Prior surgical fixation of proximal humerus fractures is associated with increased complications following subsequent reverse shoulder arthroplasty

BackgroundThe objective of this study was to compare complication rates between patients undergoing reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) after a prior open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) for proximal humerus fracture (PHF) to those undergoing RSA as a primary treatment for PHFs, glenohumeral osteoarthritis, or rotator cuff tear arthropathy (CTA).MethodsPatients who underwent RSA between 2015 and 2020 were identified in the Mariner database. Patients were separated into 3 mutually exclusive groups: (1) RSA for osteoarthritis, rotator cuff tear, or CTA (Control-RSA); (2) RSA as a primary treatment for PHF (PHF-RSA); and (3) RSA for patients with prior ORIF of PHFs (ORIF-RSA). Ninety-day medical and 2-year postoperative surgical complications were identified. In addition, patients in the PHF-RSA group were subdivided into those undergoing RSA for PHF within 3 months of the fracture (acute) vs. those treated greater than 3 months from diagnosis (delayed). Multivariate regression was performed to control for differences in comorbidities and demographics.ResultsA total of 30,824 patients underwent primary RSA for arthritis or CTA, 5389 patients underwent RSA as a primary treatment for a PHF, and 361 patients underwent RSA after ORIF of a PHF. ORIF before RSA was associated with an increased risk of overall revision (odds ratio [OR] 2.45, P = .002), infection (OR 2.40, P < .001), instability (OR 2.43, P < .001), fracture (OR 3.24, P = .001), minor medical complications (OR 1.59, P = .008), and readmission (OR 2.55, P = .001) compared with the Control-RSA cohort. RSA as a primary treatment for PHF was associated with an increased risk of 2-year revision (OR 1.60, P < .001), infection (OR 1.51, P < .001), instability (OR 2.84, P < .001), and fracture (OR 2.54, P < .001) in addition to major medical complications (OR 2.02, P < .001), minor medical complications (OR 1.92, P < .001), 90-day emergency department visits (OR 1.26, P < .001) and 90-day readmission (OR 2.03, P < .001) compared with the Control-RSA cohort. The ORIF-RSA group had an increased risk of periprosthetic infection (OR 1.94, P = .002) when compared with the PHF-RSA cohort. There were no differences in medical or surgical complications in the RSA-PHF cohort between patients treated in an acute or delayed fashion.ConclusionRSA following ORIF of a PHF is associated with increased complications compared with patients undergoing RSA for nonfracture indications. Prior ORIF of a PHF is also an independent risk factor for postoperative infection after RSA compared with patients who undergo RSA as a primary operation for fracture. The timing of RSA as a primary operation for PHF does not appear to impact the rates of postoperative medical and surgical complications.     

Comparison study of patient demographics and patient-related risk factors for peri-prosthetic joint infections following primary total shoulder arthroplasty

BackgroundWhile studies have demonstrated favorable outcomes in utilization of primary total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) for the treatment of glenohumeral osteoarthritis (OA), adverse events such as infections can still occur. Periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) are associated with worse outcomes and patient morbidity. The purpose of this study was to: (1) compare patient demographics amongst TSA patients with and without PJIs following primary TSA; and (2) identify patient-related risk factors for PJIs following primary TSA.MethodsPatients undergoing primary TSA for the treatment of glenohumeral OA were identified using the Mariner administrative claims database by CPT code 23,472. Laterality modifiers were utilized to ensure PJIs were developing in the correct laterality as those patients undergoing primary TSA. Inclusion for the study group consisted of patients who developed PJIs within 2-years after the index procedure, whereas patients who did not develop PJIs served as the comparison cohort. Primary outcomes analyzed included patient demographics and patient-related risk factors for PJIs following primary TSA. A stepwise backwards elimination multivariate binomial logistic regression analyses was performed to determine the odds (OR) of PJIs in patients undergoing primary TSA. A P value less than .05 was considered statistically significant.ResultsThe query yielded 15,396 patients who underwent primary TSA for glenohumeral OA, of which 191 patients developed PJIs and 15,205 did not develop PJIs. The study found statistically significant differences amongst patients who did and did not develop PJIs following primary TSA with respect to age, sex, and presence of comorbid conditions. Risk factors associated with developing PJIs following primary TSA included: pathologic weight loss (OR: 2.06, P < .0001), obesity (OR: 1.56, P = .0001), male sex (OR: 1.52, P = .007), and peripheral vascular disease (OR: 1.46, P = .022).ConclusionAs the number of primary TSAs for the treatment of glenohumeral OA increase worldwide, identifying modifiable risk-factors to reduce the incidence of infection is critical. The study found various modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors associated with developing PJIs following primary TSA. This study is valuable to orthopedists in order to identify and risk-stratify patients with regard to PJI in the setting of primary TSA for OA.Level of EvidenceLevel III; Case-Control Study     

Prosthetic choice in mitral valve replacement for severe chronic ischemic mitral regurgitation: Long-term follow-up

BackgroundProsthetic choice for mitral valve replacement is generally driven by patient age and patient and surgeon preference, and current guidelines do not discriminate between different etiologies of mitral valve disease. Our objective was to assess and compare short- and long-term outcomes after mitral valve replacement among patients with biological or mechanical prostheses in the setting of severe ischemic mitral regurgitation.MethodsBetween 2000 and 2016, 424 patients underwent mitral valve replacement for severe ischemic mitral regurgitation at our institution, using biological prosthesis in 188 (44%) and mechanical prosthesis in 236 (56%). A 1:1 propensity score match (n = 126 per group) and inverse probability of treatment weighting were used to compare groups. Short-term outcomes included in-hospital mortality and other cardiovascular adverse events. Long-term outcomes included survival and hospital readmission for cardiovascular causes, stroke, and major bleeding.ResultsIn-hospital mortality and early postoperative adverse events were similar between groups in the propensity score match and inverse probability of treatment weighting cohorts. Overall long-term survival was similar at 5 and 9 years, but mechanical prosthesis recipients were more frequently readmitted to hospital for cardiovascular causes, including stroke and non-neurological bleeding in propensity score matching and inverse probability of treatment weighting analyses (all P values < .004). Type of prosthesis did not independently influence all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval, 0.71-1.43; P = .959), but placement of a mechanical prosthesis was associated with increased risk of readmission for cardiovascular events (hazard ratio, 1.65; 95% confidence interval, 1.17-2.32; P = .004) among matched patients.ConclusionsThe type of prosthesis has no influence on long-term survival among patients with severe ischemic mitral regurgitation undergoing mitral valve replacement. There may be an increased risk of neurologic events and serious bleeding associated with mechanical prostheses.     

Breast cancer risk reduction: who,why, and what?

Women at increased risk of breast cancer have options to mitigate that risk. Understanding factors that increase risk and utilizing tools for quantitative estimates are important to be able to adequately counsel and target strategies for patients. On the basis of these estimates, patients may be able to engage in risk reduction interventions and increased screening, including chemoprevention or surgical risk reduction. Multiple organizations have published guidelines supporting risk assessment, genetic assessment, increased screening, and prevention measures for these women.     

An economic analysis of the cost of survival of micro preemies: A systematic review

ObjectiveThis study aimed to systematically review the current literature on the economic costs of micro preemie as well as evidence on the cost-effectiveness of interventions to improve outcomes for micro preemie babies with a birth weight of ≤500 g.MethodWe searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, Scopus, ECONLIT, Business Source Premier and Cochrane Library for studies reporting costs of micro preemie from January 2000. Costs were inflated to 2019 United States dollars (US$). All full-text articles were assessed for eligibility and a quality assessment of included articles was conducted using the Drummond and the Larg and Moss checklists.ResultsThe search identified three studies that met the inclusion criteria; two cost-of-illness studies and one cost-effectiveness study. Across studies, the mean healthcare spending per micro preemie survivor (in 2019 US$) ranged from US$61,310 (birth admission) to US$263,958 (inpatient and outpatient for the first six months of life). One modelling study reported exclusive human milk diet for micro preemies at birth was more cost-effective compared to the standard approach with cow milk diet from the third-party payer and societal perspectives.ConclusionDespite significant advances in perinatal care and expanded access to life-saving equipment to improve survival outcomes of micro preemie, there remains a paucity of research on economic costs associated with these babies. No study has utilised quality-adjusted life-years as an outcome measure. Given the chronic conditions and long-term neurologic disability associated with micro preemie survivors, an estimate of the lifetime cost to the individual, healthcare providers and society would provide a benchmark of the potential cost-savings that could accrue from cost-effective interventions to improve the survival rate of micro preemies.