited significant floor effects preoperatively or postoperatively or significant ceiling effects preoperatively; however, significant ceiling effects occurred postoperatively for each of the SST (44.3%), UCLA (13.9%), ASES (18.7%), and SPADI (19.3%) measures. Ceiling effects were more pronounced for anatomic than reverse TSA, and generally, men, younger patients, and whites who received TSA were more likely to experience a ceiling effect than TSA patients who were female, older, and of non-white race or ethnicity. The SAS score had the least number of patients with floor and ceiling effects and also exhibited no response bias in any patient characteristic analyzed in this study. Regarding clinical interpretability, patient satisfaction anchor-based thresholds for minimal clinically importance difference and substantial clinical benefit were quantified for all 6 outcome measures; the SAS score thresholds were most similar in magnitude to the Constant score. Regarding responsiveness, all 6 outcome measures detected a large effect, with the UCLA exhibiting the most responsiveness and the SST exhibiting the least. Finally, each of the SAS, ASES, Constant, and SPADI scores had similarly large standardized response mean and effect size responsiveness. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:The 6-question SAS score is an efficient TSA-specific outcome measure with equivalent or better validity, responsiveness, and clinical interpretability as 5 other historical assessment tools. The SAS score has an appropriate response range without floor or ceiling effects and without bias in any target patient characteristic, unlike the age, gender, or race/ethnicity bias observed in the ceiling scores with the other outcome measures. Because of these substantial benefits, we recommend the use of the new SAS score for quantifying TSA outcomes.