Moore, M. Lane

Background: Tobacco use is a known risk factor for poor healing after rotator cuff repair (RCR), but the effects of nontobacco nicotine products remain unclear. Purpose: To compare postoperative complications among nontobacco nicotine users, tobacco users, and nonusers undergoing RCR. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: Using the PearlDiver database, the authors identified patients who underwent arthroscopic RCR with ≥2 years of follow-up. Three 1:1 propensity-matched comparisons were conducted: nontobacco nicotine users versus nonusers (n = 4844), tobacco users versus nonusers (n = 19,182), and nontobacco nicotine users vs tobacco users (n = 4882). Outcomes included 90-day complications and 2-year revision surgeries. Results: Nontobacco nicotine users had mildly higher rates of lysis of adhesions than controls (0.7% vs 0.4%; OR, 1.95; P = .033) but no other significant differences. Tobacco users showed increased rates of acute kidney injury (AKI), pneumonia, infections, emergency department (ED) visits, readmissions, and revision surgery compared to controls. Compared to tobacco users, nontobacco nicotine users had moderately strong lower risks of pneumonia (0.6% vs 1.2%; OR, 0.46), ED visits (8.8% vs 13.6%; OR, 0.62), and readmissions (0.8% vs 1.5%; OR, 0.54) (all P < .01). Conclusion: While nontobacco nicotine use was associated with a modestly increased risk of lysis of adhesions after RCR, it did not significantly elevate the risk of major medical complications, infections, or revision surgery when compared to nonnicotine users. In contrast, tobacco users demonstrated consistently worse postoperative outcomes across multiple domains, including higher rates of AKI, pneumonia, surgical site infection, ED visits, readmissions, and revision procedures. Notably, when compared directly to tobacco users, nontobacco nicotine users had significantly lower rates of pneumonia, ED utilization, and readmissions. These findings suggest that although nontobacco nicotine products may not be entirely benign, their perioperative risk profile appears to be less severe than that of traditional tobacco use.

Purpose To evaluate retear rates, clinical outcomes, and complications of a consecutive series of full‐thickness rotator cuff repair cases augmented with an autograft biceps patch. Methods A retrospective review was performed of patients undergoing rotator cuff repair with autograft biceps patch augmentation. Patients underwent either magnetic resonance imaging or ultrasound to evaluate rotator cuff repair integrity at a minimum of 6 months postoperatively. Patient‐reported outcomes including the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Score and Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation score were also collected and evaluated for clinical significance at a minimum of 12 months postoperatively. Analysis of retear rates was performed by comparing observed retear rates to expected retear rates using the modified Rotator Cuff Healing Index score. Results The final cohort included 25 rotator cuff repair cases. Postoperative imaging was obtained by magnetic resonance imaging in 22 patients at a mean of 9 months postoperatively (range, 6.0‐15.3 months) and ultrasound in 3 patients at a mean of 30.4 months (range, 28.8‐32.2 months). The expected retear rate using the modified Rotator Cuff Healing Index score was 21.5% for the entire cohort. There was 1 retear, resulting in an actual retear rate of 4% at an average of 23.5‐month follow‐up ( P = .0196). The average Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation score was 93 (standard deviation 9), and the average American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Score was 96 (standard deviation 6.3) at an average of 23.5‐month follow‐up (range 14‐32). Patient acceptable symptomatic state was achieved by 96% of the cohort for the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Score and 88% of the cohort for the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation score. There were no cases of reoperation or complications. Conclusions In this consecutive series, the biceps autograft “smash” patch for rotator cuff augmentation resulted in a low rate of retears, favorable patient‐reported outcomes, and no complications. This augmentation option has the potential to be safe and effective for improving rotator cuff repair healing rates. Level of Evidence Level IV, retrospective case series.

Purpose To assess the ability of artificial intelligence (AI) to identify common sports‐related pathologies using radiologic imaging and to compare ChatGPT 4.0 with 2 competitors, Grok 2 and Claude 3.5 Sonnet. Methods ChatGPT 4.0, Grok 2, and Claude 3.5 Sonnet were used. Five common orthopaedic sports pathologies were chosen: anterior cruciate ligament tears, posterior cruciate ligament tears, meniscal tears, chondral pathologies, and rotator cuff tears. Fifty images representing each pathology were collected from a radiologic imaging database when possible, which included radiographic images, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging. Normal images were collected that corresponded to each diagnostic category. Receiver operator characteristic curves and area under the curve values were calculated to assess the accuracy of each AI platform. Results ChatGPT 4.0, Grok 2, and Claude 3.5 Sonnet accurately identified the pathology in 23.6%, 15.7%, and 17.1% of diseased images, respectively. ChatGPT and Grok were most accurate at identifying meniscus pathologies (ChatGPT: 48%, Grok: 42%), whereas Claude Sonnet was most accurate at identifying anterior cruciate ligament pathologies (30%). The area under the curve for ChatGPT, Grok, and Claude Sonnet was 0.21, 0.16, and 0.15, respectively (ChatGPT 4.0 vs Grok 2, P = .30; ChatGPT 4.0 vs Claude 3.5 Sonnet, P = .24; Grok 2 vs Claude 3.5 Sonnet, P > .99). There were no differences in performance between the 3 platforms overall or within any of the diagnostic categories. Conclusions ChatGPT 4.0, Grok 2, and Claude 3.5 Sonnet correctly identified the pathology in less than 25% of images of common sports‐related pathologies and showed area under the curve values well below 0.5, indicating poor accuracy. Based on these findings, we do not recommend the current use of these generative AI models for image‐based diagnosis in orthopaedics. Clinical Relevance As the use of AI becomes more popular within the general public, it becomes increasingly important to make aware the capabilities and limitations of popular AI platforms in regard to their current image‐based diagnostic capabilities.

Purpose To project the future utilization of open and arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (RCR) in the Medicare population through 2050, incorporating post‐COVID recovery data to provide insight into evolving surgical preferences, economic pressures, and implications for health care delivery. Methods We analyzed 2003‐2024 data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Medicare Part‐B National Summary, which captures all Medicare beneficiaries undergoing open or arthroscopic RCR as identified by Current Procedural Terminology codes. Projections were based on 2003‐2019 and 2023‐2024 data, reflecting post‐COVID‐19 recovery and avoiding distortions from 2020 to 2022 pandemic‐related disruptions. Statistical models evaluated included log‐linear, Poisson, negative binomial, and autoregressive integrated moving average. Autoregressive integrated moving average was selected based on the lowest normalized root mean square error, reflecting superior predictive accuracy and its ability to capture time‐dependent trends, and was used to forecast RCR volumes through 2050. Results In 2024, there were 23,154 open and 188,700 arthroscopic RCR procedures, which served as the baseline for modeling. Open RCR is projected to decline on average by 5.91% annually, while arthroscopic RCR is projected to grow by 2.88% annually. By 2050, arthroscopic RCR volume is expected to reach 394,434 procedures (95% forecast interval: 363,424‐425,321), whereas open RCR is expected to decline to 4748 procedures (95% forecast interval: 1243‐43,747). Conclusions Autoregressive integrated moving average modeling projects that by 2050 arthroscopic RCR utilization will increase by 2‐fold and open RCR will decline to one‐fifth compared with 2024 baseline volumes. Level of Evidence Level III, retrospective cohort study.

Abstract Platelet‐rich plasma (PRP) continues to generate both excitement and skepticism within orthopaedics and sports medicine. As a biologic derived from autologous blood, PRP offers an appealing, minimally invasive option for treating musculoskeletal pathology through the delivery of concentrated growth factors and cytokines. Evidence across orthopaedic subspecialties remains mixed, however, with studies showing variable efficacy and inconsistent methodologies. Recent data on PRP use for extra‐articular hip pathology, particularly greater trochanteric pain syndrome, hamstring injuries, and piriformis syndrome show encouraging improvements in pain and function, including faster return to sport and favorable patient‐reported outcomes. Yet, significant heterogeneity in study design, PRP preparation, and control interventions limits generalizability and hinders clear clinical guidance. These inconsistencies mirror similar challenges in PRP research for a variety of other orthopaedic pathologies, underscoring the need for standardized preparation protocols and consistent reporting frameworks. Despite these limitations, a signal of efficacy persists within the data, suggesting PRP may indeed provide meaningful benefit for select extra‐articular hip conditions. As surgical alternatives for these pathologies often carry substantial morbidity, continued refinement of PRP formulations and methodology represents a promising step toward establishing biologics as reliable, evidence‐based tools in orthopaedic care.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate and compare the ability of three popular open-source artificial intelligence platforms to diagnose common trauma-related fractures using radiologic imaging. METHODS: Design: Retrospective diagnostic performance comparison study. Setting: Publicly accessible online radiologic imaging databases. Patient Selection Criteria: Five common orthopedic trauma fractures were assessed: ankle, tibial plateau, intertrochanteric, femoral neck, and humerus. Radiographs and computed tomography (CT) images were collected. Images were randomly selected from confirmed diagnoses on Radiopaedia.org. Outcome Measures and Comparisons: ChatGPT 5, Grok 3, and Claude 4.5 Sonnet were queried with each image. Diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and performance by modality (X-ray vs. CT) were assessed. The reference standard was the expert-verified diagnosis provided by Radiopaedia.org, limited to cases labeled with a “diagnosis certain” tag. RESULTS: Each model was provided with 30 radiographs and 20 CT images whenever possible. ChatGPT 5, Grok 3, and Claude 4.5 Sonnet accurately diagnosed diseased images in 26.8%, 18.8%, and 22.4% of cases, respectively. By fracture type, ChatGPT 5 demonstrated the highest correct classification rates for ankle (10%), femoral neck (38%), humerus (40%), and tibial plateau (44%) fractures. Grok 3 demonstrated the highest correct classification rate for intertrochanteric fractures (6%). Overall sensitivities were 0.267, 0.187, and 0.223 for ChatGPT 5, Grok 3, and Claude 4.5 Sonnet, respectively. ChatGPT 5 and Grok 3 outperformed Claude 4.5 Sonnet (both P < 0.001). No modality-based performance differences were observed for any model. CONCLUSIONS: Among the publicly available large language models evaluated for radiologic interpretation of orthopedic trauma imaging, ChatGPT 5 demonstrated the highest overall diagnostic accuracy, followed by Claude 4.5 Sonnet and Grok 3. Despite relative variation between the models, overall diagnostic accuracy for fracture detection was low across all platforms (<27%). In their baseline forms, these publicly accessible large language models are not recommended for radiologic imaging interpretation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background: Medicaid reimbursement to physicians is often perceived to be lower than Medicare, but little is known about orthopaedic foot and ankle reimbursement. This study sought to compare Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement for the 20 most common foot and ankle procedures. Methods: Medicare reimbursement rates for common foot and ankle codes were obtained from the online Centers for Medicare & Medicaid fee schedule, while Medicaid rates were found from individual state fee schedule websites. Medicaid rates were compared by state and pooled to obtain national differences. The Medicare Wage Index was used to adjust Medicaid rates by state wages to ensure a more accurate comparison. Variability between states was measured using state percentages of Medicare and coefficient of variation values. Results: Medicaid reimbursed physicians higher than Medicare in 31 states overall, with average reimbursement ranging from 37% to 324% of Medicare. Nationally, Medicaid reimbursed 8.8% higher than Medicare, but Medicare reimbursed 3.7% higher when adjusted for the Medicare Wage Index. The Current Procedural Terminology ( CPT ) codes with the highest ratio of Medicaid to Medicare reimbursement were CPT 28002 for incision and drainage of the foot (176.6%) and CPT 28820 for toe amputation (167.6%). Five codes had lower relative Medicaid reimbursement on average: CPT 27687 for repair procedures on the leg and ankle joint, CPT 28810 for amputation procedures on the foot and toes, CPT 28010 for toe tenotomy, CPT 28005 for incision procedures on the foot and toes, and CPT 28470 for closed treatment of a metatarsal fracture. The coefficient of variation values ranged from 0.34 to 0.84 in the Medicaid group and 0.40 to 0.78 in the adjusted group, indicating high variability between states and between procedures. Conclusion: Medicaid reimbursement is highly inconsistent between states, ranging from 37% to 324% of Medicare. Medicaid reimbursed more than Medicare overall, which is in contrast with most published findings that tend to show higher reimbursement for Medicare when compared to Medicaid. When adjusting for wage differences between states, Medicare reimbursed slightly higher than Medicaid. Level of Evidence: Level IV, economic analysis.

Background: The Latarjet and other bony augmentation procedures are commonly used to treat anterior shoulder instability in the setting of significant glenoid bone loss. Although several fixation strategies have been reported, the biomechanical strength of these techniques remains poorly understood. Purpose: To perform a systematic review of the biomechanical strength of glenoid bony augmentation procedures for anterior shoulder instability. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A systematic search of the Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases was performed to identify biomechanical studies evaluating various fixation strategies for coracoid and other bone transfer procedures for anterior shoulder instability. Biomechanical results included load to failure with both compression and traction forces, stiffness, and cyclic displacement. The quality of included articles was assessed based on the Quality Appraisal for Cadaveric Studies (QUACS) scale. Results: A total of 21 biomechanical studies comprising 486 specimens were included. The number of screws used and the addition of washers were found to significantly increase rigidity and load to failure. The comparison of fixation techniques demonstrated mixed results in load to failure between screw and alternative constructs including suture buttons and suture anchors. However, studies that tested graft displacement consistently found more graft displacement in buttons compared with screws. The median and mean of the QUACS scale were both 12, with a range of 10-13. Conclusion: Biomechanical studies consistently demonstrated that when glenoid bone grafts were fixed with screws, the number of screws and use of washers significantly increased construct rigidity and load to failure. Different metal screw materials and sizes did not consistently demonstrate a significant difference in biomechanical strength. There are mixed results when comparing suture buttons to screw fixation. The evaluated studies revealed that all double metal screw constructs and the majority of suture button and anchor constructs were able to withstand the glenohumeral load reflective of activities of daily living using a 150-N threshold.

Purpose To compare Medicaid and Medicare rates for the 20 most commonly billed orthopaedic sports medicine procedures. Methods Medicaid reimbursement rates were obtained from state‐specific fee schedules. Medicare rates were collected from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Physician Fee Schedule, along with relative value units for each procedure. State rates were compared using averages and dollar differences. Reimbursement rates were adjusted for cost of living using the Medicare Wage Index. Variability between states and between procedures was assessed using coefficients of variation. Results Mean Medicaid reimbursement was lower than that of Medicare for 19 of the 20 procedures. In total, Medicaid reimbursed surgeons 14.9% less when data were unadjusted and 26.0% less when data were adjusted for cost of living. Variation in Medicare rates between states was constant, with a coefficient of variation of 0.06. For Medicaid, the coefficients of variation ranged from 0.27 to 0.70 for unadjusted data and from 0.35 to 0.69 for adjusted data. Conclusions On average, Medicaid reimburses orthopaedic sports medicine specialists less than does Medicare, with substantial variability between states. Adjustment for cost of living increases the percentage difference and the variability between states’ Medicaid reimbursement rates. Level of Evidence Level IV, economic analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This study seeks to evaluate the variability of Medicaid reimbursement and compare it with Medicare reimbursement using the 20 most commonly billed orthopaedic trauma Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes nationwide. The authors anticipate significant variability between states and hypothesize that Medicaid payment will be significantly less than Medicare payment. METHODS: The top 20 most common orthopaedic trauma surgery procedural codes were identified from a previous analysis performed by Haglin et al. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Physician Fee Schedule was used to determine reimbursement rates from Medicare, and state Medicaid fee schedules were used to determine reimbursement rates for Medicaid. State Medicaid rates were compared with their corresponding Medicare rates to determine a dollar difference. In addition, the dollar difference for each CPT code was divided by its respective physician relative value unit. This was used to acknowledge the possible variability in the complexity of orthopaedic procedures and the related physician effort. The Medicare Wage Index was used to adjust Medicaid rates based on the cost of living for the state as well. Coefficients of variation were calculated to represent overall variability in Medicaid and Medicare reimbursement rates. RESULTS: The mean reimbursement rates for Medicaid were lower for all 20 procedures compared with Medicare. On average, Medicaid reimbursed 16.0% less than Medicare and 29.6% less when adjusting for cost of living. MCD reimbursed at a higher rate than MCR for all procedures in only 9 states (Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Dakota, and South Dakota) while 38 states reimbursed at a lower rate than MCR, on average. The coefficient of variation ranged from 0.24 to 0.34 for the Medicaid unadjusted group and from 0.35 to 0.46 for the Medicare Wage Index–adjusted group. By contrast, the Medicare group was consistent at 0.06 for all 20 procedures. The average dollar difference across the 20 CPT codes for Medicaid reimbursement compared with Medicare reimbursement ranged from −$76.89 to −$225.17, and the dollar difference per relative value unit ranged from −$5.96 to −$15.16. CONCLUSIONS: This study found a high amount of variation between state Medicaid reimbursement rates and average rates that were significantly lower than Medicare reimbursement rates for the top 20 most used orthopaedic trauma CPT codes as identified by Haglin et al. The discrepancy in reimbursement was increased when Medicaid rates were adjusted for state cost of living. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic, Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.