Demographic Trends and Complication Rates in Arthroscopic Elbow Surgery

Does tranexamic acid reduce elbow swelling and improve early function following arthroscopic arthrolysis? A double-blind randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Tranexamic acid (TXA) reduces bleeding and hematoma rates in open elbow arthrolysis. However, its effects on arthroscopic elbow arthrolysis remain unclear. This study aims to evaluate the effect of TXA on elbow arthroscopic procedures and compare bleeding volume, hemarthrosis, visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, range of motion (ROM), and Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS) in the early postoperative period between patients who received intra-articular TXA and those who did not.

METHODS

A prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial enrolling 80 patients with stiff elbows who underwent arthroscopic arthrolysis was performed from January 2021 to December 2022. Intra-articularly, 1 g of TXA in 100 ml of saline or placebo (control group) was administered after the arthroscopic operation according to randomization. Parameters were recorded and compared between the groups, including bleeding volume of drainage, hemoglobin (Hgb) level, ratio of arm and forearm circumference of the surgical side to the contralateral side, grading of hematoma, VAS, ROM, and MEPS within 1 week postoperatively. And during 1 year follow-up, ROM and MEPS were recorded.

RESULTS

All patients enrolled in this study demonstrated significant improvements in ROM (flexion-extension) and MEPS 1 week postoperatively, with no significant differences observed between the 2 groups. Compared to the control group, the TXA group exhibited significant differences in the bleeding volume of drainage (61.45 ± 47.7 ml vs. 89.8 ± 47.0 ml, P = .030) and a higher Hgb level 24 hours postoperatively (13.5 ± 1.5 g/dL vs. 12.6 ± 1.8 g/dL P = .049). While the ratio of arm and forearm circumferences significantly increased 24 hours postoperatively compared to preoperative values in TXA group (1.05 ± 0.06 vs. 1.02 ± 0.04 and 1.02 ± 0.06 vs. 0.98 ± 0.04, with P = .019 and P = .005, respectively), this difference vanished 1 week postoperatively for the ratio of arm circumference. However, it persisted for the ratio of forearm circumference (1.02 ± 0.07 vs. 0.98 ± 0.04, P = .003). Furthermore, there was no significant difference in MEPS, VAS, or ROM between the 2 groups 1 week postoperatively.

CONCLUSION

Patients with stiff elbows who underwent arthroscopic arthrolysis achieved satisfactory clinical outcomes very early postoperatively. Compared to the control group, patients who underwent arthroscopic elbow arthrolysis with intra-articular administration of TXA exhibited significantly less bleeding volume of drainage and slightly higher Hgb levels postoperatively. One week postoperatively, slightly more swelling in the upper arm region was noted in the control group compared to the TXA group. These findings suggest that the intra-articular injection of TXA after arthroscopic release for elbow stiffness may statistically reduce complications related to postoperative bleeding. However, it's clinical relevance needs further investigation.

Emergency department utilization after elbow arthroscopy

Background

Elbow arthroscopy has defined indications for which technical pearls and outcomes have been described. However, other aspects of the postoperative course, such as postprocedural emergency department (ED) visits, have received less attention. The current study defined the incidence and factors associated with ED visits in the 90 days following elbow arthroscopy by leveraging a large, national, multiinsurance, administrative database.

Methods

Adult patients who underwent elective elbow arthroscopy were identified in the 2010 to Q1 2022 PearlDiver Mariner161 national administrative database. Those who visited the ED in the 90 days following surgery were identified and compared to those who did not based on age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Index, geographic region of the United States, and insurance type by multivariate analyses. The timing (weeks following surgery), reasons for ED visit (elbow-related or not), and ED-to-hospital admission (presence or absence) were also assessed. Finally, the rate of those who were admitted during an ED visit was described.

Results

A total of 16,310 elbow arthroscopy patients were identified, of which ED visits in the 90 days following surgery were noted for 1086 (6.7%). ED visits were independently associated with younger age (odds ratio [OR, 95% confidence interval (CI)]: 1.23 [1.17, 1.29] per decade decrease), higher Elixhauser Comorbidity Index (OR [95% CI]: 1.21 [1.19, 1.23] per 1-point increase), different geographic region (OR [95% CI]: 1.42 [1.19, 1.71] for Midwest relative to West), and insurance (OR [95% CI]: 1.88 [1.48, 2.39] for Medicaid relative to Commercial) (P < .001 for each). The incidence of all-cause ED visits was highest during the first two postoperative weeks and gradually decreased over the following weeks. The reason for ED visits related to the elbow decreased from 65% in month one, to 37.7% in month two, to 26.6% in month three. Of those visiting the ED, 12.4% went on to be admitted (for any reason).

Conclusion

A significant proportion of patients from a large cohort of elbow arthroscopy patients visited the ED at least once in the 90 days following surgery. The defined associated factors and timing of these ED visits can help optimize postoperative care pathways.

Perioperative steroid injection in elbow arthroscopy

The goal of the present study was to evaluate the incidence of infection after perioperative intra-articular steroid injection during elbow arthroscopy. Starting from May 2019, we prospectively included all patients that underwent an elbow arthroscopy for various indications. All patients received preoperative antibiotics intravenously and a corticosteroid injection immediately after portal closure. Patients who needed ligamentous repair and aged below 18 years old were excluded. Final follow up of all patients was 3 months. In total, 108 elbow arthroscopies were performed in 100 patients. No major complications and 1 minor complication were seen. One patient developed a seroma that resolved spontaneously after 14 days without intervention or antibiotics. In this patient group, a perioperative corticosteroid injection following elbow arthroscopy did not increase the chance of infection.

Wide Range in Complication Rates Following Elbow Arthroscopy in Adult and Pediatric Patients: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

To perform a systematic review of complications associated with elbow arthroscopy in adults and children.

METHODS

A literature search was performed in the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. Studies reporting complications or reoperations after elbow arthroscopy with at least 5 patients were included. Based on the Nelson classification, the severity of complications was categorized as minor or major. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized clinical trials, and nonrandomized trials were assessed using the Methodological Items for Non-randomized Studies (MINORS) tool.

RESULT

A total of 114 articles were included with 18,892 arthroscopies (16,815 patients). A low risk of bias was seen for the randomized studies and a fair quality for the nonrandomized studies. Complication rates ranged from 0% to 71% (median 3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.8%-3.3%), and reoperation rates from 0% to 59% (median 2%; 95% CI, 1.8%-2.2%). A total of 906 complications were observed, with transient nerve palsies (31%) as the most frequent complication. According to Nelson classification, 735 (81%) complications were minor and 171 (19%) major. Forty-nine studies reported complications in adults and 10 studies in children, showing a complication rate ranging from 0% to 27% (median 0%; 95% CI, 0%-0.4%) and 0% to 57% (median 1%; 95% CI, 0.4%-3.5%), respectively. A total of 125 complications were observed in adults, with transient nerve palsies (23%) as the most frequent complication, and 33 in children, with loose bodies after surgery (45%) as the most frequent complication.

CONCLUSIONS

Predominantly low-level evidence studies demonstrate varying complication rates (median 3%, range 0%-71%) and reoperation rates (median 2%, range 0%-59%) after elbow arthroscopy. Higher complication rates are observed after more complex surgery. The incidence and type of complications can aid surgeons in patient counseling and refining surgical techniques to further reduce the complication rates.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV; systematic review of Level I-IV studies.

Have Elbow Arthroscopy Hospitalizations Decreased over the Years? An Epidemiological Italian Study from 2001 to 2016

This study describes the trends of elbow arthroscopy in Italy and other countries in order to evaluate the yearly rates of EA. Its purpose is for future epidemiological studies to be able to compare their data between countries in order to understand the reasons for the increasing and decreasing trends. Data for this study were obtained from National Hospital Discharge records (SDO) at the Italian Ministry of Health (INHS). Data regarding sex, age, region of residence, region of surgery, length of hospitalization, and procedure codes were included. In total, 2414 elbow arthroscopies were performed in Italy from 2001 to 2016 in the adult population. The highest number of procedures was found in the 40-44 and 45-49 years age groups. Males represented the majority of patients undergoing EA both in total and over the years. An increase from 2001 to 2010 and a decrease from 2010 to 2016 were reported in the present analysis. According to other studies, males of 40-44 and 45-49 years age groups represent the most treated patients. Further epidemiological studies would provide data that could be compared between countries, reaching a general consensus on the best indications for this procedure.

Complications of Elbow Arthroscopic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Elbow arthroscopic surgery has been popularized and has made significant progress during the past 3 decades. The elbow joint is relatively small and is in close proximity to many neurovascular structures. These factors make elbow arthroscopic surgery technically demanding and liable to complications.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the rate of complications after elbow arthroscopic surgery.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines were followed to perform this systematic review and meta-analysis. PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase were searched up to July 2021. All clinical studies that reported complications after elbow arthroscopic surgery were included; a total of 1208 articles were initially found. Case reports, reviews, abstracts, imaging studies, technique studies, nonclinical studies, and those not reporting postoperative complications were excluded. Complication rates were pooled across studies and reported as percentages. Complications were expressed as weighted proportions with 95% CIs.

RESULTS

A total of 95 studies (14,289 elbows) were included in the meta-analysis. The overall weighted complication rate was 11.0% (95% CI, 8.8%-13.5%), with postoperative stiffness being the most commonly encountered complication (4.5% [95% CI, 2.1%-7.6%]; 158/8818 procedures). The second most encountered complication was the need for subsequent surgery with a weighted proportion of 4.1% (95% CI, 2.9%-5.6%; 177/8853 procedures) followed by nerve injury with a weighted proportion of 3.4% (95% CI, 2.6%-4.3%; 267/13,725 procedures). The ulnar nerve was the most commonly injured nerve (2.6% [95% CI, 1.9%-3.4%]; 123/6290 procedures).

CONCLUSION

The results of this study showed that elbow arthroscopic surgery is a relatively safe procedure with low complication rates.

Reliability, validity and critical appraisal of the cross-cultural adapted German version of the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS-G)

Background

The Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS) is a rating system consisting of four dimensions to evaluate elbow performance. It is a common tool for assessment of elbow impairments worldwide. We determined the validity and reliability of its German version (MEPS-G) after cross-cultural adaptation.

Methods

Six investigators examined 57 patients with elbow pathologies. The MEPS-G was compared to validated elbow scores such as the German versions of DASH, the Oxford Elbow Score, pain level and subjective elbow performance on a VAS. Inter-rater reliability (IRR) and validity of the score and its dimensions were also reviewed. Verification was performed using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), the prevalence and bias with adjusted Kappa (PABAK) and the Spearman correlation.

Results

The IRR of the MEPS-G score was moderate (ICC (2.1) = 0.65). The IRR of the four individual dimensions was moderate to high (K_PABAK = 0.55 -0.81). Validity for the sum score (r = 0.52–0.65) and the dimensions pain (r = 0.53–0.62), range of motion (r = 0.7) and stability (r = − 0.61) was verified. The function subscale reached insufficient validity (r = 0.15–0.39).

Conclusion

The MEPS-G is not sufficiently valid, which is consistent with its English version. The patient-based dimensions were a weakness, demonstrating high risk of bias. There is no general recommendation for the utilization of the MEPS-G as outcome measurement for patients with elbow pathologies.

Complications in Elbow Arthroscopy: Management and Prevention

With advances in the understanding of elbow anatomy, pathologies of the elbow, arthroscopic instrumentation, and surgical techniques over recent decades, elbow arthroscopy has become a valuable treatment modality for a variety of conditions. Elbow arthroscopy has gained utility for treating problems such as septic arthritis, osteoarthritis, synovitis, osteophyte and loose body excision, contracture release, osteochondral defects, select fractures, instability, and lateral epicondylitis. Accordingly, precise knowledge of the neurovascular anatomy, safe arthroscopic portal placement, indications, and potential complications are required to maximize patient outcomes and assist in educating patients. This comprehensive review provides the reader an understanding of the potential complications associated with arthroscopic procedures of the elbow and to describe strategies for prevention and management.

A systematic review of elbow arthroscopy complications : Complications, risk factors, and safety tips

PURPOSE

To determine the complications from elbow arthroscopy for the past 16 years, and to summarize the most reported safety techniques and risk factors.

METHODS

Eligibility criteria included level I to IV evidence articles that were published after 2005 in the English language. Excluded were vet, paediatric, and cadaver studies. Open and arthroscopic-assisted elbow procedures were not included. Two online databases were comprehensively searched (PubMed and PMC) in April 2021. Relevant paper selection was conducted by two independent reviewers. MINORS score, demographic properties, indications, procedure type, complication rates, reoperation rates, reported risk factors, and safety techniques were recorded.

RESULTS

Fifty-two articles met the criteria and were included. No relevant level I to II evidence studies were discovered. The mean age ranged from 31 to 65 years. The average body mass indexes were between 26 and over 40 kg/m². There was a prevalence of male sex (from 50.2 to 79.2%). Most of the studies reported a minimum follow-up (range, 4 weeks-12 months). The most common arthroscopic procedure was debridement (up to 73% in Leong et al.'s study). The average MINORS score was 12 (range, 10-16). The total complications rate ranged from 1.5 to 11%, with a few studies reporting over 25%. Nerve injury rate was 1.26-7.5%. Re-operation rate ranged from none (100 procedures) to 11.8%.

CONCLUSIONS

Elbow arthroscopy is a successful procedure with a low overall complications rate (from 1.5 to 11%), and a low nerve injury rate (from 1.26 to 7.5%). Risk factors include patient-related factors (obesity, female sex, age over 65 years, elevated blood sugar levels, hypercoagulable disorder, tobacco and alcohol use), preoperative elbow impairment/previous surgery, and periprocedural steroid injections. Our review discovered a re-operation rate of 2 to 18%.

Does Sawbone-Based Arthroscopy Module (SBAM) Can Help Elbow Surgeons?

INTRODUCTION

The use of elbow arthroscopy is becoming increasingly common in orthopaedic practice; nevertheless, it is still considered a difficult procedure with a long learning curve. The aim of the study is to evaluate the role of a new elbow Sawbone-Based Arthroscopy Module (e-SBAM) in the training of elbow surgeons.

METHODS

Fourteen surgeons were classified as "Expert" (n: 7; more than 10 years of experience in arthroscopic surgery) and "Not-expert" surgeons (n: 7; less than 10 years of experience). During a dedicated arthroscopic session, using the Sawbones Elbow model (Sawbones Europe AB®), all participants were asked to perform an arthroscopic round and to touch three specific landmarks. An independent observer measured the time that each participant needed to perform this task (Performance 1). The same measurement was repeated after two weeks of eSBAM training (Performance 2).

RESULTS

"Not-expert" surgeons needed significantly more time (41 s; range 26-120) than "Expert" ones (13 s; range 8-36) to complete Performance 1. One "Not-expert" surgeon did not complete Performance 1 and needed more than 120 s for Performance 2. The whole study group required a median of 5 s less to complete Performance 2. A tendency towards an improvement was observed in the group of the non-experienced surgeons as compared with the experienced ones.

CONCLUSIONS

The simulation training can be advantageous in the learning curve of young elbow surgeons and helpful for experienced surgeons. E-SBAM can be used as an effective tool for the current stepwise arthroscopic elbow training programs with the aim of improving arthroscopic elbow skills.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Basic Science Study.

Establishing the learning curve for elbow arthroscopy: surgeon and trainee perspectives on number of cases needed and optimal methods for acquiring skill

BACKGROUND

Elbow arthroscopy has increased in frequency as its indications have widened. Despite this growth, a learning curve has not yet been defined.

HYPOTHESIS

We hypothesized that there would be significant differences in perspective between trainees and established surgeons for the number of cases needed to reach each skill level and what they felt are the most valuable training tools.

METHODS

Orthopedic attending physicians and trainees were asked to complete a questionnaire assessing participant demographics, case volumes required to reach defined skill levels (novice, safe, competent, proficient, and expert), and the efficacy of various learning methodologies for elbow arthroscopy. The value of educational methods was assessed using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not at all valuable; 5 = extremely valuable).

RESULTS

The study population consisted of 323 total participants, of whom 224 (69.3%) were attending surgeons and 99 (30.7%) were trainees (resident or fellow physicians). According to the attending physicians, the mean numbers of cases needed to reach each skill level were 19 to be safe, 42 to be competent, 93 to be proficient, and 230 to be expert. These case numbers were not significantly different from the perspectives of trainees. Across the respondents, there were no significant differences in the number of cases needed to reach each level of skill based on the respondents' level of training, years of experience, type of fellowship, or self-reported skill level.Although both groups highly valued live surgery (4.7 of 5) and cadaveric practice (4.6 of 5) for acquiring skill, attendings placed higher value on reading (4.0 vs. 3.3, P < .001), videos/live demos (4.2 vs. 3.6, P < .001), and formal courses (4.5 vs. 4.1, P < .001) than trainees. Both groups place relatively low value on surgical simulators (2.8-3.6).

CONCLUSIONS

There was considerable agreement among attending surgeons and trainees in terms of the number of cases needed to attain various skill levels of elbow arthroscopy, which was consistent regardless of fellowship background, self-reported skill level, career length, and elbow arthroscopy case volume. However, there was some disagreement between attending surgeons and trainees over the most valuable methods for acquiring surgical skill with trainees placing less value on textbooks, surgical videos, and formal courses compared with attending surgeons. An understanding of the elbow arthroscopy learning curve will help trainees and their training programs establish case volume targets before safe, independent practice. Future studies should aim to clinically validate this learning curve.

Preoperative Opioid Prescription Filling Is a Risk Factor for Prolonged Opioid Use After Elbow Arthroscopy

PURPOSE

To (1) report the frequency of postoperative opioid prescriptions after elbow arthroscopy, (2) evaluate whether filling opioid prescriptions preoperatively placed patients at increased risk of requiring more opioid prescriptions after surgery, and (3) determine patient factors associated with postoperative opioid prescription needs.

METHODS

A national claims-based database was queried for patients undergoing primary elbow arthroscopy. Patients with prior total elbow arthroplasty or septic arthritis of the elbow were excluded. Patients who filled at least 1 opioid prescription between 1 and 4 months prior to surgery were defined as the preoperative opioid-use group. Monthly relative risk ratios for filling an opioid prescription were calculated for the first year after surgery. Multiple logistic regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with opioid use at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after elbow arthroscopy, with P < .05 defined as significant.

RESULTS

We identified 1,138 patients who underwent primary elbow arthroscopy. The preoperative opioid-use group consisted of 245 patients (21.5%), 61 of whom (24.9%) were still filling opioid prescriptions 12 months after surgery. The multivariate analysis determined that the preoperative opioid-use group was at increased risk of postoperative opioid prescription filling at 3 months (odds ratio [OR], 9.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 5.98-13.76), 6 months (OR, 8.74; 95% CI, 5.57-13.92), 9 months (OR, 7.17; 95% CI, 4.57-11.39), and 12 months (OR, 6.27; 95% CI, 3.94-10.07) after elbow arthroscopy. Patients younger than 40 years exhibited a decreased risk of postoperative opioid prescription filling at 3 months (OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.25-0.91), 6 months (OR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.06-0.50), 9 months (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.22-0.97), and 12 months (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.19-0.94) after surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative opioid filling, fibromyalgia, and psychiatric illness are associated with an increased risk of prolonged postoperative opioid after elbow arthroscopy. Patient age younger than 40 years and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease are associated with a decreased risk of postoperative opioid prescription filling within the first postoperative year.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective cohort study.

Editorial Commentary: Sometimes You Don't Know What You've Got Until It's Gone-The Effect of Missing Data in "Big Data" Studies

Big-data studies are powerful tools for comparative-effectiveness research, but because of the large number of included patients, they risk falsely identifying a difference when none exists because large sample sizes may result in statistically significant differences that have little clinical importance. Other limitations of big-data studies include lack of generalizability because of inclusion of only specific patient populations, lack of validated outcome measures, recording bias or clerical error, and vast troves of missing data. As such, the methods and results of big-data studies require careful scrutiny to ensure that the conclusions are correct.

Lower nationwide rates of arthroscopic procedures in 2016 compared with 1997 (634925 total arthroscopic procedures): has the tide turned?

Objectives

To assess the rates and secular trends of different joint arthroscopies—shoulder, elbow, wrist, hip, knee and ankle—in Finland between 1997 and 2016.

Design

Retrospective nationwide registry study.

Participants

All adults in Finland with any arthroscopic intervention procedure code for knee, shoulder, ankle, wrist, elbow or hip arthroscopy between 1 January 1997 and 31 December 2016 were included.

Main outcome measures

Incidence rate of arthroscopic surgery per 100 000 person-years.

Results

The rate of knee and shoulder arthroscopies declined after reaching a peak in 2006 and 2007, respectively. The rates of wrist, elbow and hip joint arthroscopies declined after their 2014 peak. At the same time, the median age of patients who had knee, ankle and hip arthroscopy decreased, whereas the age of patients who had shoulder arthroscopy increased.

Conclusions

Numerous randomised controlled trials point to lack of efficacy of the most common knee and shoulder arthroscopic procedures. It should not be assumed that this has contributed to decreased rates of arthroscopic surgery. The concurrent decrease in most of the other joint arthroscopic procedures was unexpected.

Pain, function, and patient satisfaction after arthroscopic treatment of elbow in a retrospective series with minimum of 5-year follow-up

BACKGROUND

The clinical indications for elbow arthroscopic procedures have expanded through last decades. The aim of the study was to assess the functional results and patient satisfaction after arthroscopic treatment of various elbow conditions after a minimum 5-year follow-up.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study of a consecutive patient cohort who had undergone unilateral elbow arthroscopy between 2008 and 2010. The main outcomes were Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score and a specific patient-reported outcome measure questionnaire after a minimum 5-year follow-up.

RESULTS

In total, there were 93 patients in the cohort with different diagnoses. Majority of patients were suffering from elbow osteoarthrosis. After the average follow-up of 72 months (range 60-96 months), the response rate was 67%. Eighty two percent of patients were satisfied with the pain relief and locking of the elbow was relieved in 70% of patients. Elbow range of motion (ROM) improved in 80% of the 55 patients who had a limited ROM before the operation. The overall patient satisfaction after elbow arthroscopic treatment was good. There were no differences in median DASH score between patients with or without post-traumatic condition, but the median DASH score for patients who had severe (grade 3) osteoarthrosis before the operation was significantly worse. There were no major complications reported in this cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

Arthroscopic treatment of various elbow conditions was associated with good patient satisfaction and reduced symptoms without major complications. Level of Evidence: Level IV, therapeutic case series.

Risk Factors and Complications for Revision Shoulder Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Revision shoulder arthroplasty has become increasingly common as primary arthroplasty has become more widespread.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We sought to answer two questions: What are the risks factors for revision shoulder arthroplasty? What are the complications associated with revision shoulder arthroplasty?

METHODS

A retrospective search of a national insurance database from the years 2013 to 2016 was undertaken for billing codes of patients undergoing revision shoulder arthroplasty. The odds ratios for revision of various patient demographic characteristics and comorbidities were determined. The incidences of various complications within 90 days of revision were determined.

RESULTS

A total of 824 cases of revision shoulder arthroplasty were found. Eighty-seven patients (10.5%) had infections prior to revision and 133 patients (16.1%) had dislocations prior to revision. Of the risk factors examined, smoking status was associated with the highest odds ratio for revision (8.1). Additionally, depression, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), male gender, renal failure, and diabetes were significant risks factors for revision. The most common complication of revision shoulder arthroplasty was found to be surgical site infection, affecting 10.9% of patients. In the time period studied, 89 patients underwent more than one revision shoulder arthroplasty.

CONCLUSION

Despite limitations inherent in database studies, this data may have utility for surgeons in pre-operative counseling of patients on their risk.

Peripheral Nerve Injury After Elbow Arthroscopy: An Analysis of Risk Factors

PURPOSE

To identify risk factors associated with peripheral nerve injury after elbow arthroscopy and provide an updated incidence of those complications.

METHODS

The elbow arthroscopies that were performed at our institution between 2006 and 2016 were identified. Over a 10-year period, 253 elbow arthroscopies were performed at our institution. Two hundred twenty-seven cases had a minimum follow-up of 4 weeks, and were included in our analysis. Minor and major nerve-related complications were recorded. The surgeon's experience and training, body max index of the patients, surgical tourniquet time, type of anesthesia or surgery, radiographic appearance of the elbow, diagnosis at the time of surgery, and presence of diabetes were analyzed.

RESULTS

There were 12 reported peripheral nerve injuries, 10 minor (4.4%) and 2 major complications (0.9%). The risk factors examined in this study were not correlated with a higher rate of complications.

CONCLUSIONS

The minor nerve-related complication rate was 4.4%, with a 0.9% incidence of major peripheral nerve injury. Based on these findings, we conclude that elbow arthroscopy is a relatively safe procedure. The risk factors examined in this study had no association with the rate of complications. This finding could be potentially related to type II or beta error in the analysis of risk factors for nerve injury. The exact reasons for nerve injury are not known from this study.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, retrospective case series.

Editorial Commentary: Volition, Fear, and Faith: Elbow Arthroscopy and Nerve Injury

We strive to understand and present accurate risk assessment of transient and major nerve injuries to maintain our patients' faith as we choose to proceed with elbow arthroscopy. Our arthroscopic training, experience, and volume as well as patient obesity, osteoarthritis, and joint contracture should guide our decisions of which complex cases to expose our patients.

Antibiotic Prophylaxis and Prevention of Surgical Site Infection in Shoulder and Elbow Surgery

Infection after orthopedic procedures is a devastating and serious complication associated with significant clinical and financial challenges to the health care system and unfortunate patient. The time and resource-intensive nature of treating infection after orthopedic procedures has turned attention toward enhancing prevention and establishing quality improvement measures. Prevention strategies throughout the perioperative period include host optimization, risk mitigation, reducing bacterial burden and proper wound management. Understanding the most common offending organisms of the shoulder, Propionibacterium acnes and coagulase negative Staphylococcus species, and their hypothesized mechanism of infection is crucial to selecting appropriate preventative measures.

Big Data: Progress or a Big Headache?

Large administrative database, or "big data" research studies can include an immense number of patients. Strengths of research based on big data include generalizability resulting from diverse patients, diverse providers, and diverse clinical settings. Limitations of research based on large administrative databases may include indeterminate quality and obscure purpose of data entry, lack of information regarding confounding variables, and suboptimal clinical outcome measures. Thus, research conclusions based on big data must be scrutinized in a discerning and critical manner.

Elbow Arthroscopy: 30-Day Postoperative Complication Profile and Associated Risk Factors

PURPOSE

To analyze (1) the incidence and type of complications after elbow arthroscopy, (2) the incidence of returning to the operating room (OR) after elbow arthroscopy, and (3) patient and risk factors for complications across a national surgical outcome database.

METHODS

Patients who underwent elbow arthroscopy from January 2005 through December 2014 were identified in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database by use of Current Procedural Terminology codes. Basic patient demographic data and medical comorbidities were recorded. Postoperative adverse events and a return to the OR occurring within 30 days after the index procedure were identified, and patient and procedural risk factors were investigated.

RESULTS

Five hundred thirty elbow arthroscopy cases were available for analysis. The aggregate rate of 30-day adverse events was 2.83%, whereas the rate of any patient having an adverse event was 1.89%. The most common adverse event was deep infection (0.57%). Univariate analyses showed that renal disease, preoperative steroid use, higher American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class, and preoperative diagnosis were associated with the occurrence of an adverse event. Multivariate analyses showed that increasing ASA class, specifically ASA class 3 and class 4, was an independent predictor of a postoperative adverse event. Furthermore, 0.94% of cases required a return to the OR. Univariate analyses showed that preoperative steroid use and diagnosis of trauma were associated with a return to the OR. These findings were confirmed by multivariate analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the incidence of 30-day postoperative adverse events (1.89%) and need to return to the OR (0.94%) is low. Increased ASA class is an independent risk factor for the occurrence of a postoperative adverse event; preoperative steroid use and diagnoses relating to a traumatic or inflammatory cause are predictive of the need to return to the OR. These results can assist surgeons in patient selection, preoperative optimization, and preoperative risk stratification.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, case series.

Arthroscopic R-LCL plication for symptomatic minor instability of the lateral elbow (SMILE)

PURPOSE

Minor instability has been proposed as a possible aetiology of lateral elbow pain. This study presents the results of the arthroscopic plication of the radial component of the lateral collateral ligament (R-LCL) to reduce minor instability of the lateral elbow.

METHODS

Twenty-seven patients with recalcitrant lateral epicondylitis who had failed conservative therapy and who had no previous trauma or overt instability, were included. R-LCL plication was performed in the presence of at least one sign of lateral ligamentous patholaxity and one intra-articular abnormal finding. Single-assessment numeric evaluation (SANE), Oxford Elbow Score (OES), quickDASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, Hand), patient satisfaction and post-operative range of motion were evaluated.

RESULTS

SANE improved from a median of 30 [2-40] points pre-operatively to 90 [80-100] at final follow-up (p < 0.0001), and 96.3% patients obtained good or excellent subjective results. Post-operative median quickDASH was 9.1 [0-25] points and OES 42 [34-48]. Median post-operative flexion was 145°, and extension was 0°. Post-operative flexion was restrained in seven patients and extension in eight patients; 59% of patients reached full ROM at final follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

R-LCL plication produces subjective satisfaction and positive clinical results in patients presenting with a symptomatic minor instability of the lateral elbow (SMILE) at 2-year median follow-up. A slight limitation in range of motion is a possible undesired consequence of this intervention.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Retrospective case series, Level IV.

Factors That Increase the Risk of Infection After Elbow Arthroscopy: Analysis of Patient Demographics, Medical Comorbidities, and Steroid Injections in 2,704 Medicare Patients

PURPOSE

To use a national database to determine (1) the incidence of joint infection after elbow arthroscopy, (2) identify independent patient-related risk factors for infection, and (3) determine the influence of concomitant intra-articular corticosteroid injection on infection risk.

METHODS

The 100% Medicare Standard Analytic Files were queried to identify patients who underwent elbow arthroscopy from 2005 to 2012. Postoperative elbow infections occurring within 6 months of surgery were identified using both International Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision codes for postoperative infection and Current Procedural Terminology codes for the surgical treatment of a postoperative infection. Patients were excluded if their initial arthroscopic procedure was performed for infection. A multivariate binomial logistic regression analysis was then used to evaluate patient-related risk factors for postoperative infection.

RESULTS

Of the 2,704 elbow arthroscopy cases identified, 42 (1.55%) developed a postoperative infection. The annual incidence of infections did not increase significantly over the course of the study (P = .374). A number of patient demographics and medical comorbidities significantly increased the risk of infection. The most notable factors included age ≥ 65 years (odds ratio [OR] 2.38, P = .006), body mass index > 40 (OR 1.97, P = .024), tobacco usage (OR 1.80, P = .046), alcohol usage (OR 4.01, P < .001), diabetes mellitus (OR 2.10, P = .015), inflammatory arthritis (OR 2.81, P < .001), hypercoagulable disorder (OR 2.51, P = .015), and intra-articular corticosteroid injection at the time of arthroscopy (OR 2.79, P = .006).

CONCLUSIONS

The annual number of elbow arthroscopies performed in the United States has increased steadily; however, the postoperative infection rate remained consistently low at 1.55%. There are a number of patient-specific risk factors that increase this risk with OR ranging from 1.97 to 4.01. Similarly, patients who receive an intra-articular corticosteroid injection at the time of surgery are nearly 3 times (OR 2.79) more likely to develop a postoperative infection. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, case-control study.

A Review of Databases Used in Orthopaedic Surgery Research and an Analysis of Database Use in Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate how database use has changed over time in Arthroscopy: The Journal of Arthroscopic and Related Surgery and to inform readers about available databases used in orthopaedic literature.

METHODS

An extensive literature search was conducted to identify databases used in Arthroscopy and other orthopaedic literature. All articles published in Arthroscopy between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2015, were reviewed. A database was defined as a national, widely available set of individual patient encounters, applicable to multiple patient populations, used in orthopaedic research in a peer-reviewed journal, not restricted by encounter setting or visit duration, and with information available in English.

RESULTS

Databases used in Arthroscopy included PearlDiver, the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program, the Danish Common Orthopaedic Database, the Swedish National Knee Ligament Register, the Hospital Episodes Statistics database, and the National Inpatient Sample. Database use increased significantly from 4 articles in 2013 to 11 articles in 2015 (P = .012), with no database use between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2012.

CONCLUSIONS

Database use increased significantly between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2015, in Arthroscopy.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, systematic review of Level II through IV studies.

Arthroscopic Treatment of Annular Drive Through and Radial Lateral Collateral Ligament Articular-Side Tear of the Elbow

An elongation or partial articular-sided tear of the radial lateral collateral ligament (R-LCL) is a rare injury causing disability and instability of the elbow. In our experience this condition is often associated with a pathologic sign of the annular ligament named the "annular drive through" caused by a redundancy of the ligament. The benefits of performing an arthroscopic procedure for surgical stabilization of the R-LCL include smaller incisions with less soft-tissue dissection, better visualization of the joint, better repair accessibility, and elimination of the annular drive-through sign. The main steps of the operation are as follows: evaluation of annular drive through, inspection of the radial side of the joint, anterior capsulotomy, insertion of a suture anchor through the anterolateral portal, shuttling of the suture anchor through the ligament, and elimination of the annular drive-through sign. By use of this technique, it is possible to repair a lesion of the R-LCL with a suture anchor that ensures an anatomic repair and, at the same time, returns the annular ligament to its physiological tension.