Verhey, Jens T.

Background: Diabetic patients experience carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) at high rates, have increased symptom severity, and experience prolonged recovery after carpal tunnel release (CTR). This study assessed the association of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1) therapy with postoperative outcomes after CTR in type II diabetic patients with CTS. Methods: Using the PearlDiver database, 25 229 diabetic patients with CTS who underwent CTR and were prescribed GLP-1 therapy were identified and exact matched to 25 229 controls based on age, sex, Elixhauser comorbidity index, tobacco use, obesity, hypothyroidism, and body mass index where available. Demographic variables and comorbidities were compared between groups using Kruskal-Wallis analyses for continuous variables and chi-square tests for categorical variables. Bivariate logistic regression analysis was conducted for 90-day outcomes and 2-year CTR revision. Results: Patients on GLP-1 therapy had decreased risk of 90-day medical complications (odds ratio [OR] = 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.84-0.96) and hospital readmission (OR = 0.85; 95% CI, 0.77-0.94) of 0.5% and 0.4%, respectively, compared with controls. No significant differences were found in 90-day surgical complications or 2-year revision rates between cohorts. There were no cases of aspiration pneumonia. The GLP-1 cohort had increased odds of higher 90-day total costs of care (OR = 2.42; 95% CI, 1.88-3.15). Conclusions: GLP-1 therapy is associated with reduced risk of 90-day medical complications and hospital readmission following CTR in diabetic patients, suggesting these medications may optimize comorbidity profiles via glucose control preoperatively. Future studies may examine whether GLP-1 therapy is associated with minimum clinically important difference in patient-reported outcome measures for CTS in diabetic patients.

Background: There has been minimal literature evaluating how a prior myocardial infraction (MI) influences outcomes after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Thus, the purpose of this study was to evaluate how the timing, type, and treatment of MI prior to TKA affect postoperative cardiac complications, general medical complications, and surgical complications. Methods: A retrospective comparative study was conducted using a large insurance database. Patients undergoing primary TKA for osteoarthritis were included. Patients who had experienced MI within 2 years before TKA were identified and were matched 1:4 with patients who had not had such an MI on the basis of demographic variables and comorbidities. Patients who had a prior MI were stratified into 4 groups based on the timing of the MI: 0 to <6 months, 6 to <12 months, 12 to <18 months, and 18 to 24 months before TKA. The rates of postoperative cardiac, general medical, and surgical complications were compared between groups. Subanalyses on the prior MI type, treatment, and location were performed. Results: Prior MI was associated with increased risks of postoperative MI (odds ratio [OR], 3.97 [95% confidence interval (CI), 3.20 to 4.93]), heart failure (OR, 1.45 [95% CI, 1.24 to 1.75]), and 90-day mortality (OR, 2.15 [95% CI, 1.41 to 3.28]). The risk of postoperative MI was highest for those with MI within 6 months before TKA (OR, 6.86 [95% CI, 5.34 to 8.82]). Type-1 MI, ST-elevation MI (STEMI), non-ST-elevation MI (NSTEMI), and anterior and inferior MIs were linked to elevated postoperative MI and/or mortality risks, with timing closer to surgery further amplifying the risk. Percutaneous coronary intervention within 6 months before TKA also increased postoperative risks. Type-2 MI within 6 months before TKA was associated with an increased risk of periprosthetic joint infection compared with controls (OR, 4.23 [95% CI, 1.67 to 10.67]). Conclusions: Patients who had a prior MI, particularly within 6 months before TKA, had significantly elevated risks of postoperative MI, heart failure, and mortality. Outcomes varied by MI type, treatment, and location, with type-1 MIs and STEMIs increasing the postoperative mortality risk. Level of Evidence: Prognostic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Purpose To evaluate which patient factors are associated with specific metrics of poor access to care in patients with a rotator cuff tear (RCT). Methods The All of Us Database was utilized to form a cohort of patients with RCT between May 2018 and May 2023. Patients with a diagnosis of RCT using Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine clinical terms were included. The association of RCT diagnosis and patient‐specific factors on self‐reported outcomes of “delayed care,” “could not afford care,” “skipped medication,” and “have not seen provider in more than 1 year” were analyzed. Statistical tests performed were univariate regression and multivariable logistic regression. Results In total, 4,265 patients with RCT who completed the access to care survey were included. In the RCT cohort, 26.7% reported delayed care, 24.9% reported an inability to afford care, 12.1% reported skipped medications, and 1.7% reported not seeing a provider in more than 1 year. Multivariable analysis of patient treatment and demographic features revealed younger age, female sex, lower income, poor physical health, and poor mental health to be strongly associated with higher reported rates of delayed care, inability to afford care, and skipped medications. History of rotator cuff repair, marital status, and sexual orientation were not associated with reported poor access to care. Conclusions A quarter of patients with rotator cuff tears report delays in overall medical care and inability to afford care. Among patients diagnosed with RCT, patients of younger age, female sex, low income, and poor physical and mental health have higher odds of decreased access to health care. Clinical Relevance Health care disparities and access to care are topics that should be investigated to reduce them.

Background: Although it is well established that the type of organism can be a risk factor for failure in patients with periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), no study to date has examined the impact of the number of positive cultures on treatment outcomes in patients undergoing 2-stage exchange. The purpose of this multicenter study was to determine the prognostic utility of multiple positive cultures at resection as a predictor of failure following reimplantation. Methods: This retrospective multicenter study identified 437 patients with chronic knee PJI who had undergone 2-stage exchange arthroplasty with a minimum of 1 year of follow-up following reimplantation. PJI was defined with use of the 2013 Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria. Patients with culture-negative PJI were excluded (n = 138). Treatment failure was defined as either any reoperation for infection or PJI-related mortality. Multivariable regression controlling for risk factors for failure after a 2-stage arthroplasty was performed to determine whether ≥2 positive intraoperative cultures at resection can predict outcomes following reimplantation when compared with a single positive culture. Results: Two hundred and ninety-nine patients were included. At a mean follow-up of 6.2 ± 2.6 years, 48 patients (16.1%) experienced failure. Patients who had a failure were more likely to have had a longer interstage interval (p = 0.038) and were also more likely to have had ≥2 positive cultures at the time of resection arthroplasty (95.8% versus 75.3%; p = 0.001). On regression analysis, ≥2 positive cultures at resection was the only variable that was identified as a risk factor for failure following reimplantation in both the univariate (odds ratio [OR], 7.55 [95% CI, 2.24 to 47.0]; p = 0.006) and multivariable models (OR, 8.12 [95% CI, 2.31 to 51.9]; p = 0.005). Conclusions: This is the first study to examine the impact of the number of positive cultures on outcomes in patients with PJI. We found that the presence of ≥2 positive cultures at resection was an indicator of a poor prognosis and resulted in a greater than eightfold increase in the risk of treatment failure in patients undergoing a 2-stage exchange. Level of Evidence: Prognostic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Purpose To compare the surgical outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction using hamstring autograft (HA) plus lateral extra‐articular tenodesis (LET), isolated all‐soft tissue quadriceps autograft (QA), and isolated HA. Methods A retrospective review was performed comparing high‐risk patients undergoing ACL reconstruction with isolated HA, isolated QA, or HA + LET from August 2013 to January 2023. High‐risk patients, as determined by high‐grade pivot shift or generalized ligament laxity, with at least a 2‐year follow‐up, were included. Lysholm and International Knee Documentation Committee scores were compared at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. Retear rate, postoperative pivot‐shift grade, return to sport, and complications were recorded. Results In total, 159 patients (56 HA, 47 HA + LET, and 56 QA) were included. At 6 months postoperatively, the HA International Knee Documentation Committee score was significantly lower than that of the HA + LET and QA groups ( P < .0001). Similarly, the Lysholm score was significantly lower in the HA cohort at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years postoperatively ( P < .0001‐.02). There was no difference in the rate of achieving the minimally important clinical difference between the cohorts for either of these outcome scores. The retear rate was significantly higher in the HA group (17.9%) compared to the HA + LET (4.3%) and QA (1.8%) cohorts ( P = .01). The rate of postoperative pivot shift of grade 2 or more was also higher in the isolated HA group ( P = .04). Conclusions The use of an all‐soft tissue QA or HA + LET for ACL reconstruction resulted in a lower retear rate and postoperative pivot‐shift grade compared to an isolated HA graft in high‐risk patients at 2 years postoperatively. There was no difference in the rate of achieving the minimal clinically important difference between the cohorts. The QA and HA + LET reconstruction options may improve stability and decrease the failure rate compared with HA reconstruction alone. Level of Evidence Level III, retrospective cohort study.

Purpose To systematically review the existing literature on the functional performance of athletes at the time of return‐to‐sport (RTS) clearance after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR). Methods A systematic literature search of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science databases was performed. The inclusion criteria were original research reports with study populations of athletes who had undergone ACLR and had undergone objective functional testing immediately after clearance to RTS. Functional testing was stratified by hop tests, strength tests, kinetic assessment, and kinematic assessment, and data were extracted from each study using a standardized template. Results Of the 937 unique studies identified, 46 met the inclusion criteria. The average time between ACLR and functional testing was 7.9 months among the included studies. In 10 of 17 studies, patients were found to have an average quadriceps strength limb symmetry index of less than 90%. However, only 2 of 12 studies found the average hop test limb symmetry index to be less than 90%. Kinematics included reduced knee flexion angle and increased trunk flexion on landing in ACLR patients compared with matched controls. On evaluation of kinetics, ACLR patients showed reduced peak vertical ground reaction force, lower peak knee extension and knee flexion moments, and altered energy absorption contribution compared with matched controls. Conclusions This systematic review suggests that athletes show functional deficits at the time of RTS at an average of 7.9 months after ACLR. Traditional functional tests, such as strength and hop tests, are not able to accurately identify patients who continue to show deficits. The most common biomechanical deficits that persist after RTS clearance include diminished peak knee extension moment, decreased knee flexion angle, increased trunk flexion angle, reduced vertical ground reaction force, and increased hamstring central activation ratio during various functional gait and landing tasks. Level of Evidence Level III, systematic review of Level I to III studies.

Background: Bibliometric citation analyses have been widely used in medicine to help researchers gain foundational knowledge about a topic and identify subtopics of popular interest for further investigations. Purpose: To identify the 50 most cited research publications related to American football. Study Design: Cross-sectional study. Methods: The Clarivate Analytics Web of Science database was used to generate a list of publications relating to football. Articles were filtered by the total number of citations, and the top 50 most cited articles studying the sport of football were selected for this analysis. Articles were analyzed by author, publication year, country of origin, institution affiliation, journal, article type, main research topic area, competitive level, and the level of evidence. A total of 247 articles were reviewed to reach the top 50 articles. Results: The most studied topic within the top 50 articles was concussion/chronic traumatic encephalopathy (n = 40). Collegiate football was the most studied level of competition (n = 25). The journal publishing the greatest number of top articles was Neurosurgery. Two institutions, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Boston University School of Medicine, produced over one-third of top 50 articles (n = 18). Conclusion: Our analysis indicated that most of the top 50 publications related to the sport of football focused on concussion and CTE, were observational, and were published during or after 2000. The most studied level of competition was collegiate football.

Abstract Background The minimum clinically important difference (MCID) is intended to detect a change in a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) large enough for a patient to appreciate. Their growing use in orthopaedic research stems from the necessity to identify a metric, other than the p value, to better assess the effect size of an outcome. Yet, given that MCIDs are population-specific and that there are multiple calculation methods, there is concern about inconsistencies. Given the increasing use of MCIDs in total hip arthroplasty (THA) research, a systematic review of calculated MCID values and their respective ranges, as well as an assessment of their applications, is important to guide and encourage their use as a critical measure of effect size in THA outcomes research. Questions/purposes We systematically reviewed MCID calculations and reporting in current THA research to answer the following: (1) What are the most-reported PROM MCIDs in THA, and what is their range of values? (2) What proportion of studies report anchor-based versus distribution-based MCID values? (3) What are the most common methods by which anchor-based MCID values are derived? (4) What are the most common derivation methods for distribution-based MCID values? (5) How do the reported medians and corresponding ranges compare between calculation methods for each PROM? Methods The EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PubMed databases were systematically reviewed from inception through March 2022 for THA studies reporting an MCID value for any PROMs. Two independent authors reviewed articles for inclusion. All articles calculating new PROM MCID scores after primary THA were included for data extraction and analysis. MCID values for each PROM, MCID calculation method, number of patients, and study demographics were extracted from each article. In total, 30 articles were included. There were 45 unique PROMs for which 242 MCIDs were reported. These studies had a total of 1,000,874 patients with a median age of 64 years and median BMI of 28.7 kg/m 2 . Women made up 55% of patients in the total study population, and the median follow-up period was 12 months (range 0 to 77 months). The overall risk of bias was assessed as moderate using the modified Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies criteria for comparative studies (the mean score for comparative papers in this review was 18 of 24, with higher scores representing better study quality) and noncomparative studies (for these, the mean score was 10 of a possible 16 points, with higher scores representing higher study quality). Calculated values were classified as anchor-based, distribution-based, or not reported. MCID values for each PROM, MCID calculation method, number of patients, and study demographics were extracted from each study. Anchor-based and distribution-based MCIDs were compared for each unique PROM using a Wilcoxon rank sum test, given the non-normal distribution of values. Results The Oxford Hip Score (OHS) and the Hip Injury and Osteoarthritis Score (HOOS) Pain and Quality of Life subscore MCIDs were the most frequently reported, comprising 12% (29 of 242), 8% (20 of 242), and 8% (20 of 242), respectively. The EuroQol VAS (EQ-VAS) was the next-most frequently reported (7% [17 of 242]) followed by the EuroQol 5D (EQ-5D) (7% [16 of 242]). The median anchor-based value for the OHS was 9 (IQR 8 to 11), while the median distribution-based value was 6 (IQR 5 to 6). The median anchor-based MCID values for HOOS Pain and Quality of Life were 33 (IQR 28 to 35) and 25 (14 to 27), respectively; the median distribution-based values were 10 (IQR 9 to 10) and 13 (IQR 10 to 14), respectively. Thirty percent (nine of 30) of studies used an anchor-based method to calculate a new MCID, while 40% (12 of 30) used a distribution-based technique. Thirty percent of studies (nine of 30) calculated MCID values using both methods. For studies reporting an anchor-based calculation method, a question assessing pain relief, satisfaction, or quality of life on a five-point Likert scale was the most commonly used anchor (30% [eight of 27]), followed by a receiver operating characteristic curve estimation (22% [six of 27]). For studies using distribution-based calculations, the most common method was one-half the standard deviation of the difference between preoperative and postoperative PROM scores (46% [12 of 26]). Most reported median MCID values (nine of 14) did not differ by calculation method for each unique PROM (p > 0.05). The OHS, HOOS JR, and HOOS Function, Symptoms, and Activities of Daily Living subscores all varied by calculation method, because each anchor-based value was larger than its respective distribution-based value. Conclusion We found that MCIDs do not vary very much by calculation method across most outcome measurement tools. Additionally, there are consistencies in MCID calculation methods, because most authors used an anchor question with a Likert scale for the anchor-based approach or used one-half the standard deviation of preoperative and postoperative PROM score differences for the distribution-based approach. For some of the most frequently reported MCIDs, however, anchor-based values tend to be larger than distribution-based values for their respective PROMs. Clinical Relevance We recommend using a 9-point increase as the MCID for the OHS, consistent with the median reported anchor-based value derived from several high-quality studies with large patient groups that used anchor-based approaches for MCID calculations, which we believe are most appropriate for most applications in clinical research. Likewise, we recommend using the anchor-based 33-point and 25-point MCIDs for the HOOS Pain and Quality of Life subscores, respectively. We encourage using anchor-based MCID values of WOMAC Pain, Function, and Stiffness subscores, which were 29, 26, and 30, respectively.

Abstract Background Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are frequently used to assess the impact of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) on patients. However, mere statistical comparison of PROMs is not sufficient to assess the value of TKA to the patient, especially given the risk profile of arthroplasty. Evaluation of treatment effect sizes is important to support the use of an intervention; this is often quantified with the minimum clinically important difference (MCID). MCIDs are unique to specific PROMs, as they vary by calculation methodology and study population. Therefore, a systematic review of calculated MCID values, their respective ranges, and assessment of their applications is important to guide and encourage their use as a critical measure of effect size in TKA outcomes research. Questions/purposes In this systematic review of MCID calculations and reporting in primary TKA, we asked: (1) What are the most frequently reported PROM MCIDs and their reported ranges in TKA? (2) What proportion of studies report distribution- versus anchor-based MCID values? (3) What are the most common methods by which these MCID values are derived for anchor-based values? (4) What are the most common derivation methods for distribution-based values? (5) How do the reported medians and corresponding interquartile ranges (IQR) compare between calculation methods for each PROM? Methods Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, a systematic review was conducted using the PubMed, EMBASE, and MEDLINE databases from inception through March 2022 for TKA articles reporting an MCID value for any PROMs. Two independent reviewers screened articles for eligibility, including any article that calculated new MCID values for PROMs after primary TKA, and extracted these data for analysis. Overall, 576 articles were identified, 38 of which were included in the final analysis. These studies had a total of 710,128 patients with a median age of 67.7 years and median BMI of 30.9 kg/m 2 . Women made up more than 50% of patients in most studies, and the median follow-up period was 17 months (range 0.25 to 72 months). The overall risk of bias was assessed as moderate using the Jadad criteria for one randomized controlled trial (3 of 5 ideal global score) and the modified Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies criteria for comparative studies (mean 17.2 ± 1.8) and noncomparative studies (mean 9.6 ± 1.3). There were 49 unique PROMs for which 233 MCIDs were reported. Calculated values were classified as anchor-based, distribution-based, or not reported. MCID values for each PROM, MCID calculation method, number of patients, and study demographics were extracted from each study. Anchor-based and distribution-based MCIDs were compared for each unique PROM using a Wilcoxon rank sum test given non-normal distribution of values. Results The WOMAC Function and Pain subscores were the most frequently reported MCID value, comprising 9% (22 of 233) and 9% (22 of 233), respectively. The composite Oxford Knee Score (OKS) was the next most frequently reported (9% [21 of 233]), followed by the WOMAC composite score (6% [13 of 233]). The median anchor-based values for WOMAC Function and Pain subscores were 23 (IQR 16 to 33) and 25 (IQR 14 to 31), while the median distribution-based values were 11 (IQR 10.8 to 11) and 22 (IQR 17 to 23), respectively. The median anchor-based MCID value for the OKS was 6 (IQR 4 to 7), while the distribution-based value was 7 (IQR 5 to 10). Thirty-nine percent (15 of 38) used an anchor-based method to calculate a new MCID, while 32% (12 of 38) used a distribution-based technique. Twenty-nine percent of studies (11 of 38) calculated MCID values using both methods. For studies reporting an anchor-based calculation method, a question assessing patient satisfaction, pain relief, or quality of life along a five-point Likert scale was the most commonly used anchor (40% [16 of 40]), followed by a receiver operating characteristic curve estimation (25% [10 of 40]). For studies using distribution-based calculations, all articles used a measure of study population variance in their derivation of the MCID, with the most common method reported as one-half the standard deviation of the difference between preoperative and postoperative PROM scores (45% [14 of 31]). Most reported median MCID values (15 of 19) did not differ by calculation method for each unique PROM (p > 0.05) apart from the WOMAC Function component score and the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Pain and Activities of Daily Living subscores. Conclusion Despite variability of MCIDs for each PROM, there is consistency in the methodology by which MCID values have been derived in published studies. Additionally, there is a consensus about MCID values regardless of calculation method across most of the PROMs we evaluated. Clinical Relevance Given their importance to treatment selection and patient safety, authors and journals should report MCID values with greater consistency. We recommend using a 7-point increase as the MCID for the OKS, consistent with the median reported anchor-based value derived from several high-quality studies with large patient groups that used anchor-based approaches for MCID calculation, which we believe are most appropriate for most applications in clinical research. Likewise, we recommend using a 10-point to 15-point increase for the MCID of composite WOMAC, as the median value was 12 (IQR 10 to 17) with no difference between calculation methods. We recommend use of median reported values for WOMAC function and pain subscores: 21 (IQR 15 to 33) and 23 (IQR 13 to 29), respectively.