Anatomic vs. reverse shoulder arthroplasty for glenohumeral osteoarthritis with intact rotator cuff: a retrospective comparison of patient-reported outcomes using the systems outcomes database with up to 5-year follow-up

BackgroundThe growing enthusiasm for the use of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) in the treatment of primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis (GHOA) with an intact rotator cuff is based on data derived from single-center studies with limited generalizability and follow-up. This study compared patient-reported outcomes (PROs) between RSA and total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) for the treatment of primary GHOA with up to 5-year follow-up and examined temporal trends in the treatment of GHOA between 2012 and 2021.MethodsA retrospective review was performed on patients with primary GHOA undergoing primary arthroplasty surgery from the Surgical Outcomes System global registry between 2012 and 2021. PROs including the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) score, and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain were compared between RSA and TSA at 1, 2, and 5 years postoperatively.ResultsA total of 4451 patients were included, with 2693 (60.5%) undergoing TSA and 1758 (39.5%) undergoing RSA. Both RSA and TSA provided clinically excellent outcomes at 1 year postoperatively (ASES: 80.8 ± 17.9 vs. 85.9 ± 15.2, respectively; SANE: 74.8 ± 24.7 vs. 79.5 ± 22.9; VAS pain: 1.3 ± 2.0 vs. 1.1 ± 1.7; all P < .05) that were maintained at 2 years (ASES: 81.3 ± 19.3 vs. 87.3 ± 14.9; SANE: 74.8 ± 26.2 vs. 79.7 ± 24.7; VAS pain: 1.3 ± 2.1 vs. 1.0 ± 1.6; all P < .05) and 5 years (ASES: 81.7 ± 16.5 vs. 86.9 ± 15.3; SANE: 71.6 ± 28.5 vs. 78.2 ± 25.9; VAS pain: 1.0 ± 1.7 vs. 1.0 ± 1.7; all P < .05), with statistical significance favoring TSA. After controlling for age and sex, there was an adjusted difference of 4.5 units in the ASES score favoring TSA (P = .005) at 5 years postoperatively but no differences in adjusted SANE (P = .745) and VAS pain (P = .332) scores. The use of RSA for GHOA grew considerably over time, from representing only 17% of all replacements performed for GHOA in 2012 to nearly half (47%) in 2021 (P < .001).ConclusionRSA as a treatment for GHOA with an intact rotator cuff seems to yield PROs that are largely clinically equivalent to TSA extending to 5 years postoperatively. The observed statistical significance favoring TSA appears to be of marginal clinical benefit based on established minimal clinically important differences and may be a result of the large sample size. Further research using more granular clinical data and examining differences in range of motion and complications is warranted as it may change the value analysis.     

Esophageal Surveillance Practices in Esophageal Atresia Patients: A Survey by the Eastern Pediatric Surgery Network

IntroductionEndoscopic surveillance guidelines for patients with repaired esophageal atresia (EA) rely primarily on expert opinion. Prior to embarking on a prospective EA surveillance registry, we sought to understand EA surveillance practices within the Eastern Pediatric Surgery Network (EPSN).MethodsAn anonymous, 23-question Qualtrics survey was emailed to 181 physicians (surgeons and gastroenterologists) at 19 member institutions. Likert scale questions gauged agreement with international EA surveillance guideline-derived statements. Multiple-choice questions assessed individual and institutional practices.ResultsThe response rate was 77%. Most respondents (80%) strongly agree or agree that EA surveillance endoscopy should follow a set schedule, while only 36% claimed to perform routine upper GI endoscopy regardless of symptoms. Many institutions (77%) have an aerodigestive clinic, even if some lack a multi-disciplinary EA team. Most physicians (72%) expressed strong interest in helping develop evidence-based guidelines.ConclusionsOur survey reveals physician agreement with current guidelines but weak adherence. Surveillance methods vary greatly, underscoring the lack of evidence-based data to guide EA care. Aerodigestive clinics may help implement surveillance schedules. Respondents support evidence-based protocols, which bodes well for care standardization. Results will inform the first multi-institutional EA databases in the United States (US), which will be essential for evidence-based care.Level of EvidenceThis is a prognosis study with level 4 evidence.     

A comparison of double single suture-button fixation,suture-button fixation,and screw fixation for ankle syndesmosis injury: A retrospective cohort study

Different methods have been used throughout the years for syndesmotic injury but there is no consensus on the ideal treatment. Some methods are expensive and some have more complications. The aim of this study is to compare single suture endobutton with double suture endobutton and screw fixation for syndesmotic injury.Sixty nine patients with syndesmotic injury with fibular fractures whom were treated with a single interosseous suture endobutton system (ZipTight^TM, Zimmer Biomet), a double interosseous suture endobutton system (ZipTight^TM, Zimmer Biomet) and 1 syndesmotic screw (TST, Istanbul, Turkey) were included in this study. Functional and radiological results from patient records between 2015 and 2018 were retrospectively evaluated.Twenty patients were treated with the double interosseous suture endobutton, 23 were treated with the single interosseous suture endobutton, and 26 were treated with traditional AO screw fixation. Three patients from the screw fixation group (11.5%) required revision surgery (P < .05). All the radiologic and clinical outcomes were statistical similar in all 3 groups.Our findings showed that the interosseous suture endobutton system is at least as safe as the screw fixation technique for treatment of syndesmosis joint injuries and can be used as an alternative to the screw method. The interosseous suture endobutton system eliminates the need for a second surgery to remove the hardware, which minimizes the probability of re-diastasis. Since our results showed no statistical difference between single and double interosseous suture endobutton systems, the less costly single endobutton system may be the better alternative.     

红参发酵产物联合长春瑞滨及顺铂化疗方案治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌患者的疗效

目的探讨红参发酵产物联合长春瑞滨及顺铂化疗方案治疗晚期非小细胞肺癌患者的疗效。方法将104例晚期非小细胞肺癌患者随机分为治疗组及对照组,每组52例。对照组患者给予单纯长春瑞滨^+顺铂化疗方案,治疗组患者在对照组基础上联合应用红参发酵产物。分别在治疗前后采用疲劳症状量表(FSI)、肺癌治疗功能评价量表(FACT-L)评价两组患者疲劳症状及生活质量,并比较治疗前后两组患者血清肿瘤标志物水平、免疫功能指标水平、药物不良反应及生存情况。结果治疗前,两组患者FSI各维度评分及总分,FACT-L各维度评分及总分,细胞角质蛋白19片段抗原21-1(CYFRA21-1)、神经元特异性烯醇化酶(NSE)、癌胚抗原(CEA)、自然杀伤(NK)细胞、CD3^+、CD4^+、CD8^+、CD4^+/CD8^+水平比较,差异均无统计学意义(P﹥0.05)。治疗后,对照组患者FSI各维度评分及总分均高于治疗前及治疗组;治疗组患者生理状态、情绪状态、对疾病关注度评分及总分均高于治疗前,且生理状态、社会家庭状态、情绪状态、功能状态、对疾病关注度评分及总分均高于对照组;两组患者CEA、CYFRA21-1及NSE水平均较治疗前下降,且治疗组患者均低于对照组患者;治疗组患者NK细胞、CD3^+、CD4^+及CD4^+/CD8^+水平均较治疗前上升,且均高于对照组患者,差异均有统计学意义(P﹤0.05)。治疗组患者血液学不良反应发生例数少于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P﹤0.05)。结论红参发酵产物联合长春瑞滨及顺铂化疗方案能够有效提高晚期非小细胞肺癌患者的免疫功能及生活质量,降低血清肿瘤标志物水平,并减轻血液学不良反应。