Comparing bone resorption after anatomical shoulder arthroplasty between various surgical procedures using a single-stem model

BackgroundIn shoulder arthroplasty, bone resorption around the stem can lead to stem loosening and makes surgery difficult at the time of revision. Proximal bone resorption after reverse shoulder arthroplasty can cause instability because of a decrease of deltoid wrapping effect. As factors of the stem itself, such as stem coating, shape, length, and use of bone cement, may also affect bone resorption, a single-stem model should be used to compare bone resorptions between different pathologies and surgical procedures. However, to date, a few reports have compared these differences in detail using a single-stem model. Therefore, we investigated the prevalence and location of humeral bone resorption in a single-stem model.MethodsThe study included 100 shoulders that underwent anatomical total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) or humeral head replacement (HHR) with a single uncemented humeral stem from 2008 to 2018. The patients were 31 men and 69 women. The mean age at surgery was 72.9 years (range, 41-86 years). The patients were divided into three groups: especially, 25, 61, and 14 shoulders received TSA for primary osteoarthritis without rotator cuff tears (TSA group), HHR using an anatomical head with rotator cuff repair for cuff tear arthropathy (CTA) (HHR group), and HHR using a CTA head without rotator cuff repair (CTA group), respectively. Patients were monitored for a mean of 56 months (range, 12-98 months). The location of bone resorption was divided into seven zones as follows: zone 1, greater tuberosity; zone 2, lateral diaphysis; zone 3, lateral diaphysis beyond the deltoid tuberosity; zone 4, tip of the stem; zone 5, medial diaphysis beyond the deltoid tuberosity; zone 6, medial diaphysis; and zone 7, calcar region. The degree of bone resorption was classified from grade 0 to 4.ResultsBone resorption of grade 3 or higher was significantly more frequent at the greater tuberosity in the HHR and CTA groups (P < .001 and P < .001, respectively) than that in the TSA group. Grade 4 bone resorption was significantly more frequent in the CTA than that in the TSA and HHR groups in zone 1 (P = .016 and P = .041, respectively).ConclusionThe state of attachment of the rotator cuff to the greater tuberosity might affect bone resorption at the greater tuberosity, such as the greater tuberosity after shoulder arthroplasty. In cases of shoulder arthroplasty for arthropathy with rotator cuff tear, performing rotator cuff repair might prevent bone resorption.Level of evidenceLevel IV; Prognosis Study     

How can hospitals change practice to better implement smoking cessation interventions? A systematic review

Smoking cessation reduces the risk of death, improves recovery, and reduces the risk of hospital readmission. Evidence and policy support hospital admission as an ideal time to deliver smoking-cessation interventions. However, this is not well implemented in practice. In this systematic review, the authors summarize the literature on smoking-cessation implementation strategies and evaluate their success to guide the implementation of best-practice smoking interventions into hospital settings. The CINAHL Complete, Embase, MEDLINE Complete, and PsycInfo databases were searched using terms associated with the following topics: smoking cessation, hospitals, and implementation. In total, 14,287 original records were identified and screened, resulting in 63 eligible articles from 56 studies. Data were extracted on the study characteristics, implementation strategies, and implementation outcomes. Implementation outcomes were guided by Proctor and colleagues' framework and included acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, cost, feasibility, fidelity, penetration, and sustainability. The findings demonstrate that studies predominantly focused on the training of staff to achieve implementation. Brief implementation approaches using a small number of implementation strategies were less successful and poorly sustained compared with well resourced and multicomponent approaches. Although brief implementation approaches may be viewed as advantageous because they are less resource-intensive, their capacity to change practice in a sustained way lacks evidence. Attempts to change clinician behavior or introduce new models of care are challenging in a short time frame, and implementation efforts should be designed for long-term success. There is a need to embrace strategic, well planned implementation approaches to embed smoking-cessation interventions into hospitals and to reap and sustain the benefits for people who smoke.