Faculty Bibliography

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:A machine learning analysis was conducted on 5774 shoulder arthroplasty patients to create predictive models for multiple clinical outcome measures after anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA). The goal of this study was to compare the accuracy associated with a full-feature set predictive model (ie, full model, comprising 291 parameters) and a minimal-feature set model (ie, abbreviated model, comprising 19 input parameters) to predict clinical outcomes to assess the efficacy of using a minimal feature set of inputs as a shoulder arthroplasty clinical decision-support tool. METHODS:Clinical data from 2153 primary aTSA patients and 3621 primary rTSA patients were analyzed using the XGBoost machine learning technique to create and test predictive models for multiple outcome measures at different postoperative time points via the full and abbreviated models. Mean absolute errors (MAEs) quantified the difference between actual and predicted outcomes, and each model also predicted whether a patient would experience clinical improvement greater than the patient satisfaction anchor-based thresholds of the minimal clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit for each outcome measure at 2-3 years after surgery. RESULTS:Across all postoperative time points analyzed, the full and abbreviated models had similar MAEs for the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (±11.7 with full model vs. ±12.0 with abbreviated model), Constant score (±8.9 vs. ±9.8), Global Shoulder Function score (±1.4 vs. ±1.5), visual analog scale pain score (±1.3 vs. ±1.4), active abduction (±20.4° vs. ±21.8°), forward elevation (±17.6° vs. ±19.2°), and external rotation (±12.2° vs. ±12.6°). Marginal improvements in MAEs were observed for each outcome measure prediction when the abbreviated model was supplemented with data on implant size and/or type and measurements of native glenoid anatomy. The full and abbreviated models each effectively risk stratified patients using only preoperative data by accurately identifying patients with improvement greater than the minimal clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit thresholds. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS:Our study showed that the full and abbreviated machine learning models achieved similar accuracy in predicting clinical outcomes after aTSA and rTSA at multiple postoperative time points. These promising results demonstrate an efficient utilization of machine learning algorithms to predict clinical outcomes. Our findings using a minimal feature set of only 19 preoperative inputs suggest that this tool may be easily used during a surgical consultation to improve decision making related to shoulder arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND:With an ongoing opioid epidemic in the United States, it is important to examine if decreased opioid prescribing can affect patient experience, namely satisfaction with pain control. PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this study was to investigate what effect, if any, decreased opioid prescribing after total shoulder arthroplasty had on Press-Ganey satisfaction surveys. METHODS:A retrospective review was conducted on patients who underwent primary anatomic or reverse total shoulder arthroplasty between October 2014 and October 2019. Patients with complete Press-Ganey survey information, no history of trauma, fracture, connective tissue disease, or prior shoulder arthroplasty surgery were included in the analysis. Patients were segregated into two groups, pre-protocol and post-protocol, based on the date of surgery relative to implementation of an institutional opioid reduction protocol, which occurred in October 2018. Prescriptions were converted to milligram morphine equivalents (MME) for direct comparison between different opioid medications. RESULTS:201 patients met inclusion criteria, and there were 110 reverse total shoulder arthroplasties and 91 anatomic total shoulder arthroplasties. Average opioids prescribed on discharge for the pre-protocol group was 426.3 ± 295 MME (equivalent to 56.8 tablets of oxycodone 5mg), while after initiation of the protocol it was 193.8 ± 199 MME (equivalent to 25.8 tablets of oxycodone 5mg); P<0.0001. Average satisfaction with pain control did not change significantly between pre-and-post protocol (4.71 ± 0.65 pre-protocol and 4.74 ± 0.44 post-protocol, P=0.82). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:A reduction in opioids prescribed after a total shoulder replacement is not associated with any negative effects on patient satisfaction, as measured by the Press-Ganey survey. LOE: Level III; Retrospective Cohort Comparison; Treatment Study.

BACKGROUND:Complications after anatomic (aTSA) and reverse (rTSA) total shoulder arthroplasty can be devastating to a patient's quality of life and require revisions that are costly to both the patient and the health care system. The purpose of this study is to determine the types, incidence, and timing of complications following aTSA and rTSA using an international database of patients who received a single-platform total shoulder arthroplasty system, in order to quantify the types of failure modes and the differences that occur between aTSA and rTSA. METHODS:A total of 2224 aTSA (male-female, 1090:1134) and 4158 rTSA (male-female, 1478:2680) patients were enrolled in an international database of primary shoulder arthroplasty performed by 40 different surgeons in the United States and Europe. Adverse events and revisions reported for these 6382 patients were analyzed to identify the most common failure modes associated for both aTSA and rTSA. RESULTS:For the 2224 aTSA patients, 239 adverse events were reported for a complication rate of 10.7% and 124 revisions for a revision rate of 5.6%. The top 3 complications for aTSA were rotator cuff tear/subscapularis failure (n = 69; complication rate = 3.1%, revision rate = 1.9%), aseptic glenoid loosening (n = 55; complication rate = 2.5%, revision rate = 1.9%), and infection (n = 28; complication rate = 1.3%, revision rate = 0.8%). For the 4158 rTSA patients, 372 adverse events were reported for a complication rate of 8.9% and 104 revisions for a revision rate of 2.5%. The top 3 complications for rTSA were acromial/scapular fracture/pain (n = 102; complication rate = 2.5%, revision rate = 0.0%), instability (n = 60; complication rate = 1.4%, revision rate = 1.0%), and pain (n = 49; complication rate = 1.2%, revision rate = 0.2%). CONCLUSIONS:This large database analysis quantified complication and revision rates for aTSA and rTSA. We found aTSA and rTSA complication rates of 10.7% and 8.9%, respectively; with revision surgery rates of 5.6% and 2.5%, respectively. The 2 most common complications for each prosthesis type (aTSA: subscapularis/rotator cuff tears, aseptic glenoid loosening; rTSA: acromial/scapular fractures, instability) were unique to each device. The rate of infection was similar for both. Future prosthesis and technique development should work to mitigate these common complication types in order to reduce their rate of occurrence.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To correlate the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Upper Extremity (PROMIS UE) score with preexisting validated outcomes scores, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (ASES), and Constant score (CS) in patients with idiopathic adhesive capsulitis (AC). METHODS:Patients with a clinical diagnosis of idiopathic AC ("freezing" or "frozen" phases) who agreed to complete the ASES, CS, and PROMIS UE scores during their office visit were included in this study. Trained researchers performed the objective clinical assessments on the included patients. Responses to the 3 outcomes scores were statistically analyzed and compared utilizing Pearson correlation coefficients. Floor and ceiling effects were calculated. RESULTS:The final cohort included 100 patients with AC of which there were 72% female and 87% right hand dominant, with a mean age of 55 years. The PROMIS UE required fewer question responses (5.02 ±1.84) compared to the fixed questions burden with ASES (12) and CS (9). The mean outcome scores were 34.6 ± 2.5 (PROMIS UE), 55 ± 22 (ASES), and 51 ± 16 (CS). The PROMIS UE displayed excellent correlation with both the ASES (r = 0.80, 95% [CI: 0.72, 0.86], p < 0.001) and CS (r = 0.76, 95% CI [0.67, 0.83], p < 0.001). Neither ceiling nor floor effects were present. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The PROMIS UE displayed comparable efficacy to commonly used legacy outcome scores (ASES and CS) in adhesive capsulitis. A lower question burden with the PROMIS UE carries a potential for wider acceptibility with the researchers and patients with shoulder pathology.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:It is important to understand the current characteristics of orthopaedic surgery program leadership, especially in the current climate of modern medicine. The purpose of this report was to describe the demographic, academic, and geographic characteristics of current orthopaedic chairs and program directors (PDs). METHODS:Orthopaedic surgery residency programs were obtained from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education website and cross-referenced with the Electronic Residency Application Service, identifying 161 residency programs for the 2018 to 2019 cycle. All data were collected in January 2020 to best control for changes in leadership. Demographic and academic information were collected from public websites. For geographic analysis, the United States was divided into five regions, and training locations were categorized as appropriate. RESULTS:A total of 153 chairs and 161 PDs were identified. 98.0% of chairs were men versus 88.8% of PDs (P = 0.001). Chairs had been in practice and in their current position for longer than PDs (26.4 vs 16.8 years [P < 0.005] and 9.1 vs 7.1 years [P = 0.014], respectively). Chairs had more publications and were more likely to be professors than PDs. PDs were more likely to remain at both the same region and institution that they trained in residency. The most common subspecialty was sports among chairs and trauma among PDs, although when compared with national averages orthopaedic trauma and orthopaedic oncology were the most overrepresented subspecialties. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Orthopaedic chairs are more likely to be men, have had longer careers, and have more academic accomplishments than their PD counterparts. Geography appears to have an association with where our leaders end up, especially for PDs. Subspecialization does not notably influence leadership positions, although orthopaedic trauma and orthopaedic oncology surgeons are more commonly represented than expected. This report serves to identify the current state of orthopaedic leadership and may provide guidance for those who seek these leadership positions.