Moore, M Lane

Abstract Biceps tenodesis has been proven to be an effective treatment for biceps tendon and superior labral pathology. Many techniques including both open and arthroscopic approaches have been reported. Open techniques afford management of the entire proximal biceps tendon but are limited by wound healing issues, increased bleeding, and increased surgical time. Arthroscopic tenodesis offers benefits in terms of surgical efficiency, cosmesis, and bleeding risk. However, standard arthroscopic tenodesis only addresses intra‐articular biceps pathology. In this report we describe an all‐arthroscopic biceps tenodesis technique at the suprapectoral region of the humerus using knotless suture anchor fixation. Technique Video video See video under supplementary data.

Purpose To quantify and analyze public interest trends in platelet‐rich plasma (PRP) therapy for shoulder pathology between 2011 and 2020 using Google Trends data. Methods Google Trends data were queried for online search data ranging from January 2011 to December 2020. Various combinations of terms related to PRP and shoulder pathology were queried. Terms related to corticosteroid therapy in association with shoulder pathology were also generated for comparative analysis. Analyses were performed regarding trends in online search volumes. Results Linear models were generated to evaluated trends in the volume of online searches for PRP and corticosteroid therapy for shoulder pathology. For both the PRP and steroid groups, linear models showed a statistically significant increase in search volume for the period studied ( P < .001). The PRP group showed a significantly greater growth rate than the steroid group ( P < .001). There were no statistically significant differences in online search volume when compared between different geographic and socioeconomic locations. Conclusions This study indicates consistently increasing public interest in PRP injections in the shoulder. The rate of online search volume growth of PRP is significantly greater than that of corticosteroid injections for the period studied. Clinical Relevance Awareness of patient perceptions has value in informing shared decision making, aligning patient expectations, and guiding areas of future research. Each of these has an impact on patient care. Being aware of patient interest and expectations is particularly important in areas with controversial or emerging research.

Purpose To evaluate the superior to inferior glenoid height as a reliable reference in best‐fit circle creation for glenoid anatomy. Methods The morphology of the native glenoid was evaluated using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients without shoulder instability. Using T1 sagittal MRI images, 2 reviewers independently estimated glenoid size using the two‐thirds technique and the “best‐fit circle” technique at 2 different times. A Student t ‐test was used to determine significant difference between the two methodologies. Inter‐ and intra‐rater reliability were calculated using interclass and intraclass coefficients. Results This study included 112 patients. Using the results of glenoid height and “best‐fit circle” diameter, the diameter of the “best‐fit circle” was found to intersect the glenoid line at 67.8% of the glenoid height on average. We found no significant difference between the 2 measures of glenoid diameter (27.6 vs 27.9, P = .456). The interclass and intraclass coefficients for the two‐third method were 0.85 and 0.88, respectively. The interclass and intraclass coefficients for the perfect circle methods were 0.84 and 0.73, respectively. Conclusions We determined that the diameter of a circle placed on the inferior glenoid using the “best‐fit circle” technique corresponds to 67.8% of the glenoid height. Additionally, we found that constructing a perfect circle using a diameter equal to two‐thirds the height of the glenoid may improve intraclass reliability. Level of Evidence Level IV, retrospective cohort study.

Background: Ganglion cysts are benign soft-tissue tumors that are most commonly found in the wrist. Within the wrist, 60% to 70% of ganglion cysts occur on the dorsal side and 20% to 30% occur on the volar side 1 . Although ganglia arise from multiple sites over the dorsal wrist, dorsal ganglia most commonly originate at the scapholunate joint 2,3 . Open excision is the standard surgical treatment for dorsal wrist ganglia. This procedure is considered when symptoms such as pain and range-of-motion deficits begin to impact activities of daily living. Description: Open excision of a dorsal wrist ganglion is commonly performed with the patient under general anesthesia or a regional block. The patient is placed in the supine position, and a tourniquet is applied on the affected upper limb. After outlining the periphery of the palpable ganglion, the surgeon makes a transverse or longitudinal incision over the ganglion. The surgeon then begins a deep dissection, dissecting through the subcutaneous tissue and isolating the ganglion while avoiding any rupture, if possible. Once the cyst has been identified, extensor tendons surrounding the cyst are retracted and the cyst and stalk are mobilized. The cyst and stalk are subsequently excised, and the wound is closed 4 . Alternatives: Alternative treatments for dorsal wrist ganglia include nonoperative interventions such as observation, aspiration, controlled rupture, and injection. Operative treatments include arthroscopic and open dorsal wrist ganglion resections. Rationale: Although nonoperative treatment can produce successful outcomes, the various modalities have been associated with recurrence rates ranging from 15% to 90% 4 . As a result, surgical excision remains the gold standard of treatment and is typically indicated when weakness, pain, and limited range of motion interfere with activities of daily living. Among surgical interventions, arthroscopic excision is a minimally invasive procedure that has become more common because of the reduced scarring and faster recovery 5 . However, open excision, which does not involve complex equipment, is regarded as the standard among surgical treatments. Although the rates of recurrence for arthroscopic versus open dorsal ganglion excision are similar, arthroscopic excision is less effective with regard to pain relief 5,6 . This difference in pain relief could potentially be the result of the neurectomy of the posterior interosseous nerve in an open excision. In contrast, an arthroscopic procedure may provide less relief of pain from the posterior interosseous nerve stump attaching to the scarred capsule 5 . Expected Outcomes: Open excision of a dorsal wrist ganglion is a safe, reliable procedure. The recurrence rate after open excision is similar to that after arthroscopic excision and significantly lower recurrence than that after ganglion cyst aspiration 6,7 . Additionally, not all ganglion cysts can be aspirated. In a retrospective study assessing the risk of recurrence after open excision of ganglion cysts in 628 patients, researchers reported a recurrence rate of 4.1% among the 341 who underwent open dorsal ganglion excision. Furthermore, the authors reported male sex and less surgeon experience as significant risk factors for cyst recurrence 8 . In a study assessing outcomes of open dorsal ganglion excision in 125 active-duty military personnel, researchers reported a recurrence rate of 9%. More notably, the researchers found persistent pain at 4 weeks postoperatively in 14% of the participants. The authors recommended that patients whose daily activities require forceful wrist extension, such as athletes and military personnel, should be counseled on the potential functional limitations and residual pain from open dorsal wrist ganglion excision 9 . Important Tips: When conducting an open excision, it is beneficial to identify the stalk of the cyst, allowing the surgeon to excise the complete ganglion complex and prevent recurrence. For large cysts that adhere to the surrounding soft tissue, it is helpful to rupture the ganglion in order to facilitate an easier deep dissection. Excising the scapholunate interosseous ligament could possibly lead to scapholunate dissociation and instability. The posterior interosseous nerve courses past the 4th dorsal compartment and may be resected during the deep dissection.

Purpose To determine the most frequently cited articles relating to ice hockey since 2000 and conduct a bibliometric analysis of these publications. Methods The Clarivate Web of Knowledge database was used to gather data and generate a list of publications relating to “ice hockey” on June 20, 2022. Articles were filtered by the total number of citations accrued and were included or excluded on the basis of relevance to ice hockey; no date of publication, language, or journal restrictions. After the 50 most highly cited articles were identified, articles published before the year 2000 were excluded to avoid bias. The information analyzed from each article included author name (first and last), publication year, country of origin, institutional affiliation (of the first and last author), journal name, research design, main research topic, competition level, and the level of evidence. Results Ultimately, 46 studies were included in this analysis. The total number of citations was 8,267 times with an average of 179.7 citations per article. The most cited article was cited 926 times. The articles came from 5 different countries, with the United States and Canada comprising 27 and 13 articles, respectively. All articles were published in English. The American Journal of Sports Medicine published the greatest number of articles. The most studied topic was concussion/traumatic brain injury (n = 26). Professional hockey was the most studied level of competition (n = 15), while college followed (n = 13). Three institutions, University of Calgary, Dartmouth School of Medicine, and University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill were responsible for 32.6% of the top articles (n = 15). Conclusions The majority of the most cited articles relating to ice hockey are cohort studies, review articles, and epidemiological studies originating from the United States or Canada. The majority of publications included in the analysis focused on concussion and traumatic brain injury prevalence, identification, diagnosis, outcomes, and prevention, as well as the most studied level of competition was professional, but the greatest number of participants arose from the youth and high school level. Level of Evidence Level IV, cross‐sectional study

Background: An open Achilles tendon repair is performed in patients who have suffered an acute rupture. All patients with this injury should be counseled on their treatment options, which include open operative repair and functional rehabilitation. We prefer the use of an open repair in high-level athletes and those who have delayed presentation. Typically, this injury—and the resulting open repair—are seen in young or middle-aged patients as well as athletes. Operative repair of a ruptured Achilles tendon is associated with a much faster return to activity/sport when compared with nonoperative alternatives. This surgical procedure is especially useful in allowing this patient population to return to their previous activity level and functional capacity as quickly as possible. Description: Open repair of a ruptured Achilles tendon begins with a 6 to 8-cm incision over the posteromedial aspect of the lower leg. Superficial and deep dissections are performed until the 2 ends of the ruptured tendon are identified. Adhesions are debrided to adequately mobilize and define the proximal and distal segments of the tendon. With use of a fiber tape suture, a modified locking Bunnell stitch is utilized to secure both ends. The fiber tape is tied securely, and the repair is reinforced with Vicryl suture (Ethicon). Once the tendon is repaired, the paratenon layer is identified and repaired with a running 0 or 2-0 Vicryl suture. This is an important step to minimize postoperative wound complications. The wound is then closed, and the extremity is splinted in maximum plantar flexion. Alternatives: Alternative treatments include minimally invasive surgical techniques such as percutaneous Achilles tendon repair and nonoperative treatment with functional rehabilitation, which can provide excellent outcomes but can also lead to a slight decrease in explosiveness as the patient returns to sport 1,2 . Rationale: Nonoperative and operative treatment of Achilles tendon rupture can both result in excellent patient outcomes. Appropriate patient selection is critical. Younger patients hoping to return to more highly competitive athletics should consider operative repair 3 . Possible differences have been identified in peak torque when comparing operative versus nonoperative treatment, with patients who had undergone operative repair having greater peak torque (i.e., explosiveness) 2 . Otherwise, findings are similar between treatment options as long as the patients meet the criteria for nonoperative treatment. Expected Outcomes: Overall, the scientific literature demonstrates that the functional outcomes following operative repair are good to excellent. In a study by Hsu et al. 4 , 88% of patients were able to return to their baseline level of activity by 5 months postoperatively, with a complication rate of 10.6% and no reruptures. In a recent meta-analysis by Meulenkamp et al. 5 , the authors found that operative repair of Achilles tendon rupture was associated with a reduced risk of rerupture compared with primary immobilization (i.e., conventional cast immobilization with delayed weight-bearing for at least 6 weeks only). However, open surgical repair, minimally invasive repair, and functional rehabilitation all had similar risk of rerupture 5 . In a review by Ochen et al. 6 that analyzed 29 studies with a total of 15,862 patients, operative repair was associated with a significantly lower risk of rerupture compared with nonoperative treatment (2.3% versus 3.9%, respectively). However, operative treatment was also associated with a significantly higher complication rate compared with nonoperative treatment (4.9% versus 1.6%, respectively) 6 . Finally, in a meta-analysis by Soroceanu et al. 7 , the authors found that if early range-of-motion protocols and functional rehabilitation were utilized, operative and nonoperative treatment resulted in similar outcomes and equivalent rates of rerupture. Important Tips: To prevent rerupture of an Achilles tendon, remind patients to engage in adequate stretching and warming prior to physical activity. Palpate and locate the tendon defect prior to making the first incision. Immobilize the ankle joint in a splint for 2 weeks postoperatively in maximum plantar flexion. Pitfalls include: ○ Poor suture management leading to tangling in the repair. ○ Undertensioning or overtensioning of the repair, which can be avoided by sterilely draping out both legs and checking resting tension intraoperatively. ○ Failure to close the paratenon, causing scarring of the skin or surrounding tissues, which can be avoided by making a relieving incision on the deep surface of the paratenon. ○ Leaving suture knots on the dorsal side of the repair that may aggravate the skin. Acronyms & Abbreviations: MRI = magnetic resonance imaging ESU = electrosurgical unit

Background: Open trigger finger release is an elective surgical procedure that serves as the gold standard treatment for trigger digits. The aim of this procedure is to release the A1 pulley in a setting in which the pulley is completely visible, ultimately allowing the flexor tendons that were previously impinged on to glide more easily through the tendon sheath. Although A1—or the first annular pulley—is the site of triggering in nearly all cases, alternative sites include A2, A3, and the palmar aponeurosis 1 . Description: Typically, the surgical procedure can be conducted in an outpatient setting and can vary in duration from a few minutes to half an hour. The surgical procedure involves the patient lying in the supine position with the operative hand positioned to the side. A small incision, ranging from 1 to 1.5 cm, is made on the volar side of the hand, just proximal to the A1 pulley in the skin crease in order to minimize scarring. Once the underlying neurovascular structures are exposed, the A1 pulley is released longitudinally at least to the level of the A2 pulley, followed by decompression of the flexor tendons that were previously impinged on. In order to confirm the release, the patient is asked to flex and extend the affected finger. The wound is irrigated and closed once the release is confirmed by both the patient and surgeon. Alternatives: Aside from an open release, trigger finger can be treated nonoperatively with use of splinting and corticosteroid injection. Alternative operative treatments include a percutaneous release, which involves the use of a needle to release the A1 pulley 2 . Trigger finger can initially be treated nonoperatively. If unsuccessful, surgical intervention is considered the ultimate remedy 2 . Rationale: Because of their efficacious nature, corticosteroid injections are indicated preoperatively, particularly in non-diabetic patients 3 . Splinting is often an appropriate treatment option in patients who wish to avoid a corticosteroid injection 1 . However, if nonoperative treatment modalities fail to resolve pain and symptoms, surgical intervention is indicated 2 . In comparison with a percutaneous trigger finger release, an open release provides enhanced exposure and may be safer with respect to avoiding iatrogenic neurovascular injury 2 . However, in a randomized controlled trial, Gilberts et al. found no difference in the rates of recurrence when comparing open versus percutaneous trigger finger release 4 . Expected Outcomes: With reported success rates ranging from 90% to 100%, the open release of the A1 pulley is considered a common procedure associated with minimal complications 2 . Complications of the procedure were assessed in a retrospective analysis of 43 patients who underwent 78 open trigger releases performed by 1 surgeon. In that study, the authors reported a minor complication rate of 28% and a major complication rate of 3% 5 . Specifically, the 2 major complications noted by the authors were a synovial fistula and a proximal interphalangeal joint arthrofibrosis. In a larger study that included 543 patients who underwent 795 open trigger releases, the authors reported a minor complication rate of 9.6% and major complication rate of 2.4% 6 . Furthermore, the most common complications involved persistent stiffness, swelling, or pain. In that analysis, the authors suggested that sedation, male gender, and general anesthesia may be associated with greater risk 6 . Important Tips: At the discretion of the surgeon, a longitudinal, transverse, or oblique incision is made directly on top of the tendon at the level of the metacarpophalangeal joint, which is the preferred incision site because it provides maximal accessibility to the A1 pulley. Local anesthesia is preferred because it allows the patient and surgeon to confirm the release immediately. If conducting an open trigger release on the thumb, the surgeon should identify and protect the radial digital nerve, which courses directly over the A1 pulley. Acronyms and Abbreviations: MCP = metacarpophalangeal

Purpose The purpose of this study is to examine the effects of scribe use on physicians, nurses, and patients in an orthopaedic sports medicine clinic. Methods Surveys containing validated outcome measures relating to physician well‐being and workplace satisfaction, among other variables, were used to assess the influence of medical scribes on clinic function. These surveys were collected for 8 months from all patients, nurses, and orthopaedic surgeons working in one orthopaedic sports medicine clinic. Time during a half‐day clinic (i.e., 20 or more patients) was documented by surgeons after the last patient was seen. Results The average time spent per half day of clinic was 104 minutes on nonscribe days and 25 minutes on scribe days. Additionally, the time spent documenting encounters per half day of clinic was 87 minutes on average without scribes and 26 minutes on average with scribes. The average surgeon single assessment numeric evaluation (SANE) score was 48.1 without scribes, and 89.3 with scribes. The overall assessment of the clinic by nurses was 73.4 out of 100 on average without scribes and 87.7 out of 100 on average with scribes. Patients did not report a significant change in rating of overall experience (4.7/5.0 with scribes and 4.8/5.0 without scribes, ( P = .27) or wait time between scheduled appointment time and surgeon arrival (15.1 minutes with scribes and 18.1 minutes without scribes; P = .12). Conclusions We found the use of scribes in a high‐volume orthopaedic sports medicine clinic to have a favorable impact on physicians, nurses, and trainees. The use of a scribe also significantly reduced the time required by surgeons for documentation during clinic and at the end of each clinic day. Patients also reported no significant difference in patient clinic experience scores. Clinical Relevance Orthopaedic surgeons spend a substantial amount of time on paperwork. The results of this study could provide information on whether the use of a scribe helps to reduce administrative burden on orthopedic surgeons.

Abstract Background Orthopaedic surgery has the lowest proportion of women surgeons in practice of any specialty in the United States. Preliminary studies suggest that patients who are treated by physicians of the same race, ethnicity, cultural background, or gender feel more comfortable with their care and may have better outcomes. Therefore, understanding the discrepancies in the diversity of the orthopaedic surgeon workforce is crucial to addressing system-wide healthcare inequities. Questions/purposes (1) Does a difference exist in gender representation among practicing orthopaedic surgeons across geographic distributions and years in practice? (2) Does a difference exist in gender representation among practicing orthopaedic surgeons with regard to rural-urban setting, group practice size, and years in practice? Methods Orthopaedic surgeons serving Medicare patients in 2017 were identified in the Medicare Physician and Other Supplier Public Use File and Physician Compare national databases. This dataset encompasses more than 64% of practicing orthopaedic surgeons, providing a low proportion of missing data compared with other survey techniques. Group practice size, location, and Rural-urban Commuting Area scores were compared across physician gender and years in practice. Linear and logistic regressions modeled gender and outcomes relationships adjusted by years in practice. Least-square means estimates for outcomes were calculated by gender at the median years in practice (19 years) via regression models. Results According to the combined Medicare databases used, 5% (1019 of 19,221) of orthopaedic surgeons serving Medicare patients were women; this proportion increased with decreasing years in practice (R2 0.97; p < 0.001). Compared by region, the West region demonstrated the highest proportion of women orthopaedic surgeons overall (7% [259 of 3811]). The Midwest and South regions were below the national mean for proportions of women orthopaedic surgeons, both overall (5% [305 of 6666] and 5% [209 of 4146], respectively) and in the first 5 years of practice (9% [54 of 574] and 9% [74 of 817], respectively). Women worked in larger group practices than men (median [interquartile range] 118 physicians [20 to 636] versus median 56 [12 to 338]; p < 0.001, respectively). Both genders were more likely to practice in an urban setting, and when controlling for years in practice, there was no difference between men and women orthopaedic surgeons practicing in rural or urban settings (respectively, R2 = 0.0004 and 0.07; p = 0.89 and 0.09). Conclusion Among orthopaedic surgeons, there is only one woman for every 20 men caring for Medicare patients in the United States. Although gender representation is increasing longitudinally for women, it trails behind other surgical subspecialties substantially. Longitudinal mentoring programs, among other evidenced initiatives, should focus on the more pronounced underrepresentation identified in Midwestern/Southern regions and smaller group practices. Gender-based equity, inclusion, and diversity efforts should focus on recruitment strategies, and further research is needed to study how inclusion and diversity efforts among orthopaedic surgeons improves patient-centered care. Level of Evidence Level III, therapeutic study.

Purpose The purpose of this study was to assess the price variation of various Medicare severity diagnosis‐related group codes for orthopaedic upper extremity procedures for the top 20 orthopaedic hospitals using chargemaster price listings from each hospital. Methods The top 20 orthopaedic hospitals in the United States were determined by querying the U.S. News and World Report ’s 2020 orthopaedic hospital ranking. This report ranks orthopaedic hospitals according to 4 major domains: outcomes, structure, process/expert opinion, and patient experience. Chargemaster data for the top 20 orthopaedic hospitals was compiled from their websites. Five DRG codes that represented orthopaedic upper extremity procedures were selected, and the pricing information for each was extracted from hospital chargemasters. The median income and cost‐of‐living index were also compiled for the county that each hospital is located in so that pricing data could be compared to economic measures through regression analysis. Results Of the top 20 orthopaedic hospitals, 18 had publicly available pricing information in DRG format on their websites. The DRG code with the highest pricing variability was Hand Injury Procedures (DRG 906; range, $12,832‐$253,633). The procedure with the least pricing variability was Hand or Wrist Procedures (DRG 514; range, $24,533‐$128,403). Additionally, only the cost of living index was a statistically significant predictor of procedure pricing with a weak correlation. Conclusion Hospital chargemaster listings are lacking in 2 major areas: true price transparency and standardization/consistency between hospitals. Chargemaster data are often difficult to find, confusing to patients, and inaccurate. Additionally, the price range for a single DRG code can also vary substantially depending on the hospital. It is possible that hospitals located in areas with high costs of living and median incomes would charge higher prices, but these factors were not found to support this hypothesis.