Pre-COVID-19 Social Determinants of Health Among Mexican Migrants in Los Angeles and New York City and Their Increased Vulnerability to Unfavorable Health Outcomes During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health - COVID-19 has disproportionally affected underrepresented minorities (URM) and low-income immigrants in the United States. The aim of the study is to...     

The chondrocyte channelome: A narrative review

Chondrocytes are the main cells in the extracellular matrix (ECM) of articular cartilage and possess a highly differentiated phenotype that is the hallmark of the unique physiological functions of this specialised load-bearing connective tissue. The plasma membrane of articular chondrocytes contains a rich and diverse complement of membrane proteins, known as the membranome, which defines the cell surface phenotype of the cells. The membranome is a key target of pharmacological agents and is important for chondrocyte function. It includes channels, transporters, enzymes, receptors, and anchors for intracellular, cytoskeletal and ECM proteins and other macromolecular complexes. The chondrocyte channelome is a sub-compartment of the membranome and includes a complete set of ion channels and porins expressed in these cells. Many of these are multi-functional proteins with “moonlighting” roles, serving as channels, receptors and signalling components of larger molecular assemblies. The aim of this review is to summarise our current knowledge of the fundamental aspects of the chondrocyte channelome, discuss its relevance to cartilage biology and highlight its possible role in the pathogenesis of osteoarthritis (OA). Excessive and inappropriate mechanical loads, an inflammatory micro-environment, alternative splicing of channel components or accumulation of basic calcium phosphate crystals can result in an altered chondrocyte channelome impairing its function. Alterations in Ca²⁺ signalling may lead to defective synthesis of ECM macromolecules and aggravated catabolic responses in chondrocytes, which is an important and relatively unexplored aspect of the complex and poorly understood mechanism of OA development.     

Anatomic vs. reverse shoulder arthroplasty for glenohumeral osteoarthritis with intact rotator cuff: a retrospective comparison of patient-reported outcomes using the systems outcomes database with up to 5-year follow-up

BackgroundThe growing enthusiasm for the use of reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) in the treatment of primary glenohumeral osteoarthritis (GHOA) with an intact rotator cuff is based on data derived from single-center studies with limited generalizability and follow-up. This study compared patient-reported outcomes (PROs) between RSA and total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) for the treatment of primary GHOA with up to 5-year follow-up and examined temporal trends in the treatment of GHOA between 2012 and 2021.MethodsA retrospective review was performed on patients with primary GHOA undergoing primary arthroplasty surgery from the Surgical Outcomes System global registry between 2012 and 2021. PROs including the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) score, and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain were compared between RSA and TSA at 1, 2, and 5 years postoperatively.ResultsA total of 4451 patients were included, with 2693 (60.5%) undergoing TSA and 1758 (39.5%) undergoing RSA. Both RSA and TSA provided clinically excellent outcomes at 1 year postoperatively (ASES: 80.8 ± 17.9 vs. 85.9 ± 15.2, respectively; SANE: 74.8 ± 24.7 vs. 79.5 ± 22.9; VAS pain: 1.3 ± 2.0 vs. 1.1 ± 1.7; all P < .05) that were maintained at 2 years (ASES: 81.3 ± 19.3 vs. 87.3 ± 14.9; SANE: 74.8 ± 26.2 vs. 79.7 ± 24.7; VAS pain: 1.3 ± 2.1 vs. 1.0 ± 1.6; all P < .05) and 5 years (ASES: 81.7 ± 16.5 vs. 86.9 ± 15.3; SANE: 71.6 ± 28.5 vs. 78.2 ± 25.9; VAS pain: 1.0 ± 1.7 vs. 1.0 ± 1.7; all P < .05), with statistical significance favoring TSA. After controlling for age and sex, there was an adjusted difference of 4.5 units in the ASES score favoring TSA (P = .005) at 5 years postoperatively but no differences in adjusted SANE (P = .745) and VAS pain (P = .332) scores. The use of RSA for GHOA grew considerably over time, from representing only 17% of all replacements performed for GHOA in 2012 to nearly half (47%) in 2021 (P < .001).ConclusionRSA as a treatment for GHOA with an intact rotator cuff seems to yield PROs that are largely clinically equivalent to TSA extending to 5 years postoperatively. The observed statistical significance favoring TSA appears to be of marginal clinical benefit based on established minimal clinically important differences and may be a result of the large sample size. Further research using more granular clinical data and examining differences in range of motion and complications is warranted as it may change the value analysis.