Editorial Commentary: Can Orthopaedic Surgeons Agree on Choice of Procedure for Anterior Shoulder Instability Based on Risk Factors? Personal and Training Biases Confound Our Surgical Decision Making

2019 ◽  
Vol 35 (7) ◽  
pp. 2026-2028
Author(s):  
Berte Bøe ◽  
Matthew T. Provencher ◽  
B. Gilbert Moatshe
2021 ◽  
Vol 79 ◽  
pp. S1229
Author(s):  
R. Pallares-Mendez ◽  
D.E. Cervantes-Miranda ◽  
E.S. Castillo-Godinez ◽  
C. De La Cruz-De La Cruz ◽  
M.A. Aguilar-Méndez ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 2325967118S0000
Author(s):  
John M. Tokish ◽  
Charles A. Thigpen ◽  
Michael J. Kissenberth ◽  
Stefan John Tolan ◽  
Keith T. Lonergan ◽  
...  

Objectives: The management of the adolescent athlete who presents for initial treatment after shoulder instability remains controversial. Risk factors such as age, gender, athletic status, and patient goals have all been demonstrated to result in a higher risk of recurrence with nonoperative management, but little work has been done to determine a treatment algorithm that would combine these factors into a decision making algorithm. The purpose of this study, therefore, was to evaluate patients managed nonoperatively for shoulder instability, and to identify factors that led to failure, defined as an inability to return to sport with no subsequent missed time due to shoulder issues. We sought to integrate these factors into a scoring system that would predict the success or failure of nonoperative management in the treatment of shoulder instability in the adolescent athlete. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted of 57 patients who were first time presenters for anterior shoulder instability to a single orthopaedic practice. Inclusion criteria were that patients were managed nonoperatively, that they were involved in high school sports with at least one season of eligibility remaining, and that complete information was available on their ultimate return to their previous sport. Success was defined as those patients who returned to their sport at the same level, and who played at least one subsequent season without any time being missed due to the shoulder that had been unstable. Patient specific risk factors were individually evaluated, and those that were predictive of a higher risk of failure were incorporated into a 10-point Nonoperative Injury Severity Index (NISIS). This score was then retrospectively applied with regression analysis as well as a chi-square analysis to determine the overall score that predicted failure of nonoperative management. Results: Six factors were identified as risk factors and included in the NISIS. Age greater than 15, the presence of bone loss, type of instability (subluxation or dislocation), type of sport (collision vs. non-collision), female gender, and arm dominance, were assigned points based on individual risk. Overall, 79% of patients treated nonoperatively were able to achieve full return to sport without subsequent surgical intervention or missing any time as a result of their shoulder. Patients who had a preoperative NISIS score of >7 returned at over 90% to sport, compared to a success rate of 50% for those who scored <8, revealing an odds ratio of 9.3 times higher risk of failure for those in the high risk group (p=0.001). Conclusion: The non-operative instability severity index is simple and effective preoperative method to determine who is likely to be successful at returning to scholastic sports after presenting for anterior shoulder instability. Further study with a larger prospective cohort should be accomplished to independently validate this score, but this information may be useful for the treating physician to help guide decision making when presented with the unstable shoulder. [Figure: see text]


2020 ◽  
Vol Volume 12 ◽  
pp. 12423-12428
Author(s):  
Xiangming Wang ◽  
Chao Zhang ◽  
Akanksha Srivastava ◽  
Wenbin Yu ◽  
Chuan Liu ◽  
...  

2010 ◽  
Vol 64 (2) ◽  
pp. 58 ◽  
Author(s):  
Randall Williams ◽  
SavioG Barreto ◽  
Tudor Thomas ◽  
Leong Tiong ◽  
Edward Travers ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
pp. 219256822199110
Author(s):  
Xin Gao ◽  
Zheyu Wu ◽  
Tao Wang ◽  
Jiashi Cao ◽  
Guangjian Bai ◽  
...  

Study Design: Retrospective study. Objectives: Although the role of surgery in the management of metastatic spinal cord compression (MSCC) has been well established, elderly patients may still be denied surgery because of higher risk of complications and shorter life expectancy. The purpose of this study was to determine whether elderly patients with MSCC could benefit from surgery and discuss the criteria for surgical decision-making in such patients. Methods: Enrolled in this study were 55 consecutive patients aged 75 years or older who were surgically treated for MSCC in our center. Prognostic factors predicting overall survival (OS) were explored by the Kaplan-Meier method and Cox regression model. The quality of life (QoL) of the patients was evaluated by the SOSGOQ and compared using Student’s t test. Risk factors for postoperative complications were identified by Chi-square test and multiple logistic regression analysis. Results: Surgical treatment for MSCC substantially improved the neurological function in 55.8% patients and QoL in 88.5% patients with acceptable rates of postoperative complications (16.4%), reoperation (9.1%), and 30-day mortality (1.8%). Postoperative ECOG-PS of 1-2, total en-bloc spondylectomy (TES), and postoperative chemotherapy were favorable prognostic factors for OS, while a high Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) and a long operation time were risk factors for postoperative complications. Conclusions: Surgery should be encouraged for elderly patients with MSCC 1) who are compromised by the current or potential neurological dysfunction; 2) with radioresistant tumors; 3) with spinal instability; and 4) with no comorbidity, ECOG-PS of 0-2, and systemic treatment adherence. In addition, surgery should be performed by a skilled and experienced surgical team.


2007 ◽  
Vol 177 (4S) ◽  
pp. 405-405
Author(s):  
Suman Chatterjee ◽  
Jonathon Ng ◽  
Edward D. Matsumoto

2008 ◽  
Vol 56 (S 1) ◽  
Author(s):  
B Osswald ◽  
U Tochtermann ◽  
S Keller ◽  
D Badowski-Zyla ◽  
V Gegouskov ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document