Harris JD

Although elbow arthroscopy was first described in the 1930s, it has become increasingly popular in the last 30 years.¹ While initially considered as a tool for diagnosis and loose body removal, indications have expanded to include treatment of osteochondritis dissecans (OCD), treatment of lateral epicondylitis, fixation of fractures, and others.^2-5 Miyake and colleagues⁶ found a significant improvement in range of motion, both flexion and extension, and outcome scores when elbow arthroscopy was used to remove impinging osteophytes. Babaqi and colleagues⁷ found significant improvement in pain, satisfaction, and outcome scores in 31 patients who underwent elbow arthroscopy for lateral epicondylitis refractory to nonsurgical management. The technical difficulty of the procedure, lower frequency of pathology amenable to arthroscopic intervention, and potential neurovascular complications make the elbow less frequently evaluated with the arthroscope vs other joints, such as the knee and shoulder.^2,8,9

Geographic distribution of subjects undergoing elbow arthroscopy, the indications used, surgical techniques being performed, and their associated clinical outcomes have received little to no recognition in the peer-reviewed literature.10 Differences in the elbow arthroscopy literature include characteristics related to the patient (age, gender, hand dominance, duration of symptoms), study (level of evidence, number of subjects, number of participating centers, design), indication (lateral epicondylitis, loose bodies, olecranon osteophytes, OCD), surgical technique, and outcome. Evidence-based medicine and clinical practice guidelines direct surgeons in clinical decision-making. Payers investigate the cost of surgical interventions and the value that surgery may provide, while following trends in different surgical techniques. Regulatory agencies and associations emphasize subjective patient-reported outcomes as the primary outcome measured in high-quality trials. Thus, in discussion of complex surgical interventions such as elbow arthroscopy, it is important to characterize the studies, subjects, and surgeries across the world to understand the geographic similarities and differences to optimize care in this clinical situation.

The goal of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of elbow arthroscopy literature to identify and compare the characteristics of the studies published, the subjects analyzed, and surgical techniques performed across continents and countries to answer these questions: “Across the world, what demographic of patients are undergoing elbow arthroscopy, what are the most common indications for elbow arthroscopy, and how good is the evidence?” The authors hypothesized that patients who undergo elbow arthroscopy will be largely age <40 years, the most common indication for elbow arthroscopy will be a release/débridement, and the evidence for elbow arthroscopy will be poor. Also, no significant differences will exist in elbow arthroscopy publications, subjects, outcomes, and techniques based on continent/country of publication.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines using a PRISMA checklist.¹¹ Systematic review registration was performed using the International Prospective Register of Ongoing Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; registration number, CRD42014010580; registration date, July 15, 2014).¹² Two study authors independently conducted the search on June 23, 2014 using the following databases: Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, SportDiscus, and CINAHL. The electronic search citation algorithm used was: (elbow) AND arthroscopy) NOT shoulder) NOT knee) NOT ankle) NOT wrist) NOT hip) NOT dog) NOT cadaver). English language Level I-IV evidence (2012 update by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine¹³) clinical studies were eligible for inclusion into this study. Abstracts were ineligible for inclusion. All references in selected studies were cross-referenced for inclusion if they were missed during the initial search. Duplicate subject publications within separate unique studies were not reported twice. The study with longer duration follow-up, higher level of evidence, greater number of subjects, or more detailed subject, surgical technique, or outcome reporting was retained for inclusion. Level V evidence reviews, expert opinion articles, letters to the editor, basic science, biomechanical studies, open elbow surgery, imaging, surgical technique, and classification studies were excluded.

All included patients underwent elbow arthroscopy for either intra- or extra-articular elbow pathology (ulnotrochlear osteoarthritis, lateral epicondylitis, rheumatoid arthritis, post-traumatic contracture, osteonecrosis of the capitellum or radial head, osteoid osteoma, and others). There was no minimum follow-up duration or rehabilitation requirement. The study and subject demographic parameters that we analyzed included year of publication, years of subject enrollment, presence of study financial conflict of interest, number of subjects and elbows, elbow dominance, gender, age, body mass index, diagnoses treated, type of anesthesia (block or general), and surgical positioning. Postoperative splint application and pain management, and whether a continuous passive motion machine was used and whether a drain was placed were recorded. Clinical outcome scores were DASH (Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand), Morrey score, MEPS (Mayo Elbow Performance Score), Andrews-Carson score, Timmerman-Andrews score, LES (Liverpool Elbow Score), Tegner score, HSS (Hospital for Special Surgery Score), VAS (Visual Analog Scale), EFA (Elbow Functional Assessment), Short Form-12 (SF-12), Short Form-36 (SF-36), Kerlan-Jobe Orthopaedic Clinic (KJOC) Shoulder and Elbow Questionnaire, and MAESS (Modified Andrews Elbow Scoring System). Radiographs, computed tomography (CT), computed tomography arthrography (CTA), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and magnetic resonance arthrography (MRA) data were extracted when available. Range of motion (flexion, extension, supination, and pronation) and grip strength data, both preoperative and postoperative, were extracted when available. Study methodological quality was evaluated using the Modified Coleman Methodology Score (MCMS).¹⁴

Statistical Analysis

Study descriptive statistics were calculated. Continuous variable data were reported as weighted means ± weighted standard deviations. Categorical variable data were reported as frequencies with percentages. For all statistical analysis either measured and calculated from study data extraction or directly reported from the individual studies, P < .05 was considered statistically significant. Study, subject, and surgical outcomes data were compared using 1-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests. Where applicable, study, subject, and surgical outcomes data were also compared using 2-sample and 2-proportion Z-test calculators with α .05 because of the difference in sample sizes between compared groups. To examine trends over time, Pearson’s correlation coefficients were calculated. For the purposes of analysis, the indications of “osteoarthritis,” “arthrofibrosis,” “loose body removal,” “ulnotrochlear osteoarthritis causing stiffness,” “post-traumatic contracture/stiffness,” and “post-operative elbow contracture” were combined into the indication “release and débridement.” For the 3 most common indications for arthroscopy (OCD, lateral epicondylitis, and release and débridement) data were combined into 5-year increments to overcome the smaller sample size within each of these categories, and Pearson’s correlation coefficients were calculated to determine if number of reported cases covaried with year period. Within these 3 diagnoses, ANOVA analyses were performed to determine whether the number of cases differed between continents and countries.

Results

A total of 353 studies were located, and, after implementation of the exclusion criteria, 112 studies were included in the final analysis (Figure 1; 3093 subjects; 3168 elbows; 64% male; mean age, 34.9 ± 14.68 years). There was a mean of 33.4 ± 26.02 months of follow-up, and 75% of surgeries involved the dominant elbow (Table 1). Most studies were level IV evidence (94.6%), had a low MCMS (mean 28.1 ± 8.06; poor rating), and were single-center investigations (94.6%). Most studies did not report financial conflicts of interest (56.3%) (Tables 1 and 2). From 1985 through 2014, the number of publications significantly increased with time (P = .004) among all continents. The MCMS was unchanged over time (P = .247) (Figure 2A), as was the level of evidence (P = .094) (Figure 2B). Conflicts of interest significantly increased with time (P = .025) (Figure 3).

Among continents, North America published the largest number of studies (54), and had the largest number of patients (1395) and elbow surgeries (1425) (Table 1). The United States published the largest number of studies (43%). There were no significant differences between age (P = .331), length of follow-up (P = .403), MCMS (P = .123), and level of evidence (P = .288) between continents. Of the 32 studies that reported the use of preoperative MRI, studies from Asia reported significantly more MRI scans than those from other continents (P = .040); there were no other significant differences between continents in reference to preoperative imaging studies or other demographic information.

The most common surgical indications were OCD (Figure 4), lateral epicondylitis (Figure 5), and release and débridement (Figure 6, Table 3; all studies listed indications). The number of reported cases for these 3 indications significantly increased over time (OCD P = .005, lateral epicondylitis P = .044, release and débridement P = .042) but did not significantly differ between regions (P > .05 in all cases).

Thirty-two (28.6%) studies reported the use of outcome measures (16 different outcome scores were used by the included studies). Asia reported outcome measures in 9 of 23 studies (39%), Europe in 12 of 35 studies (34%) and North America in 11 of 54 (20%) of studies. The MEPS was the most frequently used outcome score in 9.8% of studies, followed by VAS for pain in 5.3% of cases. North American studies reported a significantly higher increase in extension after elbow arthroscopy than Asia (P = .0432) (Figure 7), with no differences in flexion (P = .699), pronation (P = .376), or supination (P = .408). No significant differences were observed between continents in the type of anesthesia chosen (general anesthesia [P = .94] or regional anesthesia [P = .85]). Asia and Europe performed elbow arthroscopy most frequently in the lateral decubitus position, while North American studies most often used the supine position (Table 4).

Twenty (17.9%) studies reported the use of a postoperative splint, 12 (10.7%) studies reported use of a drain, 2 (1.79%) studies reported use of a hinged elbow brace, 9 (8.03%) studies reported use of a continuous passive motion machine postoperatively, and 3 (2.68%) studies reported use of an indwelling axillary catheter for postoperative pain management. Of 130 reported surgical complications (4.1%), the most frequent complication was transient sensory ulnar nerve palsy (1.5%), followed by persistent wound drainage (.76%), and transient sensory radial nerve palsy (.38%). Other reported complications included infection (.22%), transient sensory palsy of the median nerve (.19%), heterotopic ossification (.13%), complete transection of the ulnar nerve (.10%), loose body formation (.06%), hematoma formation (.06%), transient sensory palsy of the posterior interosseous (.06%), or anterior interosseous nerve (.03%), and complete transection of the radial (.03%), or median nerve (.03%).

Discussion

Elbow arthroscopy is an evolving surgical procedure that is used to treat intra- and extra-articular pathologies of the elbow. Outcomes of elbow arthroscopy for certain conditions have generally been reported as good, with improvements seen in pain, functional scores, and range of motion.^6,15-17 The authors’ hypotheses were mostly confirmed in that the average age of patients undergoing elbow arthroscopy was <40 years, release/débridement was one of the most common indications (along with lateral epicondylitis and OCD), and the general evidence for elbow arthroscopy was poor. Also, there were almost no differences between continents/countries related to patient indications, preoperative imaging, anesthesia choice, indications, postoperative protocols, and outcomes (although the number of studies that reported outcomes was low and could have skewed the results), with the exception of a higher number of preoperative MRI scans in Asia. Some of the notable findings of this study included: 1) the number of studies published on elbow arthroscopy is significantly increasing with time, despite a lack of improvement in the level of evidence; 2) the majority of studies on elbow arthroscopy do not report a surgical outcome score; and 3) the number of reported cases for the 3 most common indications significantly increased over time (OCD, P = .005; lateral epicondylitis, P = .044; release and débridement, P = .042) but did not differ between regions (P > .05 in all cases).

The indications for elbow arthroscopy have grown dramatically in the past 2 decades to include both intra- and extra-articular pathologies.¹⁸ Despite this increase in the number of indications for elbow arthroscopy, the study did not find a significant difference between countries/continents in the indications each used for elbow arthroscopy patients. There was a trend towards an increase in OCD cases in all continents, especially Asia (Figure 4), with time. Interestingly, while not statistically significant, there was variation among countries for surgical indications. In North America, removal of loose bodies accounts for 18% of patients, while in Europe this accounted for only 9% and in Asia for 1%. Post-traumatic stiffness was the indication for elbow arthroscopy in Europe in 19% of patients vs 7% in North America and 10% in Asia. In Asia, OCD accounts for 40% of arthroscopies, 7% in Europe, and 14% in North America (Figure 4) (Table 3).

This study demonstrated that the mean increase in elbow extension gained after surgery in North America was significantly greater when compared with studies from Asia, but the gain in flexion, pronation, and supination was similar across continents. The underlying cause of this difference in improvement in elbow extension between nations is unclear, although differences in diagnosis could account for some variation. This study did not examine differences in rehabilitation protocols, and certainly, it is plausible that protocol variations by country could account for some discrepancy. Furthermore, differences in functional needs may vary by continent and could have driven this result.

This study found no routine reporting of outcome scores by elbow arthroscopy studies from any continent, and that when outcome scores are reported, there is substantial inconsistency with regard to the actual scoring system used. No continent reported outcome scores in more than 40% of the studies published from that area, and the variation of outcome scores used, even from a single region, was large. This makes comparing clinical outcomes between studies difficult, even when performing identical procedures for identical indications, because there is no standardized method of reporting outcomes. To allow comparison of studies and generalizability of the results to different populations, a more standardized approach to outcome reporting needs to be instituted in the elbow arthroscopy literature. To date, there is no standardized score that has been validated for reporting clinical outcomes after elbow arthroscopy.19 Hence, it is not surprising that there were 16 different outcome scores reported throughout the 112 studies analyzed in this review, with the most frequent score, the MEPS, reported in a total of 10 studies. As medicine moves towards pay scales that are based on patient outcomes, it will become more important to define a clear outcome score that can be used to assess these patients, and reliably report scores. This will allow comparison of patients across nations to determine the best surgical treatment for different clinical problems. A validation study comparing these outcome scores to determine which score best summarizes the patient’s level of pain and function after surgery would be beneficial, because this could identify 1 score that could be standardized to allow comparison among reported outcomes.

Limitations

This study had several limitations. Despite having 2 authors search independently for studies, some studies could have been missed during the search process, introducing possible selection bias. Including only published studies could have introduced publication bias. Numerous studies did not report all the variables the authors examined. This could have skewed some results, and had additional variables been reported, could have altered the data to show significant differences in some measured variables. Because this study did not compare outcome measures for varying pathologies, conclusions cannot be drawn on the best treatment options for different indications. Case reports could have lowered the MCMS score and the average in studies reporting outcomes. Furthermore, the poor quality of the underlying data used in this study could limit the validity/generalizability of the results because this is a systematic review, and its level of evidence is only as high as the studies it includes. Because the primary aim was to report on demographics, this study did not examine concomitant pathology at the time of surgery or rehabilitation protocols.

Conclusion

The quantity, but not the quality, of arthroscopic elbow publications has significantly increased over time. Most patients undergo elbow arthroscopy for lateral epicondylitis, OCD, and release and débridement. Pathology and indications do not appear to differ geographically with more men undergoing elbow arthroscopy than women.

Although elbow arthroscopy was first described in the 1930s, it has become increasingly popular in the last 30 years.¹ While initially considered as a tool for diagnosis and loose body removal, indications have expanded to include treatment of osteochondritis dissecans (OCD), treatment of lateral epicondylitis, fixation of fractures, and others.^2-5 Miyake and colleagues⁶ found a significant improvement in range of motion, both flexion and extension, and outcome scores when elbow arthroscopy was used to remove impinging osteophytes. Babaqi and colleagues⁷ found significant improvement in pain, satisfaction, and outcome scores in 31 patients who underwent elbow arthroscopy for lateral epicondylitis refractory to nonsurgical management. The technical difficulty of the procedure, lower frequency of pathology amenable to arthroscopic intervention, and potential neurovascular complications make the elbow less frequently evaluated with the arthroscope vs other joints, such as the knee and shoulder.^2,8,9

Geographic distribution of subjects undergoing elbow arthroscopy, the indications used, surgical techniques being performed, and their associated clinical outcomes have received little to no recognition in the peer-reviewed literature.10 Differences in the elbow arthroscopy literature include characteristics related to the patient (age, gender, hand dominance, duration of symptoms), study (level of evidence, number of subjects, number of participating centers, design), indication (lateral epicondylitis, loose bodies, olecranon osteophytes, OCD), surgical technique, and outcome. Evidence-based medicine and clinical practice guidelines direct surgeons in clinical decision-making. Payers investigate the cost of surgical interventions and the value that surgery may provide, while following trends in different surgical techniques. Regulatory agencies and associations emphasize subjective patient-reported outcomes as the primary outcome measured in high-quality trials. Thus, in discussion of complex surgical interventions such as elbow arthroscopy, it is important to characterize the studies, subjects, and surgeries across the world to understand the geographic similarities and differences to optimize care in this clinical situation.

The goal of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of elbow arthroscopy literature to identify and compare the characteristics of the studies published, the subjects analyzed, and surgical techniques performed across continents and countries to answer these questions: “Across the world, what demographic of patients are undergoing elbow arthroscopy, what are the most common indications for elbow arthroscopy, and how good is the evidence?” The authors hypothesized that patients who undergo elbow arthroscopy will be largely age <40 years, the most common indication for elbow arthroscopy will be a release/débridement, and the evidence for elbow arthroscopy will be poor. Also, no significant differences will exist in elbow arthroscopy publications, subjects, outcomes, and techniques based on continent/country of publication.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines using a PRISMA checklist.¹¹ Systematic review registration was performed using the International Prospective Register of Ongoing Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; registration number, CRD42014010580; registration date, July 15, 2014).¹² Two study authors independently conducted the search on June 23, 2014 using the following databases: Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, SportDiscus, and CINAHL. The electronic search citation algorithm used was: (elbow) AND arthroscopy) NOT shoulder) NOT knee) NOT ankle) NOT wrist) NOT hip) NOT dog) NOT cadaver). English language Level I-IV evidence (2012 update by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine¹³) clinical studies were eligible for inclusion into this study. Abstracts were ineligible for inclusion. All references in selected studies were cross-referenced for inclusion if they were missed during the initial search. Duplicate subject publications within separate unique studies were not reported twice. The study with longer duration follow-up, higher level of evidence, greater number of subjects, or more detailed subject, surgical technique, or outcome reporting was retained for inclusion. Level V evidence reviews, expert opinion articles, letters to the editor, basic science, biomechanical studies, open elbow surgery, imaging, surgical technique, and classification studies were excluded.

All included patients underwent elbow arthroscopy for either intra- or extra-articular elbow pathology (ulnotrochlear osteoarthritis, lateral epicondylitis, rheumatoid arthritis, post-traumatic contracture, osteonecrosis of the capitellum or radial head, osteoid osteoma, and others). There was no minimum follow-up duration or rehabilitation requirement. The study and subject demographic parameters that we analyzed included year of publication, years of subject enrollment, presence of study financial conflict of interest, number of subjects and elbows, elbow dominance, gender, age, body mass index, diagnoses treated, type of anesthesia (block or general), and surgical positioning. Postoperative splint application and pain management, and whether a continuous passive motion machine was used and whether a drain was placed were recorded. Clinical outcome scores were DASH (Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand), Morrey score, MEPS (Mayo Elbow Performance Score), Andrews-Carson score, Timmerman-Andrews score, LES (Liverpool Elbow Score), Tegner score, HSS (Hospital for Special Surgery Score), VAS (Visual Analog Scale), EFA (Elbow Functional Assessment), Short Form-12 (SF-12), Short Form-36 (SF-36), Kerlan-Jobe Orthopaedic Clinic (KJOC) Shoulder and Elbow Questionnaire, and MAESS (Modified Andrews Elbow Scoring System). Radiographs, computed tomography (CT), computed tomography arthrography (CTA), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and magnetic resonance arthrography (MRA) data were extracted when available. Range of motion (flexion, extension, supination, and pronation) and grip strength data, both preoperative and postoperative, were extracted when available. Study methodological quality was evaluated using the Modified Coleman Methodology Score (MCMS).¹⁴

Statistical Analysis

Study descriptive statistics were calculated. Continuous variable data were reported as weighted means ± weighted standard deviations. Categorical variable data were reported as frequencies with percentages. For all statistical analysis either measured and calculated from study data extraction or directly reported from the individual studies, P < .05 was considered statistically significant. Study, subject, and surgical outcomes data were compared using 1-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests. Where applicable, study, subject, and surgical outcomes data were also compared using 2-sample and 2-proportion Z-test calculators with α .05 because of the difference in sample sizes between compared groups. To examine trends over time, Pearson’s correlation coefficients were calculated. For the purposes of analysis, the indications of “osteoarthritis,” “arthrofibrosis,” “loose body removal,” “ulnotrochlear osteoarthritis causing stiffness,” “post-traumatic contracture/stiffness,” and “post-operative elbow contracture” were combined into the indication “release and débridement.” For the 3 most common indications for arthroscopy (OCD, lateral epicondylitis, and release and débridement) data were combined into 5-year increments to overcome the smaller sample size within each of these categories, and Pearson’s correlation coefficients were calculated to determine if number of reported cases covaried with year period. Within these 3 diagnoses, ANOVA analyses were performed to determine whether the number of cases differed between continents and countries.

Results

A total of 353 studies were located, and, after implementation of the exclusion criteria, 112 studies were included in the final analysis (Figure 1; 3093 subjects; 3168 elbows; 64% male; mean age, 34.9 ± 14.68 years). There was a mean of 33.4 ± 26.02 months of follow-up, and 75% of surgeries involved the dominant elbow (Table 1). Most studies were level IV evidence (94.6%), had a low MCMS (mean 28.1 ± 8.06; poor rating), and were single-center investigations (94.6%). Most studies did not report financial conflicts of interest (56.3%) (Tables 1 and 2). From 1985 through 2014, the number of publications significantly increased with time (P = .004) among all continents. The MCMS was unchanged over time (P = .247) (Figure 2A), as was the level of evidence (P = .094) (Figure 2B). Conflicts of interest significantly increased with time (P = .025) (Figure 3).

Among continents, North America published the largest number of studies (54), and had the largest number of patients (1395) and elbow surgeries (1425) (Table 1). The United States published the largest number of studies (43%). There were no significant differences between age (P = .331), length of follow-up (P = .403), MCMS (P = .123), and level of evidence (P = .288) between continents. Of the 32 studies that reported the use of preoperative MRI, studies from Asia reported significantly more MRI scans than those from other continents (P = .040); there were no other significant differences between continents in reference to preoperative imaging studies or other demographic information.

The most common surgical indications were OCD (Figure 4), lateral epicondylitis (Figure 5), and release and débridement (Figure 6, Table 3; all studies listed indications). The number of reported cases for these 3 indications significantly increased over time (OCD P = .005, lateral epicondylitis P = .044, release and débridement P = .042) but did not significantly differ between regions (P > .05 in all cases).

Thirty-two (28.6%) studies reported the use of outcome measures (16 different outcome scores were used by the included studies). Asia reported outcome measures in 9 of 23 studies (39%), Europe in 12 of 35 studies (34%) and North America in 11 of 54 (20%) of studies. The MEPS was the most frequently used outcome score in 9.8% of studies, followed by VAS for pain in 5.3% of cases. North American studies reported a significantly higher increase in extension after elbow arthroscopy than Asia (P = .0432) (Figure 7), with no differences in flexion (P = .699), pronation (P = .376), or supination (P = .408). No significant differences were observed between continents in the type of anesthesia chosen (general anesthesia [P = .94] or regional anesthesia [P = .85]). Asia and Europe performed elbow arthroscopy most frequently in the lateral decubitus position, while North American studies most often used the supine position (Table 4).

Twenty (17.9%) studies reported the use of a postoperative splint, 12 (10.7%) studies reported use of a drain, 2 (1.79%) studies reported use of a hinged elbow brace, 9 (8.03%) studies reported use of a continuous passive motion machine postoperatively, and 3 (2.68%) studies reported use of an indwelling axillary catheter for postoperative pain management. Of 130 reported surgical complications (4.1%), the most frequent complication was transient sensory ulnar nerve palsy (1.5%), followed by persistent wound drainage (.76%), and transient sensory radial nerve palsy (.38%). Other reported complications included infection (.22%), transient sensory palsy of the median nerve (.19%), heterotopic ossification (.13%), complete transection of the ulnar nerve (.10%), loose body formation (.06%), hematoma formation (.06%), transient sensory palsy of the posterior interosseous (.06%), or anterior interosseous nerve (.03%), and complete transection of the radial (.03%), or median nerve (.03%).

Discussion

Elbow arthroscopy is an evolving surgical procedure that is used to treat intra- and extra-articular pathologies of the elbow. Outcomes of elbow arthroscopy for certain conditions have generally been reported as good, with improvements seen in pain, functional scores, and range of motion.^6,15-17 The authors’ hypotheses were mostly confirmed in that the average age of patients undergoing elbow arthroscopy was <40 years, release/débridement was one of the most common indications (along with lateral epicondylitis and OCD), and the general evidence for elbow arthroscopy was poor. Also, there were almost no differences between continents/countries related to patient indications, preoperative imaging, anesthesia choice, indications, postoperative protocols, and outcomes (although the number of studies that reported outcomes was low and could have skewed the results), with the exception of a higher number of preoperative MRI scans in Asia. Some of the notable findings of this study included: 1) the number of studies published on elbow arthroscopy is significantly increasing with time, despite a lack of improvement in the level of evidence; 2) the majority of studies on elbow arthroscopy do not report a surgical outcome score; and 3) the number of reported cases for the 3 most common indications significantly increased over time (OCD, P = .005; lateral epicondylitis, P = .044; release and débridement, P = .042) but did not differ between regions (P > .05 in all cases).

The indications for elbow arthroscopy have grown dramatically in the past 2 decades to include both intra- and extra-articular pathologies.¹⁸ Despite this increase in the number of indications for elbow arthroscopy, the study did not find a significant difference between countries/continents in the indications each used for elbow arthroscopy patients. There was a trend towards an increase in OCD cases in all continents, especially Asia (Figure 4), with time. Interestingly, while not statistically significant, there was variation among countries for surgical indications. In North America, removal of loose bodies accounts for 18% of patients, while in Europe this accounted for only 9% and in Asia for 1%. Post-traumatic stiffness was the indication for elbow arthroscopy in Europe in 19% of patients vs 7% in North America and 10% in Asia. In Asia, OCD accounts for 40% of arthroscopies, 7% in Europe, and 14% in North America (Figure 4) (Table 3).

This study demonstrated that the mean increase in elbow extension gained after surgery in North America was significantly greater when compared with studies from Asia, but the gain in flexion, pronation, and supination was similar across continents. The underlying cause of this difference in improvement in elbow extension between nations is unclear, although differences in diagnosis could account for some variation. This study did not examine differences in rehabilitation protocols, and certainly, it is plausible that protocol variations by country could account for some discrepancy. Furthermore, differences in functional needs may vary by continent and could have driven this result.

This study found no routine reporting of outcome scores by elbow arthroscopy studies from any continent, and that when outcome scores are reported, there is substantial inconsistency with regard to the actual scoring system used. No continent reported outcome scores in more than 40% of the studies published from that area, and the variation of outcome scores used, even from a single region, was large. This makes comparing clinical outcomes between studies difficult, even when performing identical procedures for identical indications, because there is no standardized method of reporting outcomes. To allow comparison of studies and generalizability of the results to different populations, a more standardized approach to outcome reporting needs to be instituted in the elbow arthroscopy literature. To date, there is no standardized score that has been validated for reporting clinical outcomes after elbow arthroscopy.19 Hence, it is not surprising that there were 16 different outcome scores reported throughout the 112 studies analyzed in this review, with the most frequent score, the MEPS, reported in a total of 10 studies. As medicine moves towards pay scales that are based on patient outcomes, it will become more important to define a clear outcome score that can be used to assess these patients, and reliably report scores. This will allow comparison of patients across nations to determine the best surgical treatment for different clinical problems. A validation study comparing these outcome scores to determine which score best summarizes the patient’s level of pain and function after surgery would be beneficial, because this could identify 1 score that could be standardized to allow comparison among reported outcomes.

Limitations

This study had several limitations. Despite having 2 authors search independently for studies, some studies could have been missed during the search process, introducing possible selection bias. Including only published studies could have introduced publication bias. Numerous studies did not report all the variables the authors examined. This could have skewed some results, and had additional variables been reported, could have altered the data to show significant differences in some measured variables. Because this study did not compare outcome measures for varying pathologies, conclusions cannot be drawn on the best treatment options for different indications. Case reports could have lowered the MCMS score and the average in studies reporting outcomes. Furthermore, the poor quality of the underlying data used in this study could limit the validity/generalizability of the results because this is a systematic review, and its level of evidence is only as high as the studies it includes. Because the primary aim was to report on demographics, this study did not examine concomitant pathology at the time of surgery or rehabilitation protocols.

Conclusion

The quantity, but not the quality, of arthroscopic elbow publications has significantly increased over time. Most patients undergo elbow arthroscopy for lateral epicondylitis, OCD, and release and débridement. Pathology and indications do not appear to differ geographically with more men undergoing elbow arthroscopy than women.

Although elbow arthroscopy was first described in the 1930s, it has become increasingly popular in the last 30 years.¹ While initially considered as a tool for diagnosis and loose body removal, indications have expanded to include treatment of osteochondritis dissecans (OCD), treatment of lateral epicondylitis, fixation of fractures, and others.^2-5 Miyake and colleagues⁶ found a significant improvement in range of motion, both flexion and extension, and outcome scores when elbow arthroscopy was used to remove impinging osteophytes. Babaqi and colleagues⁷ found significant improvement in pain, satisfaction, and outcome scores in 31 patients who underwent elbow arthroscopy for lateral epicondylitis refractory to nonsurgical management. The technical difficulty of the procedure, lower frequency of pathology amenable to arthroscopic intervention, and potential neurovascular complications make the elbow less frequently evaluated with the arthroscope vs other joints, such as the knee and shoulder.^2,8,9

Geographic distribution of subjects undergoing elbow arthroscopy, the indications used, surgical techniques being performed, and their associated clinical outcomes have received little to no recognition in the peer-reviewed literature.10 Differences in the elbow arthroscopy literature include characteristics related to the patient (age, gender, hand dominance, duration of symptoms), study (level of evidence, number of subjects, number of participating centers, design), indication (lateral epicondylitis, loose bodies, olecranon osteophytes, OCD), surgical technique, and outcome. Evidence-based medicine and clinical practice guidelines direct surgeons in clinical decision-making. Payers investigate the cost of surgical interventions and the value that surgery may provide, while following trends in different surgical techniques. Regulatory agencies and associations emphasize subjective patient-reported outcomes as the primary outcome measured in high-quality trials. Thus, in discussion of complex surgical interventions such as elbow arthroscopy, it is important to characterize the studies, subjects, and surgeries across the world to understand the geographic similarities and differences to optimize care in this clinical situation.

The goal of this study was to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of elbow arthroscopy literature to identify and compare the characteristics of the studies published, the subjects analyzed, and surgical techniques performed across continents and countries to answer these questions: “Across the world, what demographic of patients are undergoing elbow arthroscopy, what are the most common indications for elbow arthroscopy, and how good is the evidence?” The authors hypothesized that patients who undergo elbow arthroscopy will be largely age <40 years, the most common indication for elbow arthroscopy will be a release/débridement, and the evidence for elbow arthroscopy will be poor. Also, no significant differences will exist in elbow arthroscopy publications, subjects, outcomes, and techniques based on continent/country of publication.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines using a PRISMA checklist.¹¹ Systematic review registration was performed using the International Prospective Register of Ongoing Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; registration number, CRD42014010580; registration date, July 15, 2014).¹² Two study authors independently conducted the search on June 23, 2014 using the following databases: Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, SportDiscus, and CINAHL. The electronic search citation algorithm used was: (elbow) AND arthroscopy) NOT shoulder) NOT knee) NOT ankle) NOT wrist) NOT hip) NOT dog) NOT cadaver). English language Level I-IV evidence (2012 update by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine¹³) clinical studies were eligible for inclusion into this study. Abstracts were ineligible for inclusion. All references in selected studies were cross-referenced for inclusion if they were missed during the initial search. Duplicate subject publications within separate unique studies were not reported twice. The study with longer duration follow-up, higher level of evidence, greater number of subjects, or more detailed subject, surgical technique, or outcome reporting was retained for inclusion. Level V evidence reviews, expert opinion articles, letters to the editor, basic science, biomechanical studies, open elbow surgery, imaging, surgical technique, and classification studies were excluded.

All included patients underwent elbow arthroscopy for either intra- or extra-articular elbow pathology (ulnotrochlear osteoarthritis, lateral epicondylitis, rheumatoid arthritis, post-traumatic contracture, osteonecrosis of the capitellum or radial head, osteoid osteoma, and others). There was no minimum follow-up duration or rehabilitation requirement. The study and subject demographic parameters that we analyzed included year of publication, years of subject enrollment, presence of study financial conflict of interest, number of subjects and elbows, elbow dominance, gender, age, body mass index, diagnoses treated, type of anesthesia (block or general), and surgical positioning. Postoperative splint application and pain management, and whether a continuous passive motion machine was used and whether a drain was placed were recorded. Clinical outcome scores were DASH (Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand), Morrey score, MEPS (Mayo Elbow Performance Score), Andrews-Carson score, Timmerman-Andrews score, LES (Liverpool Elbow Score), Tegner score, HSS (Hospital for Special Surgery Score), VAS (Visual Analog Scale), EFA (Elbow Functional Assessment), Short Form-12 (SF-12), Short Form-36 (SF-36), Kerlan-Jobe Orthopaedic Clinic (KJOC) Shoulder and Elbow Questionnaire, and MAESS (Modified Andrews Elbow Scoring System). Radiographs, computed tomography (CT), computed tomography arthrography (CTA), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and magnetic resonance arthrography (MRA) data were extracted when available. Range of motion (flexion, extension, supination, and pronation) and grip strength data, both preoperative and postoperative, were extracted when available. Study methodological quality was evaluated using the Modified Coleman Methodology Score (MCMS).¹⁴

Statistical Analysis

Study descriptive statistics were calculated. Continuous variable data were reported as weighted means ± weighted standard deviations. Categorical variable data were reported as frequencies with percentages. For all statistical analysis either measured and calculated from study data extraction or directly reported from the individual studies, P < .05 was considered statistically significant. Study, subject, and surgical outcomes data were compared using 1-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests. Where applicable, study, subject, and surgical outcomes data were also compared using 2-sample and 2-proportion Z-test calculators with α .05 because of the difference in sample sizes between compared groups. To examine trends over time, Pearson’s correlation coefficients were calculated. For the purposes of analysis, the indications of “osteoarthritis,” “arthrofibrosis,” “loose body removal,” “ulnotrochlear osteoarthritis causing stiffness,” “post-traumatic contracture/stiffness,” and “post-operative elbow contracture” were combined into the indication “release and débridement.” For the 3 most common indications for arthroscopy (OCD, lateral epicondylitis, and release and débridement) data were combined into 5-year increments to overcome the smaller sample size within each of these categories, and Pearson’s correlation coefficients were calculated to determine if number of reported cases covaried with year period. Within these 3 diagnoses, ANOVA analyses were performed to determine whether the number of cases differed between continents and countries.

Results

A total of 353 studies were located, and, after implementation of the exclusion criteria, 112 studies were included in the final analysis (Figure 1; 3093 subjects; 3168 elbows; 64% male; mean age, 34.9 ± 14.68 years). There was a mean of 33.4 ± 26.02 months of follow-up, and 75% of surgeries involved the dominant elbow (Table 1). Most studies were level IV evidence (94.6%), had a low MCMS (mean 28.1 ± 8.06; poor rating), and were single-center investigations (94.6%). Most studies did not report financial conflicts of interest (56.3%) (Tables 1 and 2). From 1985 through 2014, the number of publications significantly increased with time (P = .004) among all continents. The MCMS was unchanged over time (P = .247) (Figure 2A), as was the level of evidence (P = .094) (Figure 2B). Conflicts of interest significantly increased with time (P = .025) (Figure 3).

Among continents, North America published the largest number of studies (54), and had the largest number of patients (1395) and elbow surgeries (1425) (Table 1). The United States published the largest number of studies (43%). There were no significant differences between age (P = .331), length of follow-up (P = .403), MCMS (P = .123), and level of evidence (P = .288) between continents. Of the 32 studies that reported the use of preoperative MRI, studies from Asia reported significantly more MRI scans than those from other continents (P = .040); there were no other significant differences between continents in reference to preoperative imaging studies or other demographic information.

The most common surgical indications were OCD (Figure 4), lateral epicondylitis (Figure 5), and release and débridement (Figure 6, Table 3; all studies listed indications). The number of reported cases for these 3 indications significantly increased over time (OCD P = .005, lateral epicondylitis P = .044, release and débridement P = .042) but did not significantly differ between regions (P > .05 in all cases).

Thirty-two (28.6%) studies reported the use of outcome measures (16 different outcome scores were used by the included studies). Asia reported outcome measures in 9 of 23 studies (39%), Europe in 12 of 35 studies (34%) and North America in 11 of 54 (20%) of studies. The MEPS was the most frequently used outcome score in 9.8% of studies, followed by VAS for pain in 5.3% of cases. North American studies reported a significantly higher increase in extension after elbow arthroscopy than Asia (P = .0432) (Figure 7), with no differences in flexion (P = .699), pronation (P = .376), or supination (P = .408). No significant differences were observed between continents in the type of anesthesia chosen (general anesthesia [P = .94] or regional anesthesia [P = .85]). Asia and Europe performed elbow arthroscopy most frequently in the lateral decubitus position, while North American studies most often used the supine position (Table 4).

Twenty (17.9%) studies reported the use of a postoperative splint, 12 (10.7%) studies reported use of a drain, 2 (1.79%) studies reported use of a hinged elbow brace, 9 (8.03%) studies reported use of a continuous passive motion machine postoperatively, and 3 (2.68%) studies reported use of an indwelling axillary catheter for postoperative pain management. Of 130 reported surgical complications (4.1%), the most frequent complication was transient sensory ulnar nerve palsy (1.5%), followed by persistent wound drainage (.76%), and transient sensory radial nerve palsy (.38%). Other reported complications included infection (.22%), transient sensory palsy of the median nerve (.19%), heterotopic ossification (.13%), complete transection of the ulnar nerve (.10%), loose body formation (.06%), hematoma formation (.06%), transient sensory palsy of the posterior interosseous (.06%), or anterior interosseous nerve (.03%), and complete transection of the radial (.03%), or median nerve (.03%).

Discussion

Elbow arthroscopy is an evolving surgical procedure that is used to treat intra- and extra-articular pathologies of the elbow. Outcomes of elbow arthroscopy for certain conditions have generally been reported as good, with improvements seen in pain, functional scores, and range of motion.^6,15-17 The authors’ hypotheses were mostly confirmed in that the average age of patients undergoing elbow arthroscopy was <40 years, release/débridement was one of the most common indications (along with lateral epicondylitis and OCD), and the general evidence for elbow arthroscopy was poor. Also, there were almost no differences between continents/countries related to patient indications, preoperative imaging, anesthesia choice, indications, postoperative protocols, and outcomes (although the number of studies that reported outcomes was low and could have skewed the results), with the exception of a higher number of preoperative MRI scans in Asia. Some of the notable findings of this study included: 1) the number of studies published on elbow arthroscopy is significantly increasing with time, despite a lack of improvement in the level of evidence; 2) the majority of studies on elbow arthroscopy do not report a surgical outcome score; and 3) the number of reported cases for the 3 most common indications significantly increased over time (OCD, P = .005; lateral epicondylitis, P = .044; release and débridement, P = .042) but did not differ between regions (P > .05 in all cases).

The indications for elbow arthroscopy have grown dramatically in the past 2 decades to include both intra- and extra-articular pathologies.¹⁸ Despite this increase in the number of indications for elbow arthroscopy, the study did not find a significant difference between countries/continents in the indications each used for elbow arthroscopy patients. There was a trend towards an increase in OCD cases in all continents, especially Asia (Figure 4), with time. Interestingly, while not statistically significant, there was variation among countries for surgical indications. In North America, removal of loose bodies accounts for 18% of patients, while in Europe this accounted for only 9% and in Asia for 1%. Post-traumatic stiffness was the indication for elbow arthroscopy in Europe in 19% of patients vs 7% in North America and 10% in Asia. In Asia, OCD accounts for 40% of arthroscopies, 7% in Europe, and 14% in North America (Figure 4) (Table 3).

This study demonstrated that the mean increase in elbow extension gained after surgery in North America was significantly greater when compared with studies from Asia, but the gain in flexion, pronation, and supination was similar across continents. The underlying cause of this difference in improvement in elbow extension between nations is unclear, although differences in diagnosis could account for some variation. This study did not examine differences in rehabilitation protocols, and certainly, it is plausible that protocol variations by country could account for some discrepancy. Furthermore, differences in functional needs may vary by continent and could have driven this result.

This study found no routine reporting of outcome scores by elbow arthroscopy studies from any continent, and that when outcome scores are reported, there is substantial inconsistency with regard to the actual scoring system used. No continent reported outcome scores in more than 40% of the studies published from that area, and the variation of outcome scores used, even from a single region, was large. This makes comparing clinical outcomes between studies difficult, even when performing identical procedures for identical indications, because there is no standardized method of reporting outcomes. To allow comparison of studies and generalizability of the results to different populations, a more standardized approach to outcome reporting needs to be instituted in the elbow arthroscopy literature. To date, there is no standardized score that has been validated for reporting clinical outcomes after elbow arthroscopy.19 Hence, it is not surprising that there were 16 different outcome scores reported throughout the 112 studies analyzed in this review, with the most frequent score, the MEPS, reported in a total of 10 studies. As medicine moves towards pay scales that are based on patient outcomes, it will become more important to define a clear outcome score that can be used to assess these patients, and reliably report scores. This will allow comparison of patients across nations to determine the best surgical treatment for different clinical problems. A validation study comparing these outcome scores to determine which score best summarizes the patient’s level of pain and function after surgery would be beneficial, because this could identify 1 score that could be standardized to allow comparison among reported outcomes.

Limitations

This study had several limitations. Despite having 2 authors search independently for studies, some studies could have been missed during the search process, introducing possible selection bias. Including only published studies could have introduced publication bias. Numerous studies did not report all the variables the authors examined. This could have skewed some results, and had additional variables been reported, could have altered the data to show significant differences in some measured variables. Because this study did not compare outcome measures for varying pathologies, conclusions cannot be drawn on the best treatment options for different indications. Case reports could have lowered the MCMS score and the average in studies reporting outcomes. Furthermore, the poor quality of the underlying data used in this study could limit the validity/generalizability of the results because this is a systematic review, and its level of evidence is only as high as the studies it includes. Because the primary aim was to report on demographics, this study did not examine concomitant pathology at the time of surgery or rehabilitation protocols.

Conclusion

The quantity, but not the quality, of arthroscopic elbow publications has significantly increased over time. Most patients undergo elbow arthroscopy for lateral epicondylitis, OCD, and release and débridement. Pathology and indications do not appear to differ geographically with more men undergoing elbow arthroscopy than women.

Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) has become a reliable treatment option for many pathologic conditions of the shoulder, including rotator cuff arthropathy, proximal humerus fractures, and others.^1-4 While the treatment outcomes have generally been reported as good, some concern exists over the postoperative range of motion (ROM) in patients following RTSA, including external rotation.^5-7 The original RTSA design was introduced by Neer in the 1970s and has undergone many modifications since that time.^1,2 The original Grammont-style prosthesis involved medialization of the glenoid, inferiorizing the center of rotation (with increased deltoid tensioning), and a neck-shaft angle of 155°.^1,8 While clinical results of the 155° design were encouraging, concerns arose over the significance of the common finding of scapular notching, or contact between the scapular neck and inferior portion of the humeral polyethylene when the arm is adducted.^9,10

To address this concern, a prosthesis design with a 135° neck-shaft angle was introduced.¹¹ This new design did significantly decrease the rate of scapular notching, and although some reported a concern over implant stability with the 135° prosthesis, recent data has shown no difference in dislocation rates between the 135° and 155° prostheses.³ A different variable that has not been evaluated between these prostheses is the active ROM that is achieved postoperatively, and the change in ROM from pre- to post-RTSA.^12,13 As active ROM plays a significant role in shoulder function and patient satisfaction, the question of whether a significant difference exists in postoperative ROM between the 135° and 155° prostheses must be addressed.

The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review investigating active ROM following RTSA to determine if active postoperative ROM following RTSA differs between the 135° and 155° humeral inclination prostheses, and to determine if there is a significant difference between the change in preoperative and postoperative ROM between the 135° and 155° prostheses. The authors hypothesize that there will be no significant difference in active postoperative ROM between the 135° and 155° prostheses, and that the difference between preoperative and postoperative ROM (that is, the amount of motion gained by the surgery) will not significantly differ between the 135° and 155° prostheses.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines using a PRISMA checklist.¹⁵ Systematic review registration was performed using the PROSPERO international prospective register of systematic reviews (registration date 3/9/15, registration number CRD42015017367).¹⁶ Two reviewers independently conducted the search on March 7, 2015 using the following databases: Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, SportDiscus, and CINAHL. The electronic search citation algorithm utilized was: (((((reverse[Title/Abstract]) AND shoulder[Title/Abstract]) AND arthroplasty[Title/Abstract]) NOT arthroscopic[Title/Abstract]) NOT cadaver[Title/Abstract]) NOT biomechanical[Title/Abstract]. English language Level I-IV evidence (2011 update by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine¹⁷) clinical studies that reported the type of RTSA prosthesis that was used as well as postoperative ROM with at least 12 months follow-up were eligible. All references within included studies were cross-referenced for inclusion if missed by the initial search. If duplicate subject publications were discovered, the study with the longer duration of follow-up or larger number of patients was included. Level V evidence reviews, letters to the editor, basic science, biomechanical studies, arthroscopic shoulder surgery, imaging, surgical technique, and classification studies were excluded. Studies were excluded if both a 135° and 155° prosthesis were utilized and the outcomes were not stratified by the humeral inclination. Studies that did not report ROM were excluded.

A total of 456 studies were located, and, after implementation of the exclusion criteria, 65 studies from 2005-2015 were included in the final analysis (Figure). Subjects of interest in this systematic review underwent a RTSA. Studies were not excluded based on the surgical indications (rotator cuff tear arthropathy, proximal humerus fractures, osteoarthritis) and there was no minimum follow-up or rehabilitation requirement. Study and subject demographic parameters analyzed included year of publication, journal of publication, country and continent of publication, years of subject enrollment, presence of study financial conflict of interest, number of subjects and shoulders, gender, age, the manufacturer and type of prosthesis used, and the degree of the humeral inclination (135° vs 155° humeral cup). Preoperative ROM, including forward elevation, abduction, external rotation with the arm adducted, and external rotation with the arm at 90° of abduction, were recorded. The same ROM measurements were recorded for the final follow-up visit that was reported. Internal rotation was recorded, but because of the variability with how this measurement was reported, it was not analyzed. Clinical outcome scores and complications were not assessed. Study methodological quality was evaluated using the Modified Coleman Methodology Score (MCMS).¹⁸

Statistical Analysis

Descriptive statistics were calculated, including mean ± standard deviation for quantitative continuous data and frequencies with percentages for qualitative categorical data. ROM comparisons between 135° and 155° components (pre- vs postoperative for each and postoperative between the 2) were made using 2 proportion z-test calculator (http://in-silico.net/tools/statistics/ztest) using alpha .05 because of the difference in sample sizes between compared groups.

Results

Sixty-five studies with 3302 patients (3434 shoulders) were included in this study. There was a total of 1211 shoulders in the 135° lateralized glenosphere group and 2223 shoulders in the 155° group. The studies had an average MCMS of 40.4 ± 8.2 (poor), 48% of studies reported a conflict of interest, 32% had no conflict of interest, and 20% did not report whether a conflict of interest existed or not. The majority of studies included were level IV evidence (85%). Mean patient age was 71.1 ± 7.6 years; 29% of patients were male and 71% were female. No significant difference existed between patient age at the time of surgery; the average age of patients in the 135° lateralized glenosphere group was 71.67 ± 3.8 years, while the average patient age of patients in the 155° group was 70.97 ± 8.8 years. Mean follow-up for all patients included in this study was 37.2 ± 16.5 months. Of the 65 studies included, 3 were published from Asia, 4 were published from Australia, 24 were from North America, and 34 were from Europe. Of the individual countries whose studies were included, the United States had 23 included studies, France had 13 included studies, and Italy had 4 included studies. All other countries had <4 studies included.

Patients who received either a 135° or a 155° prosthesis showed significant improvements in external rotation with the arm at the side (P < .05), forward elevation (P < .05), and abduction (P < .05) following surgery (Table). When comparing the 135° and 155° groups, patients who received a 135° prosthesis showed significantly greater improvements in external rotation with the arm at the side (P < .001) and had significantly more overall external rotation postoperatively (P < .001) than patients who received a 155° prosthesis. The only preoperative ROM difference between groups was the 155° group started with significantly more forward elevation than the 135°group prior to surgery (P = .002).

Discussion

RTSA is indicated in patients with rotator cuff tear arthropathy, pseudoparalysis, and a functional deltoid.^1,2,4 The purpose of this systematic review was to determine if active ROM following RTSA differs between the 135° and 155° humeral inclination prostheses, and to determine if there is a significant difference between the change in preoperative and postoperative ROM between the 135° and 155° prostheses. Forward elevation, abduction, and external rotation all significantly improved following surgery in both groups, with no significant difference between groups in motion or amount of motion improvement, mostly confirming the study hypotheses. However, patients in the 135° group had significantly greater postoperative external rotation and greater amount of external rotation improvement compared to the 155° group.

Two of the frequently debated issues regarding implant geometry is stability and scapular notching between the 135° and 155° humeral inclination designs. Erickson and colleagues3 recently evaluated the rate of scapular notching and dislocations between the 135° and 155° RTSA prostheses. The authors found that the 135° prosthesis had a significantly lower incidence of scapular notching vs the 155° group and that the rate of dislocations was not significantly different between groups.³ In the latter systematic review, the authors attempted to evaluate ROM between the 135° and 155° prostheses, but as the inclusion criteria of the study was reporting on scapular notching and dislocation rates, many studies reporting solely on ROM were excluded, and the influence of humeral inclination on ROM was inconclusive.³ Furthermore, there have been no studies that have directly compared ROM following RTSA between the 135° and 155° prostheses. While studies evaluating each prosthesis on an individual level have shown an improvement in ROM from pre- to postsurgery, there have been no large studies that have compared the postoperative ROM and change in pre- to postoperative ROM between the 135° and 155° prostheses.^11,13,19,20

One study by Valenti and colleagues²¹ evaluated a group of 30 patients with an average age of 69.5 years who underwent RTSA using either a 135° or a 155° prosthesis. Although the study did not directly compare the 2 types of prostheses, it did report the separate outcomes for each prosthesis. At an average follow-up of 36.4 months, the authors found that patients who had the 135° prosthesis implanted had a mean increase in forward elevation and external rotation of 53° and 9°, while patients who had the 155° showed an increase of 56° in forward elevation and a loss of 1° of external rotation. Both prostheses showed a significant increase in forward elevation, but neither had a significant increase in external rotation. Furthermore, scapular notching was seen in 4 patients in the 155° group, while no patients in the 135° group had evidence of notching.

The results of the current study were similar in that both the 135° and 155° prosthesis showed improvements in forward elevation following surgery, and the 135° group showed a significantly greater gain in external rotation than the 155° group. A significant component of shoulder function and patient satisfaction following RTSA is active ROM. However, this variable has not explicitly been evaluated in the literature until now. The clinical significance of this finding is unclear. Patients with adequate external rotation prior to surgery likely would not see a functional difference between prostheses, while those patients who were borderline on a functional amount of external rotation would see a clinically significant benefit with the 135° prosthesis. Studies have shown that the 135° prosthesis is more anatomic than the 155°, and this could explain the difference seen in ROM outcomes between the 2 prostheses.¹⁹ Ladermann and colleagues²² recently created and evaluated a 3-dimensional computer model to evaluate possible differences between the 135° and 155° prosthesis. The authors found a significant increase in external rotation of the 135° compared to the 155°, likely related to a difference in acromiohumeral distance as well as inlay vs onlay humeral trays between the 2 prostheses. The results of this study parallel the computer model, thereby validating these experimental results.

It is important to understand what the minimum functional ROM of the shoulder is (in other words, the ROM necessary to complete activities of daily living (ADLs).²³ Namdari and colleagues²⁴ used motion analysis software to evaluate the shoulder ROM necessary to complete 10 different ADLs, including combing hair, washing the back of the opposite shoulder, and reaching a shelf above their head without bending their elbow in 20 patients with a mean age of 29.2 years. They found that patients required 121° ± 6.7° of flexion, 46° ± 5.3° of extension, 128° ± 7.9° of abduction, 116° ± 9.1° of cross-body adduction, 59° ± 10° of external rotation with the arm 90° abducted, and 102° ± 7.7° of internal rotation with the arm at the side (external rotation with the arm at the side was not well defined).²⁴ Hence, while abduction and forward elevation seem comparable, the results from the current study do raise concerns about the amount of external rotation obtained following RTSA as it relates to a patients’ ability to perform ADLs, specifically in the 155° prosthesis, as the average postoperative external rotation in this group was 20.5°. Therefore, based on the results of this study, it appears that, while both the 135° and 155° RTSA prostheses provide similar gain in forward elevation and abduction ROM as well as overall forward elevation and abduction, the 135° prosthesis provides significantly more external rotation with the arm at the side than the 155° prosthesis.

Limitations

Although this study attempted to look at all studies that reported active ROM in patients following a RTSA, and 2 authors performed the search, there is a possibility that some studies were missed, introducing study selection bias. Furthermore, the mean follow-up was over 3 years following surgery, but the minimum follow-up requirement for studies to be included was only 12 months. Hence, this transfer bias introduces the possibility that the patient’s ROM would have changed had they been followed for a standard period of time. There are many variables that come into play in evaluating ROM, and although the study attempted to control for these, there are some that could not be controlled for due to lack of reporting by some studies. Glenosphere size and humeral retroversion were not recorded, as they were not reliably reported in all studies, so motion outcomes based on these variables was not evaluated. Complications and clinical outcomes were not assessed in this review and as such, conclusions regarding these variables cannot be drawn from this study. Finally, indications for surgery were not reliably reported in the studies included in this paper, so differences may have existed between surgical indications of the 135° and 155° groups that could have affected outcomes.

Conclusion

Patients who receive a 135° RTSA gain significantly more external rotation from pre- to postsurgery and have an overall greater amount of external rotation than patients who receive a 155° prosthesis. Both groups show improvements in forward elevation, external rotation, and abduction following surgery.

Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) has become a reliable treatment option for many pathologic conditions of the shoulder, including rotator cuff arthropathy, proximal humerus fractures, and others.^1-4 While the treatment outcomes have generally been reported as good, some concern exists over the postoperative range of motion (ROM) in patients following RTSA, including external rotation.^5-7 The original RTSA design was introduced by Neer in the 1970s and has undergone many modifications since that time.^1,2 The original Grammont-style prosthesis involved medialization of the glenoid, inferiorizing the center of rotation (with increased deltoid tensioning), and a neck-shaft angle of 155°.^1,8 While clinical results of the 155° design were encouraging, concerns arose over the significance of the common finding of scapular notching, or contact between the scapular neck and inferior portion of the humeral polyethylene when the arm is adducted.^9,10

To address this concern, a prosthesis design with a 135° neck-shaft angle was introduced.¹¹ This new design did significantly decrease the rate of scapular notching, and although some reported a concern over implant stability with the 135° prosthesis, recent data has shown no difference in dislocation rates between the 135° and 155° prostheses.³ A different variable that has not been evaluated between these prostheses is the active ROM that is achieved postoperatively, and the change in ROM from pre- to post-RTSA.^12,13 As active ROM plays a significant role in shoulder function and patient satisfaction, the question of whether a significant difference exists in postoperative ROM between the 135° and 155° prostheses must be addressed.

The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review investigating active ROM following RTSA to determine if active postoperative ROM following RTSA differs between the 135° and 155° humeral inclination prostheses, and to determine if there is a significant difference between the change in preoperative and postoperative ROM between the 135° and 155° prostheses. The authors hypothesize that there will be no significant difference in active postoperative ROM between the 135° and 155° prostheses, and that the difference between preoperative and postoperative ROM (that is, the amount of motion gained by the surgery) will not significantly differ between the 135° and 155° prostheses.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines using a PRISMA checklist.¹⁵ Systematic review registration was performed using the PROSPERO international prospective register of systematic reviews (registration date 3/9/15, registration number CRD42015017367).¹⁶ Two reviewers independently conducted the search on March 7, 2015 using the following databases: Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, SportDiscus, and CINAHL. The electronic search citation algorithm utilized was: (((((reverse[Title/Abstract]) AND shoulder[Title/Abstract]) AND arthroplasty[Title/Abstract]) NOT arthroscopic[Title/Abstract]) NOT cadaver[Title/Abstract]) NOT biomechanical[Title/Abstract]. English language Level I-IV evidence (2011 update by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine¹⁷) clinical studies that reported the type of RTSA prosthesis that was used as well as postoperative ROM with at least 12 months follow-up were eligible. All references within included studies were cross-referenced for inclusion if missed by the initial search. If duplicate subject publications were discovered, the study with the longer duration of follow-up or larger number of patients was included. Level V evidence reviews, letters to the editor, basic science, biomechanical studies, arthroscopic shoulder surgery, imaging, surgical technique, and classification studies were excluded. Studies were excluded if both a 135° and 155° prosthesis were utilized and the outcomes were not stratified by the humeral inclination. Studies that did not report ROM were excluded.

A total of 456 studies were located, and, after implementation of the exclusion criteria, 65 studies from 2005-2015 were included in the final analysis (Figure). Subjects of interest in this systematic review underwent a RTSA. Studies were not excluded based on the surgical indications (rotator cuff tear arthropathy, proximal humerus fractures, osteoarthritis) and there was no minimum follow-up or rehabilitation requirement. Study and subject demographic parameters analyzed included year of publication, journal of publication, country and continent of publication, years of subject enrollment, presence of study financial conflict of interest, number of subjects and shoulders, gender, age, the manufacturer and type of prosthesis used, and the degree of the humeral inclination (135° vs 155° humeral cup). Preoperative ROM, including forward elevation, abduction, external rotation with the arm adducted, and external rotation with the arm at 90° of abduction, were recorded. The same ROM measurements were recorded for the final follow-up visit that was reported. Internal rotation was recorded, but because of the variability with how this measurement was reported, it was not analyzed. Clinical outcome scores and complications were not assessed. Study methodological quality was evaluated using the Modified Coleman Methodology Score (MCMS).¹⁸

Statistical Analysis

Descriptive statistics were calculated, including mean ± standard deviation for quantitative continuous data and frequencies with percentages for qualitative categorical data. ROM comparisons between 135° and 155° components (pre- vs postoperative for each and postoperative between the 2) were made using 2 proportion z-test calculator (http://in-silico.net/tools/statistics/ztest) using alpha .05 because of the difference in sample sizes between compared groups.

Results

Sixty-five studies with 3302 patients (3434 shoulders) were included in this study. There was a total of 1211 shoulders in the 135° lateralized glenosphere group and 2223 shoulders in the 155° group. The studies had an average MCMS of 40.4 ± 8.2 (poor), 48% of studies reported a conflict of interest, 32% had no conflict of interest, and 20% did not report whether a conflict of interest existed or not. The majority of studies included were level IV evidence (85%). Mean patient age was 71.1 ± 7.6 years; 29% of patients were male and 71% were female. No significant difference existed between patient age at the time of surgery; the average age of patients in the 135° lateralized glenosphere group was 71.67 ± 3.8 years, while the average patient age of patients in the 155° group was 70.97 ± 8.8 years. Mean follow-up for all patients included in this study was 37.2 ± 16.5 months. Of the 65 studies included, 3 were published from Asia, 4 were published from Australia, 24 were from North America, and 34 were from Europe. Of the individual countries whose studies were included, the United States had 23 included studies, France had 13 included studies, and Italy had 4 included studies. All other countries had <4 studies included.

Patients who received either a 135° or a 155° prosthesis showed significant improvements in external rotation with the arm at the side (P < .05), forward elevation (P < .05), and abduction (P < .05) following surgery (Table). When comparing the 135° and 155° groups, patients who received a 135° prosthesis showed significantly greater improvements in external rotation with the arm at the side (P < .001) and had significantly more overall external rotation postoperatively (P < .001) than patients who received a 155° prosthesis. The only preoperative ROM difference between groups was the 155° group started with significantly more forward elevation than the 135°group prior to surgery (P = .002).

Discussion

RTSA is indicated in patients with rotator cuff tear arthropathy, pseudoparalysis, and a functional deltoid.^1,2,4 The purpose of this systematic review was to determine if active ROM following RTSA differs between the 135° and 155° humeral inclination prostheses, and to determine if there is a significant difference between the change in preoperative and postoperative ROM between the 135° and 155° prostheses. Forward elevation, abduction, and external rotation all significantly improved following surgery in both groups, with no significant difference between groups in motion or amount of motion improvement, mostly confirming the study hypotheses. However, patients in the 135° group had significantly greater postoperative external rotation and greater amount of external rotation improvement compared to the 155° group.

Two of the frequently debated issues regarding implant geometry is stability and scapular notching between the 135° and 155° humeral inclination designs. Erickson and colleagues3 recently evaluated the rate of scapular notching and dislocations between the 135° and 155° RTSA prostheses. The authors found that the 135° prosthesis had a significantly lower incidence of scapular notching vs the 155° group and that the rate of dislocations was not significantly different between groups.³ In the latter systematic review, the authors attempted to evaluate ROM between the 135° and 155° prostheses, but as the inclusion criteria of the study was reporting on scapular notching and dislocation rates, many studies reporting solely on ROM were excluded, and the influence of humeral inclination on ROM was inconclusive.³ Furthermore, there have been no studies that have directly compared ROM following RTSA between the 135° and 155° prostheses. While studies evaluating each prosthesis on an individual level have shown an improvement in ROM from pre- to postsurgery, there have been no large studies that have compared the postoperative ROM and change in pre- to postoperative ROM between the 135° and 155° prostheses.^11,13,19,20

One study by Valenti and colleagues²¹ evaluated a group of 30 patients with an average age of 69.5 years who underwent RTSA using either a 135° or a 155° prosthesis. Although the study did not directly compare the 2 types of prostheses, it did report the separate outcomes for each prosthesis. At an average follow-up of 36.4 months, the authors found that patients who had the 135° prosthesis implanted had a mean increase in forward elevation and external rotation of 53° and 9°, while patients who had the 155° showed an increase of 56° in forward elevation and a loss of 1° of external rotation. Both prostheses showed a significant increase in forward elevation, but neither had a significant increase in external rotation. Furthermore, scapular notching was seen in 4 patients in the 155° group, while no patients in the 135° group had evidence of notching.

The results of the current study were similar in that both the 135° and 155° prosthesis showed improvements in forward elevation following surgery, and the 135° group showed a significantly greater gain in external rotation than the 155° group. A significant component of shoulder function and patient satisfaction following RTSA is active ROM. However, this variable has not explicitly been evaluated in the literature until now. The clinical significance of this finding is unclear. Patients with adequate external rotation prior to surgery likely would not see a functional difference between prostheses, while those patients who were borderline on a functional amount of external rotation would see a clinically significant benefit with the 135° prosthesis. Studies have shown that the 135° prosthesis is more anatomic than the 155°, and this could explain the difference seen in ROM outcomes between the 2 prostheses.¹⁹ Ladermann and colleagues²² recently created and evaluated a 3-dimensional computer model to evaluate possible differences between the 135° and 155° prosthesis. The authors found a significant increase in external rotation of the 135° compared to the 155°, likely related to a difference in acromiohumeral distance as well as inlay vs onlay humeral trays between the 2 prostheses. The results of this study parallel the computer model, thereby validating these experimental results.

It is important to understand what the minimum functional ROM of the shoulder is (in other words, the ROM necessary to complete activities of daily living (ADLs).²³ Namdari and colleagues²⁴ used motion analysis software to evaluate the shoulder ROM necessary to complete 10 different ADLs, including combing hair, washing the back of the opposite shoulder, and reaching a shelf above their head without bending their elbow in 20 patients with a mean age of 29.2 years. They found that patients required 121° ± 6.7° of flexion, 46° ± 5.3° of extension, 128° ± 7.9° of abduction, 116° ± 9.1° of cross-body adduction, 59° ± 10° of external rotation with the arm 90° abducted, and 102° ± 7.7° of internal rotation with the arm at the side (external rotation with the arm at the side was not well defined).²⁴ Hence, while abduction and forward elevation seem comparable, the results from the current study do raise concerns about the amount of external rotation obtained following RTSA as it relates to a patients’ ability to perform ADLs, specifically in the 155° prosthesis, as the average postoperative external rotation in this group was 20.5°. Therefore, based on the results of this study, it appears that, while both the 135° and 155° RTSA prostheses provide similar gain in forward elevation and abduction ROM as well as overall forward elevation and abduction, the 135° prosthesis provides significantly more external rotation with the arm at the side than the 155° prosthesis.

Limitations

Although this study attempted to look at all studies that reported active ROM in patients following a RTSA, and 2 authors performed the search, there is a possibility that some studies were missed, introducing study selection bias. Furthermore, the mean follow-up was over 3 years following surgery, but the minimum follow-up requirement for studies to be included was only 12 months. Hence, this transfer bias introduces the possibility that the patient’s ROM would have changed had they been followed for a standard period of time. There are many variables that come into play in evaluating ROM, and although the study attempted to control for these, there are some that could not be controlled for due to lack of reporting by some studies. Glenosphere size and humeral retroversion were not recorded, as they were not reliably reported in all studies, so motion outcomes based on these variables was not evaluated. Complications and clinical outcomes were not assessed in this review and as such, conclusions regarding these variables cannot be drawn from this study. Finally, indications for surgery were not reliably reported in the studies included in this paper, so differences may have existed between surgical indications of the 135° and 155° groups that could have affected outcomes.

Conclusion

Patients who receive a 135° RTSA gain significantly more external rotation from pre- to postsurgery and have an overall greater amount of external rotation than patients who receive a 155° prosthesis. Both groups show improvements in forward elevation, external rotation, and abduction following surgery.

Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) has become a reliable treatment option for many pathologic conditions of the shoulder, including rotator cuff arthropathy, proximal humerus fractures, and others.^1-4 While the treatment outcomes have generally been reported as good, some concern exists over the postoperative range of motion (ROM) in patients following RTSA, including external rotation.^5-7 The original RTSA design was introduced by Neer in the 1970s and has undergone many modifications since that time.^1,2 The original Grammont-style prosthesis involved medialization of the glenoid, inferiorizing the center of rotation (with increased deltoid tensioning), and a neck-shaft angle of 155°.^1,8 While clinical results of the 155° design were encouraging, concerns arose over the significance of the common finding of scapular notching, or contact between the scapular neck and inferior portion of the humeral polyethylene when the arm is adducted.^9,10

To address this concern, a prosthesis design with a 135° neck-shaft angle was introduced.¹¹ This new design did significantly decrease the rate of scapular notching, and although some reported a concern over implant stability with the 135° prosthesis, recent data has shown no difference in dislocation rates between the 135° and 155° prostheses.³ A different variable that has not been evaluated between these prostheses is the active ROM that is achieved postoperatively, and the change in ROM from pre- to post-RTSA.^12,13 As active ROM plays a significant role in shoulder function and patient satisfaction, the question of whether a significant difference exists in postoperative ROM between the 135° and 155° prostheses must be addressed.

The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review investigating active ROM following RTSA to determine if active postoperative ROM following RTSA differs between the 135° and 155° humeral inclination prostheses, and to determine if there is a significant difference between the change in preoperative and postoperative ROM between the 135° and 155° prostheses. The authors hypothesize that there will be no significant difference in active postoperative ROM between the 135° and 155° prostheses, and that the difference between preoperative and postoperative ROM (that is, the amount of motion gained by the surgery) will not significantly differ between the 135° and 155° prostheses.

Methods

A systematic review was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines using a PRISMA checklist.¹⁵ Systematic review registration was performed using the PROSPERO international prospective register of systematic reviews (registration date 3/9/15, registration number CRD42015017367).¹⁶ Two reviewers independently conducted the search on March 7, 2015 using the following databases: Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, SportDiscus, and CINAHL. The electronic search citation algorithm utilized was: (((((reverse[Title/Abstract]) AND shoulder[Title/Abstract]) AND arthroplasty[Title/Abstract]) NOT arthroscopic[Title/Abstract]) NOT cadaver[Title/Abstract]) NOT biomechanical[Title/Abstract]. English language Level I-IV evidence (2011 update by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine¹⁷) clinical studies that reported the type of RTSA prosthesis that was used as well as postoperative ROM with at least 12 months follow-up were eligible. All references within included studies were cross-referenced for inclusion if missed by the initial search. If duplicate subject publications were discovered, the study with the longer duration of follow-up or larger number of patients was included. Level V evidence reviews, letters to the editor, basic science, biomechanical studies, arthroscopic shoulder surgery, imaging, surgical technique, and classification studies were excluded. Studies were excluded if both a 135° and 155° prosthesis were utilized and the outcomes were not stratified by the humeral inclination. Studies that did not report ROM were excluded.

A total of 456 studies were located, and, after implementation of the exclusion criteria, 65 studies from 2005-2015 were included in the final analysis (Figure). Subjects of interest in this systematic review underwent a RTSA. Studies were not excluded based on the surgical indications (rotator cuff tear arthropathy, proximal humerus fractures, osteoarthritis) and there was no minimum follow-up or rehabilitation requirement. Study and subject demographic parameters analyzed included year of publication, journal of publication, country and continent of publication, years of subject enrollment, presence of study financial conflict of interest, number of subjects and shoulders, gender, age, the manufacturer and type of prosthesis used, and the degree of the humeral inclination (135° vs 155° humeral cup). Preoperative ROM, including forward elevation, abduction, external rotation with the arm adducted, and external rotation with the arm at 90° of abduction, were recorded. The same ROM measurements were recorded for the final follow-up visit that was reported. Internal rotation was recorded, but because of the variability with how this measurement was reported, it was not analyzed. Clinical outcome scores and complications were not assessed. Study methodological quality was evaluated using the Modified Coleman Methodology Score (MCMS).¹⁸

Statistical Analysis

Descriptive statistics were calculated, including mean ± standard deviation for quantitative continuous data and frequencies with percentages for qualitative categorical data. ROM comparisons between 135° and 155° components (pre- vs postoperative for each and postoperative between the 2) were made using 2 proportion z-test calculator (http://in-silico.net/tools/statistics/ztest) using alpha .05 because of the difference in sample sizes between compared groups.

Results

Sixty-five studies with 3302 patients (3434 shoulders) were included in this study. There was a total of 1211 shoulders in the 135° lateralized glenosphere group and 2223 shoulders in the 155° group. The studies had an average MCMS of 40.4 ± 8.2 (poor), 48% of studies reported a conflict of interest, 32% had no conflict of interest, and 20% did not report whether a conflict of interest existed or not. The majority of studies included were level IV evidence (85%). Mean patient age was 71.1 ± 7.6 years; 29% of patients were male and 71% were female. No significant difference existed between patient age at the time of surgery; the average age of patients in the 135° lateralized glenosphere group was 71.67 ± 3.8 years, while the average patient age of patients in the 155° group was 70.97 ± 8.8 years. Mean follow-up for all patients included in this study was 37.2 ± 16.5 months. Of the 65 studies included, 3 were published from Asia, 4 were published from Australia, 24 were from North America, and 34 were from Europe. Of the individual countries whose studies were included, the United States had 23 included studies, France had 13 included studies, and Italy had 4 included studies. All other countries had <4 studies included.

Patients who received either a 135° or a 155° prosthesis showed significant improvements in external rotation with the arm at the side (P < .05), forward elevation (P < .05), and abduction (P < .05) following surgery (Table). When comparing the 135° and 155° groups, patients who received a 135° prosthesis showed significantly greater improvements in external rotation with the arm at the side (P < .001) and had significantly more overall external rotation postoperatively (P < .001) than patients who received a 155° prosthesis. The only preoperative ROM difference between groups was the 155° group started with significantly more forward elevation than the 135°group prior to surgery (P = .002).

Discussion

RTSA is indicated in patients with rotator cuff tear arthropathy, pseudoparalysis, and a functional deltoid.^1,2,4 The purpose of this systematic review was to determine if active ROM following RTSA differs between the 135° and 155° humeral inclination prostheses, and to determine if there is a significant difference between the change in preoperative and postoperative ROM between the 135° and 155° prostheses. Forward elevation, abduction, and external rotation all significantly improved following surgery in both groups, with no significant difference between groups in motion or amount of motion improvement, mostly confirming the study hypotheses. However, patients in the 135° group had significantly greater postoperative external rotation and greater amount of external rotation improvement compared to the 155° group.

Two of the frequently debated issues regarding implant geometry is stability and scapular notching between the 135° and 155° humeral inclination designs. Erickson and colleagues3 recently evaluated the rate of scapular notching and dislocations between the 135° and 155° RTSA prostheses. The authors found that the 135° prosthesis had a significantly lower incidence of scapular notching vs the 155° group and that the rate of dislocations was not significantly different between groups.³ In the latter systematic review, the authors attempted to evaluate ROM between the 135° and 155° prostheses, but as the inclusion criteria of the study was reporting on scapular notching and dislocation rates, many studies reporting solely on ROM were excluded, and the influence of humeral inclination on ROM was inconclusive.³ Furthermore, there have been no studies that have directly compared ROM following RTSA between the 135° and 155° prostheses. While studies evaluating each prosthesis on an individual level have shown an improvement in ROM from pre- to postsurgery, there have been no large studies that have compared the postoperative ROM and change in pre- to postoperative ROM between the 135° and 155° prostheses.^11,13,19,20

One study by Valenti and colleagues²¹ evaluated a group of 30 patients with an average age of 69.5 years who underwent RTSA using either a 135° or a 155° prosthesis. Although the study did not directly compare the 2 types of prostheses, it did report the separate outcomes for each prosthesis. At an average follow-up of 36.4 months, the authors found that patients who had the 135° prosthesis implanted had a mean increase in forward elevation and external rotation of 53° and 9°, while patients who had the 155° showed an increase of 56° in forward elevation and a loss of 1° of external rotation. Both prostheses showed a significant increase in forward elevation, but neither had a significant increase in external rotation. Furthermore, scapular notching was seen in 4 patients in the 155° group, while no patients in the 135° group had evidence of notching.

The results of the current study were similar in that both the 135° and 155° prosthesis showed improvements in forward elevation following surgery, and the 135° group showed a significantly greater gain in external rotation than the 155° group. A significant component of shoulder function and patient satisfaction following RTSA is active ROM. However, this variable has not explicitly been evaluated in the literature until now. The clinical significance of this finding is unclear. Patients with adequate external rotation prior to surgery likely would not see a functional difference between prostheses, while those patients who were borderline on a functional amount of external rotation would see a clinically significant benefit with the 135° prosthesis. Studies have shown that the 135° prosthesis is more anatomic than the 155°, and this could explain the difference seen in ROM outcomes between the 2 prostheses.¹⁹ Ladermann and colleagues²² recently created and evaluated a 3-dimensional computer model to evaluate possible differences between the 135° and 155° prosthesis. The authors found a significant increase in external rotation of the 135° compared to the 155°, likely related to a difference in acromiohumeral distance as well as inlay vs onlay humeral trays between the 2 prostheses. The results of this study parallel the computer model, thereby validating these experimental results.

It is important to understand what the minimum functional ROM of the shoulder is (in other words, the ROM necessary to complete activities of daily living (ADLs).²³ Namdari and colleagues²⁴ used motion analysis software to evaluate the shoulder ROM necessary to complete 10 different ADLs, including combing hair, washing the back of the opposite shoulder, and reaching a shelf above their head without bending their elbow in 20 patients with a mean age of 29.2 years. They found that patients required 121° ± 6.7° of flexion, 46° ± 5.3° of extension, 128° ± 7.9° of abduction, 116° ± 9.1° of cross-body adduction, 59° ± 10° of external rotation with the arm 90° abducted, and 102° ± 7.7° of internal rotation with the arm at the side (external rotation with the arm at the side was not well defined).²⁴ Hence, while abduction and forward elevation seem comparable, the results from the current study do raise concerns about the amount of external rotation obtained following RTSA as it relates to a patients’ ability to perform ADLs, specifically in the 155° prosthesis, as the average postoperative external rotation in this group was 20.5°. Therefore, based on the results of this study, it appears that, while both the 135° and 155° RTSA prostheses provide similar gain in forward elevation and abduction ROM as well as overall forward elevation and abduction, the 135° prosthesis provides significantly more external rotation with the arm at the side than the 155° prosthesis.

Limitations

Although this study attempted to look at all studies that reported active ROM in patients following a RTSA, and 2 authors performed the search, there is a possibility that some studies were missed, introducing study selection bias. Furthermore, the mean follow-up was over 3 years following surgery, but the minimum follow-up requirement for studies to be included was only 12 months. Hence, this transfer bias introduces the possibility that the patient’s ROM would have changed had they been followed for a standard period of time. There are many variables that come into play in evaluating ROM, and although the study attempted to control for these, there are some that could not be controlled for due to lack of reporting by some studies. Glenosphere size and humeral retroversion were not recorded, as they were not reliably reported in all studies, so motion outcomes based on these variables was not evaluated. Complications and clinical outcomes were not assessed in this review and as such, conclusions regarding these variables cannot be drawn from this study. Finally, indications for surgery were not reliably reported in the studies included in this paper, so differences may have existed between surgical indications of the 135° and 155° groups that could have affected outcomes.

Conclusion

Patients who receive a 135° RTSA gain significantly more external rotation from pre- to postsurgery and have an overall greater amount of external rotation than patients who receive a 155° prosthesis. Both groups show improvements in forward elevation, external rotation, and abduction following surgery.

National Hockey League (NHL), Major League Soccer (MLS), and US Olympic/World Cup Ski/Snowboard (Olympic) athletes receive orthopedic care from a select group of surgeons. There are 30 NHL teams, 19 MLS teams, 1 Olympic ski team, and 1 Olympic snowboard team, for a total of 51 teams and a rough total of 2229 athletes (1500 NHL, 570 MLS, 159 Olympic).¹

Studies have shown that MLS athletes and X-Game skiers and snowboarders have performed well on return to sport (RTS) after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.^2,3 However, the techniques, graft choices, and rehabilitation protocols used to return these elite athletes to their preinjury level of performance have not been elucidated. It is unclear if the treatment given to these elite athletes differs from that given to recreational athletes and nonathletes. Bradley and colleagues⁴ examined how 32 NFL team orthopedists treated ACL tears, and Erickson and colleagues⁵ recently surveyed NFL and National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) team physicians to determine practice patterns (eg, surgical techniques, graft choices, postoperative protocols) in treating ACL tears. Until now, however, no one has examined NHL, MLS, or Olympic team orthopedic surgeons’ practice patterns as they relate to ACL reconstruction.

We conducted an online survey of NHL, MLS, and Olympic team orthopedic surgeons to determine practice patterns relating to ACL reconstruction in elite athletes. Given the practice patterns of surgeons in our practice, we hypothesized that the surveyed surgeons treating these elite athletes would most commonly use bone–patellar tendon–bone (BPTB) autograft with a single-bundle technique. We also hypothesized that they would permit RTS without a brace at a minimum of 6 months after surgery, with a normal physical examination, and after successful completion of a structured battery of RTS tests.

Materials and Methods

On the SurveyMonkey website (http://www.surveymonkey.com), we created a 7-question base survey, with other questions added for the NHL and MLS surveys (Figure 1). We sent this survey to 94 team orthopedic surgeons (41 NHL, 26 MLS, 27 Olympic) identified through Internet searches and direct contact with team public relations departments. The survey was approved by MLS and NHL research committees. In 2013, each survey was sent out 5 times. The response rates for each round are shown in Figure 2. All responses remained confidential; we did not learn surgeons’ identities. Data were collected and analyzed through the SurveyMonkey website. Each surgeon was instructed to respond to all relevant questions in the survey. The survey was designed such that the participant could not submit the survey without answering all the questions. Descriptive statistics were calculated for each study and parameter analyzed. Continuous variable data are reported as means and standard deviations (weighted means where applicable). Categorical data are reported as frequencies with percentages.

Results

Of the 94 team orthopedic surgeons surveyed, 47 (50%) responded (NHL, 49%; MLS, 50%; Olympic, 52%). Mean (SD) experience as a team physician was 7.73 (5.33) years (range, 2-20 years) for NHL, 6.77 (6.64) years (range, 2-20 years) for MLS, and 1.14 (0.36) years (range, 1-10 years) for Olympic. Mean (SD) number of ACL reconstructions performed in 2012 was 101 (51) for NHL (range, 50-200), 78 (38) for MLS (range, 20-150), and 110 (105) for Olympic (range, 25-175) (Table 1). Of the 47 surgeons, 42 (89.4%) used autograft in the treatment of elite athletes, and 5 (10.6%) used allograft. Autograft choices were BPTB (n = 33; 70.2%), 4-strand semitendinosus (n = 7; 14.9%), and quadriceps (n = 2; 4.3%); allograft choices were 4-strand semitendinosus (n = 4; 8.5%) and BPTB (n = 1; 2.1%) (Table 2).

Of the 40 surgeons (85.1%) who indicated they would use autograft in 25-year-old recreational athletes, 25 (53.2%) would use BPTB, 13 (27.7%) would use 4-strand semitendinosus, and 2 (4.3%) would use quadriceps; of the 7 who indicated they would use allograft, 4 (8.5%) would use 4-strand semitendinosus, and 3 (6.4%) would use BPTB. In the NHL and MLS surveys, 19 surgeons (57.6%) indicated they would use autograft (6 would use BPTB, 13 would use 4-strand semitendinosus), and 14 (42.4%) would use allograft (7 would use BPTB, 5 would use Achilles, and 2 would use tibialis anterior) in 35-year-old recreational athletes.

Twenty-one surgeons (44.7%) were drilling the femoral tunnel through a transtibial portal, 36.2% through an anteromedial portal, and 12.8% using a 2-incision technique. All surgeons indicated they were using a single-bundle technique in ACL reconstruction. Thirty-three surgeons (70.2%) did not recommend a brace for their elite athletes on RTS. Olympic team surgeons had the highest rate of brace wear in RTS (50%, both skiers and snowboarders); NHL and MLS surgeons had significantly lower rates (25% and 15.4%, respectively) (Table 3).

Twenty (60.6%) of the NHL and MLS surgeons recommended waiting at least 6 months before RTS; 2 (6.1%) recommended waiting at least 9 months; no surgeon recommended waiting at least 12 months; and the others did not have a specific time frame for RTS. Twenty-seven surgeons (81.8%) recommended RTS after an athlete passed a series of RTS tests (eg, Vail, single-leg hop). Nineteen surgeons (57.6%) recommended waiting until the athlete had full range of motion, no pain, full strength, and subjective stability in the knee. Physicians could choose more than one answer for the previous question, allowing for a total percentage higher than 100%.

Discussion

The goal of this study was to determine how NHL, MLS, and Olympic team orthopedic surgeons manage ACL tears in elite and recreational athletes. Our study hypotheses were confirmed, as 70.2% of those surveyed used BPTB autograft for elite athletes, 100% used the single-bundle technique, 70.2% did not require a brace on RTS, 81.8% recommended RTS after the athlete passed a series of RTS tests (eg, Vail, single-leg hop), and 60.6% waited at least 6 months after surgery.

As soccer and skiing are the top 2 sports in which participants sustain ACL tears, it is necessary to report how surgeons obtain successful results in these patient populations.⁶ Using the US and Norwegian ACL reconstruction registries, Granan and colleagues⁶ found that, over a 7-year period, 5760 ACL tears occurred during soccer, and 2030 occurred during skiing. The scope of ACL injuries is broad, and treatment patterns must be elucidated. Although most surgeons do not treat elite athletes, many high school and college athletes compete at very high levels. Therefore, replicating the methods of the surgeons who treat elite athletes may be warranted.

In our survey, autograft (89.4%), particularly BPTB autograft (70.2%), was the most common graft choice for elite athletes. The rate of allograft use (42.4%) was higher for 35-year-old recreational athletes. As BPTB autograft produces reliable long-term results, this graft type is a reasonable choice.⁷ However, only 18% of our surveyed orthopedic surgeons indicated they would use BPTB autograft in older, recreational athletes. This stark difference is likely related to the more than 40% long-term side effects of anterior knee pain and graft harvest site morbidity with BPTB autograft as opposed to allograft and other types of autograft.^8,9 Younger patients may be more willing to accept some anterior knee pain to ensure bone-to-bone healing with BPTB autograft. This shift in graft choice may also reflect the desire to minimize skin incisions and their resulting scars, especially in female recreational athletes.

In a meta-analysis of more than 5000 patients, Kraeutler and colleagues⁷ found that BPTB autograft outperformed allograft according to several knee scores, including Lysholm and Tegner, and had a lower re-rupture rate (4.3% vs 12.7%). However, despite the superior performance of BPTB autograft, graft choice cannot overcome surgeon error in graft placement.¹⁰ BPTB autograft appears to remain the gold standard for ACL reconstruction for many reasons, including low failure rates and decreased costs.¹¹ Recently, investigators have tried to challenge the superiority of BPTB autograft. In a retrospective case–control study, Mascarenhas and colleagues¹² found that hamstring autograft afforded patients better extension and higher subjective outcome scores. Bourke and colleagues¹³ found a higher rate of contralateral ACL rupture in patients treated with BPTB autograft compared with hamstring autograft.

According to this survey, 44.7% of surgeons indicated they drilled the femoral tunnel through a transtibial portal, 36.2% used an anteromedial portal, and 12.8% used the 2-incision technique. These methods were recently evaluated to determine if any is superior to the others, but the study results were not definitive.¹⁴ Franceschi and colleagues¹⁵ found improved rotational and anterior stability of the knee with use of an anteromedial approach, but their findings were not clinically or functionally significant. Wang and colleagues¹⁶ found an extension loss in the late-stance phase of gait with the anteromedial approach; the transtibial approach was correlated with inferior anterior-posterior stability during the stance phase of gait. Therefore, our results parallel those in the current literature in that the surveyed population is split on which technique to use and likely bases its practice on comfort level and residency/fellowship training.

Limitations

This study had several limitations. First, it provided level V evidence of team physicians in 3 major sports. Although some of these physicians were also treating athletes in other sports, our survey targeted NHL, MLS, and Olympic athletes. It did not address all ages and both sexes—which is significant, given the higher rate of ACL tears in females. All NHL and MLS players are male, and there was a high rate of BPTB graft use in these sports. However, recreational athletes include both males and females, and the fact that some surgeons would choose a hamstring graft for a female for cosmetic reasons must not be overlooked. Conversely, that there was no difference in the number of BPTB autografts chosen between NHL and MLS surgeons versus Olympic surgeons, where females are included (all chose about 60% BPTB autografts for their elite athletes), disputes this limitation. Our survey response rate was 50%. Other studies have had similar rates in relation to ACL practices,¹⁷ especially elite team physicians’ practices,⁵ and recent literature has confirmed that lower response rates in surveys did not alter results and may in fact have improved results.^18,19 This percentage could be falsely low if some of our email addresses were incorrect. This rate also raises the possibility of selection bias, as surgeons who routinely used allograft in their athlete population may not have wanted to admit this. It is possible that some NHL, MLS, and Olympic athletes were treated by surgeons not included in this survey (in some cases, a non–team surgeon may have performed the athlete’s surgery). This survey did not address concomitant knee pathology or cover all possible technique variables.

Conclusion

Most of the NHL, MLS, and Olympic team orthopedic surgeons who were surveyed perform their ACL reconstructions using BPTB autograft, using a single-bundle technique, through a transtibial portal, and do not require bracing for their athletes returning to sport. Most required their athletes to complete a series of RTS tests before resuming competitive play.

National Hockey League (NHL), Major League Soccer (MLS), and US Olympic/World Cup Ski/Snowboard (Olympic) athletes receive orthopedic care from a select group of surgeons. There are 30 NHL teams, 19 MLS teams, 1 Olympic ski team, and 1 Olympic snowboard team, for a total of 51 teams and a rough total of 2229 athletes (1500 NHL, 570 MLS, 159 Olympic).¹

Studies have shown that MLS athletes and X-Game skiers and snowboarders have performed well on return to sport (RTS) after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.^2,3 However, the techniques, graft choices, and rehabilitation protocols used to return these elite athletes to their preinjury level of performance have not been elucidated. It is unclear if the treatment given to these elite athletes differs from that given to recreational athletes and nonathletes. Bradley and colleagues⁴ examined how 32 NFL team orthopedists treated ACL tears, and Erickson and colleagues⁵ recently surveyed NFL and National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) team physicians to determine practice patterns (eg, surgical techniques, graft choices, postoperative protocols) in treating ACL tears. Until now, however, no one has examined NHL, MLS, or Olympic team orthopedic surgeons’ practice patterns as they relate to ACL reconstruction.

We conducted an online survey of NHL, MLS, and Olympic team orthopedic surgeons to determine practice patterns relating to ACL reconstruction in elite athletes. Given the practice patterns of surgeons in our practice, we hypothesized that the surveyed surgeons treating these elite athletes would most commonly use bone–patellar tendon–bone (BPTB) autograft with a single-bundle technique. We also hypothesized that they would permit RTS without a brace at a minimum of 6 months after surgery, with a normal physical examination, and after successful completion of a structured battery of RTS tests.

Materials and Methods

On the SurveyMonkey website (http://www.surveymonkey.com), we created a 7-question base survey, with other questions added for the NHL and MLS surveys (Figure 1). We sent this survey to 94 team orthopedic surgeons (41 NHL, 26 MLS, 27 Olympic) identified through Internet searches and direct contact with team public relations departments. The survey was approved by MLS and NHL research committees. In 2013, each survey was sent out 5 times. The response rates for each round are shown in Figure 2. All responses remained confidential; we did not learn surgeons’ identities. Data were collected and analyzed through the SurveyMonkey website. Each surgeon was instructed to respond to all relevant questions in the survey. The survey was designed such that the participant could not submit the survey without answering all the questions. Descriptive statistics were calculated for each study and parameter analyzed. Continuous variable data are reported as means and standard deviations (weighted means where applicable). Categorical data are reported as frequencies with percentages.

Results

Of the 94 team orthopedic surgeons surveyed, 47 (50%) responded (NHL, 49%; MLS, 50%; Olympic, 52%). Mean (SD) experience as a team physician was 7.73 (5.33) years (range, 2-20 years) for NHL, 6.77 (6.64) years (range, 2-20 years) for MLS, and 1.14 (0.36) years (range, 1-10 years) for Olympic. Mean (SD) number of ACL reconstructions performed in 2012 was 101 (51) for NHL (range, 50-200), 78 (38) for MLS (range, 20-150), and 110 (105) for Olympic (range, 25-175) (Table 1). Of the 47 surgeons, 42 (89.4%) used autograft in the treatment of elite athletes, and 5 (10.6%) used allograft. Autograft choices were BPTB (n = 33; 70.2%), 4-strand semitendinosus (n = 7; 14.9%), and quadriceps (n = 2; 4.3%); allograft choices were 4-strand semitendinosus (n = 4; 8.5%) and BPTB (n = 1; 2.1%) (Table 2).

Of the 40 surgeons (85.1%) who indicated they would use autograft in 25-year-old recreational athletes, 25 (53.2%) would use BPTB, 13 (27.7%) would use 4-strand semitendinosus, and 2 (4.3%) would use quadriceps; of the 7 who indicated they would use allograft, 4 (8.5%) would use 4-strand semitendinosus, and 3 (6.4%) would use BPTB. In the NHL and MLS surveys, 19 surgeons (57.6%) indicated they would use autograft (6 would use BPTB, 13 would use 4-strand semitendinosus), and 14 (42.4%) would use allograft (7 would use BPTB, 5 would use Achilles, and 2 would use tibialis anterior) in 35-year-old recreational athletes.

Twenty-one surgeons (44.7%) were drilling the femoral tunnel through a transtibial portal, 36.2% through an anteromedial portal, and 12.8% using a 2-incision technique. All surgeons indicated they were using a single-bundle technique in ACL reconstruction. Thirty-three surgeons (70.2%) did not recommend a brace for their elite athletes on RTS. Olympic team surgeons had the highest rate of brace wear in RTS (50%, both skiers and snowboarders); NHL and MLS surgeons had significantly lower rates (25% and 15.4%, respectively) (Table 3).

Twenty (60.6%) of the NHL and MLS surgeons recommended waiting at least 6 months before RTS; 2 (6.1%) recommended waiting at least 9 months; no surgeon recommended waiting at least 12 months; and the others did not have a specific time frame for RTS. Twenty-seven surgeons (81.8%) recommended RTS after an athlete passed a series of RTS tests (eg, Vail, single-leg hop). Nineteen surgeons (57.6%) recommended waiting until the athlete had full range of motion, no pain, full strength, and subjective stability in the knee. Physicians could choose more than one answer for the previous question, allowing for a total percentage higher than 100%.

Discussion

The goal of this study was to determine how NHL, MLS, and Olympic team orthopedic surgeons manage ACL tears in elite and recreational athletes. Our study hypotheses were confirmed, as 70.2% of those surveyed used BPTB autograft for elite athletes, 100% used the single-bundle technique, 70.2% did not require a brace on RTS, 81.8% recommended RTS after the athlete passed a series of RTS tests (eg, Vail, single-leg hop), and 60.6% waited at least 6 months after surgery.

As soccer and skiing are the top 2 sports in which participants sustain ACL tears, it is necessary to report how surgeons obtain successful results in these patient populations.⁶ Using the US and Norwegian ACL reconstruction registries, Granan and colleagues⁶ found that, over a 7-year period, 5760 ACL tears occurred during soccer, and 2030 occurred during skiing. The scope of ACL injuries is broad, and treatment patterns must be elucidated. Although most surgeons do not treat elite athletes, many high school and college athletes compete at very high levels. Therefore, replicating the methods of the surgeons who treat elite athletes may be warranted.

In our survey, autograft (89.4%), particularly BPTB autograft (70.2%), was the most common graft choice for elite athletes. The rate of allograft use (42.4%) was higher for 35-year-old recreational athletes. As BPTB autograft produces reliable long-term results, this graft type is a reasonable choice.⁷ However, only 18% of our surveyed orthopedic surgeons indicated they would use BPTB autograft in older, recreational athletes. This stark difference is likely related to the more than 40% long-term side effects of anterior knee pain and graft harvest site morbidity with BPTB autograft as opposed to allograft and other types of autograft.^8,9 Younger patients may be more willing to accept some anterior knee pain to ensure bone-to-bone healing with BPTB autograft. This shift in graft choice may also reflect the desire to minimize skin incisions and their resulting scars, especially in female recreational athletes.

In a meta-analysis of more than 5000 patients, Kraeutler and colleagues⁷ found that BPTB autograft outperformed allograft according to several knee scores, including Lysholm and Tegner, and had a lower re-rupture rate (4.3% vs 12.7%). However, despite the superior performance of BPTB autograft, graft choice cannot overcome surgeon error in graft placement.¹⁰ BPTB autograft appears to remain the gold standard for ACL reconstruction for many reasons, including low failure rates and decreased costs.¹¹ Recently, investigators have tried to challenge the superiority of BPTB autograft. In a retrospective case–control study, Mascarenhas and colleagues¹² found that hamstring autograft afforded patients better extension and higher subjective outcome scores. Bourke and colleagues¹³ found a higher rate of contralateral ACL rupture in patients treated with BPTB autograft compared with hamstring autograft.

According to this survey, 44.7% of surgeons indicated they drilled the femoral tunnel through a transtibial portal, 36.2% used an anteromedial portal, and 12.8% used the 2-incision technique. These methods were recently evaluated to determine if any is superior to the others, but the study results were not definitive.¹⁴ Franceschi and colleagues¹⁵ found improved rotational and anterior stability of the knee with use of an anteromedial approach, but their findings were not clinically or functionally significant. Wang and colleagues¹⁶ found an extension loss in the late-stance phase of gait with the anteromedial approach; the transtibial approach was correlated with inferior anterior-posterior stability during the stance phase of gait. Therefore, our results parallel those in the current literature in that the surveyed population is split on which technique to use and likely bases its practice on comfort level and residency/fellowship training.

Limitations

This study had several limitations. First, it provided level V evidence of team physicians in 3 major sports. Although some of these physicians were also treating athletes in other sports, our survey targeted NHL, MLS, and Olympic athletes. It did not address all ages and both sexes—which is significant, given the higher rate of ACL tears in females. All NHL and MLS players are male, and there was a high rate of BPTB graft use in these sports. However, recreational athletes include both males and females, and the fact that some surgeons would choose a hamstring graft for a female for cosmetic reasons must not be overlooked. Conversely, that there was no difference in the number of BPTB autografts chosen between NHL and MLS surgeons versus Olympic surgeons, where females are included (all chose about 60% BPTB autografts for their elite athletes), disputes this limitation. Our survey response rate was 50%. Other studies have had similar rates in relation to ACL practices,¹⁷ especially elite team physicians’ practices,⁵ and recent literature has confirmed that lower response rates in surveys did not alter results and may in fact have improved results.^18,19 This percentage could be falsely low if some of our email addresses were incorrect. This rate also raises the possibility of selection bias, as surgeons who routinely used allograft in their athlete population may not have wanted to admit this. It is possible that some NHL, MLS, and Olympic athletes were treated by surgeons not included in this survey (in some cases, a non–team surgeon may have performed the athlete’s surgery). This survey did not address concomitant knee pathology or cover all possible technique variables.

Conclusion

Most of the NHL, MLS, and Olympic team orthopedic surgeons who were surveyed perform their ACL reconstructions using BPTB autograft, using a single-bundle technique, through a transtibial portal, and do not require bracing for their athletes returning to sport. Most required their athletes to complete a series of RTS tests before resuming competitive play.

National Hockey League (NHL), Major League Soccer (MLS), and US Olympic/World Cup Ski/Snowboard (Olympic) athletes receive orthopedic care from a select group of surgeons. There are 30 NHL teams, 19 MLS teams, 1 Olympic ski team, and 1 Olympic snowboard team, for a total of 51 teams and a rough total of 2229 athletes (1500 NHL, 570 MLS, 159 Olympic).¹

Studies have shown that MLS athletes and X-Game skiers and snowboarders have performed well on return to sport (RTS) after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.^2,3 However, the techniques, graft choices, and rehabilitation protocols used to return these elite athletes to their preinjury level of performance have not been elucidated. It is unclear if the treatment given to these elite athletes differs from that given to recreational athletes and nonathletes. Bradley and colleagues⁴ examined how 32 NFL team orthopedists treated ACL tears, and Erickson and colleagues⁵ recently surveyed NFL and National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) team physicians to determine practice patterns (eg, surgical techniques, graft choices, postoperative protocols) in treating ACL tears. Until now, however, no one has examined NHL, MLS, or Olympic team orthopedic surgeons’ practice patterns as they relate to ACL reconstruction.

We conducted an online survey of NHL, MLS, and Olympic team orthopedic surgeons to determine practice patterns relating to ACL reconstruction in elite athletes. Given the practice patterns of surgeons in our practice, we hypothesized that the surveyed surgeons treating these elite athletes would most commonly use bone–patellar tendon–bone (BPTB) autograft with a single-bundle technique. We also hypothesized that they would permit RTS without a brace at a minimum of 6 months after surgery, with a normal physical examination, and after successful completion of a structured battery of RTS tests.

Materials and Methods

On the SurveyMonkey website (http://www.surveymonkey.com), we created a 7-question base survey, with other questions added for the NHL and MLS surveys (Figure 1). We sent this survey to 94 team orthopedic surgeons (41 NHL, 26 MLS, 27 Olympic) identified through Internet searches and direct contact with team public relations departments. The survey was approved by MLS and NHL research committees. In 2013, each survey was sent out 5 times. The response rates for each round are shown in Figure 2. All responses remained confidential; we did not learn surgeons’ identities. Data were collected and analyzed through the SurveyMonkey website. Each surgeon was instructed to respond to all relevant questions in the survey. The survey was designed such that the participant could not submit the survey without answering all the questions. Descriptive statistics were calculated for each study and parameter analyzed. Continuous variable data are reported as means and standard deviations (weighted means where applicable). Categorical data are reported as frequencies with percentages.

Results

Of the 94 team orthopedic surgeons surveyed, 47 (50%) responded (NHL, 49%; MLS, 50%; Olympic, 52%). Mean (SD) experience as a team physician was 7.73 (5.33) years (range, 2-20 years) for NHL, 6.77 (6.64) years (range, 2-20 years) for MLS, and 1.14 (0.36) years (range, 1-10 years) for Olympic. Mean (SD) number of ACL reconstructions performed in 2012 was 101 (51) for NHL (range, 50-200), 78 (38) for MLS (range, 20-150), and 110 (105) for Olympic (range, 25-175) (Table 1). Of the 47 surgeons, 42 (89.4%) used autograft in the treatment of elite athletes, and 5 (10.6%) used allograft. Autograft choices were BPTB (n = 33; 70.2%), 4-strand semitendinosus (n = 7; 14.9%), and quadriceps (n = 2; 4.3%); allograft choices were 4-strand semitendinosus (n = 4; 8.5%) and BPTB (n = 1; 2.1%) (Table 2).

Of the 40 surgeons (85.1%) who indicated they would use autograft in 25-year-old recreational athletes, 25 (53.2%) would use BPTB, 13 (27.7%) would use 4-strand semitendinosus, and 2 (4.3%) would use quadriceps; of the 7 who indicated they would use allograft, 4 (8.5%) would use 4-strand semitendinosus, and 3 (6.4%) would use BPTB. In the NHL and MLS surveys, 19 surgeons (57.6%) indicated they would use autograft (6 would use BPTB, 13 would use 4-strand semitendinosus), and 14 (42.4%) would use allograft (7 would use BPTB, 5 would use Achilles, and 2 would use tibialis anterior) in 35-year-old recreational athletes.

Twenty-one surgeons (44.7%) were drilling the femoral tunnel through a transtibial portal, 36.2% through an anteromedial portal, and 12.8% using a 2-incision technique. All surgeons indicated they were using a single-bundle technique in ACL reconstruction. Thirty-three surgeons (70.2%) did not recommend a brace for their elite athletes on RTS. Olympic team surgeons had the highest rate of brace wear in RTS (50%, both skiers and snowboarders); NHL and MLS surgeons had significantly lower rates (25% and 15.4%, respectively) (Table 3).

Twenty (60.6%) of the NHL and MLS surgeons recommended waiting at least 6 months before RTS; 2 (6.1%) recommended waiting at least 9 months; no surgeon recommended waiting at least 12 months; and the others did not have a specific time frame for RTS. Twenty-seven surgeons (81.8%) recommended RTS after an athlete passed a series of RTS tests (eg, Vail, single-leg hop). Nineteen surgeons (57.6%) recommended waiting until the athlete had full range of motion, no pain, full strength, and subjective stability in the knee. Physicians could choose more than one answer for the previous question, allowing for a total percentage higher than 100%.

Discussion

The goal of this study was to determine how NHL, MLS, and Olympic team orthopedic surgeons manage ACL tears in elite and recreational athletes. Our study hypotheses were confirmed, as 70.2% of those surveyed used BPTB autograft for elite athletes, 100% used the single-bundle technique, 70.2% did not require a brace on RTS, 81.8% recommended RTS after the athlete passed a series of RTS tests (eg, Vail, single-leg hop), and 60.6% waited at least 6 months after surgery.

As soccer and skiing are the top 2 sports in which participants sustain ACL tears, it is necessary to report how surgeons obtain successful results in these patient populations.⁶ Using the US and Norwegian ACL reconstruction registries, Granan and colleagues⁶ found that, over a 7-year period, 5760 ACL tears occurred during soccer, and 2030 occurred during skiing. The scope of ACL injuries is broad, and treatment patterns must be elucidated. Although most surgeons do not treat elite athletes, many high school and college athletes compete at very high levels. Therefore, replicating the methods of the surgeons who treat elite athletes may be warranted.

In our survey, autograft (89.4%), particularly BPTB autograft (70.2%), was the most common graft choice for elite athletes. The rate of allograft use (42.4%) was higher for 35-year-old recreational athletes. As BPTB autograft produces reliable long-term results, this graft type is a reasonable choice.⁷ However, only 18% of our surveyed orthopedic surgeons indicated they would use BPTB autograft in older, recreational athletes. This stark difference is likely related to the more than 40% long-term side effects of anterior knee pain and graft harvest site morbidity with BPTB autograft as opposed to allograft and other types of autograft.^8,9 Younger patients may be more willing to accept some anterior knee pain to ensure bone-to-bone healing with BPTB autograft. This shift in graft choice may also reflect the desire to minimize skin incisions and their resulting scars, especially in female recreational athletes.

In a meta-analysis of more than 5000 patients, Kraeutler and colleagues⁷ found that BPTB autograft outperformed allograft according to several knee scores, including Lysholm and Tegner, and had a lower re-rupture rate (4.3% vs 12.7%). However, despite the superior performance of BPTB autograft, graft choice cannot overcome surgeon error in graft placement.¹⁰ BPTB autograft appears to remain the gold standard for ACL reconstruction for many reasons, including low failure rates and decreased costs.¹¹ Recently, investigators have tried to challenge the superiority of BPTB autograft. In a retrospective case–control study, Mascarenhas and colleagues¹² found that hamstring autograft afforded patients better extension and higher subjective outcome scores. Bourke and colleagues¹³ found a higher rate of contralateral ACL rupture in patients treated with BPTB autograft compared with hamstring autograft.

According to this survey, 44.7% of surgeons indicated they drilled the femoral tunnel through a transtibial portal, 36.2% used an anteromedial portal, and 12.8% used the 2-incision technique. These methods were recently evaluated to determine if any is superior to the others, but the study results were not definitive.¹⁴ Franceschi and colleagues¹⁵ found improved rotational and anterior stability of the knee with use of an anteromedial approach, but their findings were not clinically or functionally significant. Wang and colleagues¹⁶ found an extension loss in the late-stance phase of gait with the anteromedial approach; the transtibial approach was correlated with inferior anterior-posterior stability during the stance phase of gait. Therefore, our results parallel those in the current literature in that the surveyed population is split on which technique to use and likely bases its practice on comfort level and residency/fellowship training.

Limitations

This study had several limitations. First, it provided level V evidence of team physicians in 3 major sports. Although some of these physicians were also treating athletes in other sports, our survey targeted NHL, MLS, and Olympic athletes. It did not address all ages and both sexes—which is significant, given the higher rate of ACL tears in females. All NHL and MLS players are male, and there was a high rate of BPTB graft use in these sports. However, recreational athletes include both males and females, and the fact that some surgeons would choose a hamstring graft for a female for cosmetic reasons must not be overlooked. Conversely, that there was no difference in the number of BPTB autografts chosen between NHL and MLS surgeons versus Olympic surgeons, where females are included (all chose about 60% BPTB autografts for their elite athletes), disputes this limitation. Our survey response rate was 50%. Other studies have had similar rates in relation to ACL practices,¹⁷ especially elite team physicians’ practices,⁵ and recent literature has confirmed that lower response rates in surveys did not alter results and may in fact have improved results.^18,19 This percentage could be falsely low if some of our email addresses were incorrect. This rate also raises the possibility of selection bias, as surgeons who routinely used allograft in their athlete population may not have wanted to admit this. It is possible that some NHL, MLS, and Olympic athletes were treated by surgeons not included in this survey (in some cases, a non–team surgeon may have performed the athlete’s surgery). This survey did not address concomitant knee pathology or cover all possible technique variables.

Conclusion

Most of the NHL, MLS, and Olympic team orthopedic surgeons who were surveyed perform their ACL reconstructions using BPTB autograft, using a single-bundle technique, through a transtibial portal, and do not require bracing for their athletes returning to sport. Most required their athletes to complete a series of RTS tests before resuming competitive play.

Total joint arthroplasty (TJA) is a clinically effective, cost-effective treatment for symptomatic arthritis.^1,2 After TJA, patients report reduced pain, restored range of motion, high satisfaction, and ability to return to a more active lifestyle.^3-7 The number of total hip arthroplasties (THAs) performed in the United States is expected to reach 572,000 by 2030, a 174% increase, and the number of total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) 3.5 million, nearly a 7-fold increase.^8,9 Since 2005, the cost of THA has risen more than 4 times, to $13.43 billion, and the cost of TKA has risen more than 5 times, to $40.8 billion.^8,9 Given the demand and price tag, TJA is the single largest cost in the Medicare budget.¹⁰

Given its potential to improve care and reduce costs, reducing readmission rates in the surgical setting is a priority for physicians and policymakers.¹¹ Readmissions for TJA are highly scrutinized as a performance indicator—the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) started including them in its readmissions penalty program in 2013—and were recently validated as a measure of surgical quality.^12-14 Accurate assessments of readmissions after TJA are unclear, with rates ranging from 1% to 8.5% between 7 and 90 days after surgery.^2,15-17 The early success of TJA as an elective (and more frequently outpatient) procedure has paradoxically translated to less tolerance for readmissions. Post-TJA complications resulting in readmission are subject to financial penalties, and there is an implicit judgment of inadequate surgical management.¹²

Not only is the readmission rate poorly characterized, but there is no consensus on the leading reasons for readmissions after primary elective unilateral TJAs. The range of rates, reasons, and follow-up periods reported in the literature is wide.^18,19 CMS plans to monitor readmissions over 7 to 90 days after surgery (the period depends on the complication), whereas a significant portion of the orthopedic literature documents 90-day rates.¹⁹ In 2012, the Yale New Haven Health Services Corporation/Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation prepared for CMS a comprehensive report identifying rates of post-TJA complications and readmissions.²⁰ The report, however, is limited to US hospitals and Medicare patients and therefore may overstate the rates, given this population’s documented comorbidities and the reimbursement variations between Medicare and commercial insurance.²¹ Lack of consensus on readmissions after primary elective unilateral TJAs requires that we synthesize available data to answer several questions: What is the overall readmission rate 30 and 90 days after TJA? What are the primary reasons for readmission 30 and 90 days after TJA? What are the cause-specific readmission rates? We performed a systematic review and a meta-analysis to answer these questions and to add clarity to the literature in order to help guide policy.

Materials and Methods

We performed a systematic review in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines.²² Two reviewers independently completed structured searches of the Medline and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases. Search terms were: (total hip replacement OR hip arthroplasty OR total hip arthroplasty OR total knee replacement OR knee arthroplasty OR total knee arthroplasty) AND (readmission OR complication OR discharge). They updated the search June 1, 2013. Four limits were applied: publication between January 1, 1982 and December 12, 2012; human subjects only; age 19+ years; and English-language articles. Study eligibility was determined by using standardized criteria as defined by the inclusion and exclusion criteria described in 3 stages: title review, abstract review, and full-article review. The reviewers also performed ancestry searches, including searches for major review articles and bibliographies of all retrieved studies, to identify additional studies not identified in the keyword searches. Discrepancies were resolved by author consensus.

Inclusion criteria were original studies that presented level I to III evidence and that were identified in structured online searches; published in English between January 1, 1982 and December 31, 2012; involved patients older than 19 years; and reported both readmission rates and reasons at follow-up 30 or 90 days after elective primary unilateral TJA, regardless of indication. Exclusion criteria were studies that reported data from hip fracture, knee fracture, and pelvis fracture cases; those that reported data from hemiarthroplasty, Birmingham hip resurfacing procedures, other resurfacing procedures, simultaneous bilateral hip or knee arthroplasties, unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, patellofemoral arthroplasty, metastatic or bone cancer, or revision hip or knee arthroplasty; those that did not report extractable reasons for readmission; those that reported complications but did not specify readmission rates; and those that reported readmission data only from after the 90-day follow-up window. In cases in which multiple studies reported data from the same patient population, only the largest or most recent report was used.

Two reviewers extracted the quantitative data from eligible studies. The 2 primary outcomes of interests were all-cause readmission rates, and reasons for readmission 30 and 90 days after TJA. Other extracted data were evidence level; publication journal, year, and country; data source (academic institution, Medicare); study design; number of patients; patient characteristics; surgical approach; follow-up period; overall readmission rate; anticoagulant use; tourniquet use; and compression stocking use. In addition, all post-TJA readmissions were assumed to be unplanned, except for staged sequential bilateral arthroplasty for osteoarthritis (excluded from analysis).

Readmission reasons were divided into 4 major categories as defined by the literature and the authors: thromboembolic disease, joint-specific reasons, surgical site infection, and surgical sequelae. The diagnoses in these categories are listed in Table 1. Other extracted reasons were cardiac dysrhythmia and pneumonia.

In cases in which there were at least 2 comparable studies, a meta-analysis was performed to obtain pooled estimates of the proportion of patients readmitted at 30 or 90 days. We calculated a Higgins I² measure for between-study heterogeneity and random-effects analysis, using the method of DerSimonian and Laird²³ if I² was greater than 0.5. Pooled estimates were obtained for both overall and cause-specific reasons for readmission for all reasons reported in at least 3 studies. Small-study or publication bias was assessed using funnel plot asymmetry when at least 5 studies were analyzed as recommended.²⁴ The meta-analytic findings for both overall and cause-specific readmission are presented as pooled proportions with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). All meta-analyses were performed using Stata 10.0.

Results

Fifteen unique TJA studies (12 THA, 10 TKA) met the criteria for the meta-analysis.^20,25-38Figure 1 depicts the PRISMA flowchart for study identification.²²

Of the 12 studies eligible for the THA analysis (Table 2), 6 were conducted in the United States,^{20,26,27,30,33,34} 5 in Europe,^{25,28,29,32,35} and 1 in Canada.³¹ Seven of the 12 studies reported readmission rates at 30 days, and 7 reported rates at 90 days (2 reported rates at both follow-ups). We analyzed a total of 113,396 patients at the 30-day window and 192,380 patients at the 90-day window. Mean age was 74.2 years. The included studies were variable and sparse in their reporting of specific characteristics (Table 3).

Of the 10 studies (2 prospective, 8 retrospective) eligible for the TKA analysis (Table 4), 6 were conducted in the United States,^{20,26,27,34,36,37} 3 in Europe,^25,29,35 and 1 in Asia.³⁸ Four of the 10 studies reported readmission rates at 30 days, and 7 reported rates at 90 days (1 reported rates at both follow-ups).²⁷ We analyzed a total of 3,278,635 patients at the 30-day window and 272,419 patients at the 90-day window. Mean age was 74.3 years. The included studies were quite variable and sparse in their reporting of specific characteristics (Table 5).

We performed random-effects meta-analyses of all unplanned readmissions at both 30 and 90 days (all I²s > 0.5). Among 5 THA studies that reported overall rates at 30 days,^{20,27,28,32,33} the estimated overall unplanned rate among the 120,272 index surgeries was 5.6% (95% CI, 3.2%-8.0%). Among 5 THA studies that reported overall rates at 90 days,^20,25-27,31 the estimated overall unplanned rate among the 192,380 index surgeries was 7.7% (95% CI, 3.2%-12.2%) (I² = 1.00). Among 3 TKA studies that reported overall rates at 30 days,^27,37,38 the estimated overall unplanned rate among the 3,278,635 index surgeries was 3.3% (95% CI, 0.7%-5.9%). Among 5 TKA studies that reported overall rates at 90 days,^20,25-27,36 the estimated overall unplanned rate among the 272,419 index surgeries was 9.7% (95% CI, 7.1%-12.4%) (I² = 0.97).

30-Day Readmission Rates

The most common reason for readmission 30 days after THA discharge was joint-specific. This reason accounted for 39.3% of all unplanned readmissions among studies that reported joint-specific causes, with an estimated pooled rate of 2.2% (95% CI, 0.0%-4.6%; P < .001; I² = 1.00) among 4 studies. The second and third most common reasons were surgical sequelae (1.6%; 95% CI, 0.8%-2.5%; P < .001; I² = 0.95) and thromboembolic disease (1.5%; 95% CI, 1.0%-1.9%; P < .001; I² = 0.95). See Figure 2 for 30-day THA readmission rates. The fourth most common readmission reason was surgical site infection (0.6%; 95% CI, 0.2%-1.1%; P < .001; I² = 0.94). Only these 4 reasons could be pooled, as cardiac dysrhythmia, pneumonia, and bleeding were reported in only 1 study each.

The most common reason for readmission 30 days after TKA discharge was surgical site infection. This reason accounted for 12.1% of all unplanned readmissions among studies that reported surgical site infections, with an estimated pooled rate of 0.4% (95% CI, 0.3%-0.6%; P < .001; I² = 0.61) among 3 studies. The second and third most common reasons were joint-specific and thromboembolic disease, both occurring 0.3% of the time. Joint-specific reasons were reported in 2 studies (95% CI, 0.0%-0.8%; P = .259; I² = 0.94). Thromboembolic disease was reported in 4 studies (95% CI, 0.0%-0.7%; P = .067; I² = 0.98) (Figure 3). Only these 3 reasons could be pooled, as cardiac dysrhythmia, pneumonia, and “sequelae” were reported in only 1 study each.

90-Day Readmission Rates

Consistent with the 30-day THA results, the most common reason for readmission 90 days after THA discharge was joint-specific. This reason accounted for 31.2% of all unplanned readmissions among studies that reported joint-specific causes, with an estimated pooled rate of 2.4% (95% CI, 0.0%-4.9%; P < .001; I² = 1.00) among 5 studies. The second and third most common reasons were surgical sequelae (1.6%; 95% CI, 1.0%-2.2%; P < .003; I² = 0.83) and thromboembolic disease (1.0%; 95% CI, 0.7%-1.4%; P < .001; I² = 0.97). See Figure 4 for 90-day THA readmission rates. The fourth most common readmission reason was surgical site infection (0.6%; 95% CI, 0.2%-1.0%; P < .001; I² = 0.99). Only these 4 reasons could be pooled, as cardiac dysrhythmia, pneumonia, and bleeding were reported by only 1 study each.

Consistent with the 30-day TKA results, the most common reason for readmission 90 days after TKA discharge was surgical site infection. This reason accounted for 9.3% of all unplanned readmissions among studies that reported surgical site infections, with an estimated pooled rate of 0.9% (95% CI, 0.4%-1.4%; P < .001; I² = 0.93) among 5 studies. The second and third most common reasons were joint-specific and thromboembolic disease, both occurring 0.7% of the time. Joint-specific reasons were reported in 5 studies (95% CI, 0.2%-1.1%; P =.003; I² = 0.94). Thromboembolic disease was reported in 7 studies (95% CI, 0.3%-1.1%; P < .001; I² = 0.97) (Figure 5). Bleeding was reported in 3 studies, with a pooled rate of 0.4% (95% CI, 0.0%-0.9%; P = .128; I² = 0.83). Cardiac dysrhythmia was reported in 2 studies, with an estimated pooled rate of 0.3% (95% CI, 0.2%-0.5%; P < .001). Only these 5 reasons could be pooled, as pneumonia and “sequelae” were reported in only 1 study each.

Discussion

This study is the first systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature to identify overall and cause-specific readmission rates after TJA.

For THA, 30- and 90-day readmission rates were 5.6% and 7.7%, respectively. Joint-specific causes were the most common reason for readmission at both 30 and 90 days after THA. For TKA, 30- and 90-day rates were 3.3% and 9.7%, respectively. Surgical site infection was the most common reason for readmission at both 30 and 90 days after TKA.

Hospital readmissions are an important area of scrutiny for Medicare and the health care systems broadly. Readmissions after surgery are deemed quality indicators potentially suggesting incomplete management of active issues and inadequate preparation for discharge.³⁹ Unplanned readmissions also place a significant economic burden on Medicare: $17.5 billion in 2010.⁴⁰ Given their association with quality of overall surgical care, improved readmission rates have the potential to improve the standard of care and reduce costs.

Higher readmission rates will significantly affect hospitals as CMS shifts to bundling payments for acute-care episodes, such as TJA.^41-43 Further, private and public health care payers are increasingly using unplanned 30- and 90-day readmission rates as a marker of quality of care. However, there is little agreement about readmission rates and reasons, let alone what follow-up window should be used to define orthopedic readmissions. One study involving the MEDPAR (Medicare Provider Analysis and Review) database found that a common reason for readmission after major hip or knee surgery was “aftercare” for surgical sequelae (10.3%)¹⁵; another study found a 15% increase in post-THA hospitalizations, most commonly for a mechanical complication (joint-related).⁴⁴ There are no prior complete systematic reviews or meta-analyses of overall rates of readmissions after primary unilateral TJAs, or of the reasons for these readmissions. The closest such report, the Yale report to CMS, was skewed to a proportion of US hospitals treating a population prone to significant comorbidities.²⁰

Although the strength of this study lies in its rigorous identification and extraction of data, notable clarifications must be made when synthesizing the information. First, the definitions of various thromboembolic events varied greatly. Some studies reported deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) separately, whereas others reported only DVT or only PE. Some studies reported rates of readmission for “thromboembolic disorder,” and one²⁵ reported rates for DVT, PE, and thromboembolic disorder. To pool these related events, we created a composite definition that included DVT, PE, and thromboembolic disorders, which we termed thromboembolic disease. We also created a composite measure for joint-specific reasons for readmission. This category included joint infection that definitely required reentry into the joint, but using this category may have led to underestimation of surgical site infection rates, which were defined separately. Third, there was significant variation in documentation of surgical site infection among the studies included in this review. Some studies specified superficial wounds, whereas others did not categorize complications as superficial, deep, or intracapsular, which would qualify as a “joint-specific” cause. Despite this variation, surgical site infection after TJA was found to be the most common reason for readmission.

Our systematic review and meta-analysis were limited, as any others are, by the quality of studies investigated. Few studies reported cause-specific rates and reasons for readmission. Given the small sample, formal tests for small-study or publication bias could not be performed. Some studies included tremendous amounts of data, and International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes were used without physician review of readmission diagnoses. In the absence of oversight, many readmissions could have been misinterpreted and incorrectly logged, or simply miscoded. Saucedo and colleagues^27,45 found that readmission diagnostic codes were often unverified. Numerous other studies corroborated this lack of correlation with physician-derived readmission diagnoses in just 25% of cases.^46-54 Another study limitation is the unknown number of patients who had TJA but presented and were subsequently readmitted to a different hospital. Last, as this review included patients who had surgery performed within a 30-year period, it could not address the shifts in postoperative management that occurred in that time, particularly with respect to anticoagulation. This limitation was partially addressed in THA by dividing final studies into 3 decades. Of these studies, only 1 was from the first decade, 3 were from the second, and the rest were from the third. Of the 3 from the second decade, only the study by Warwick and colleagues²⁹ (1995) explicitly did not use anticoagulation, but compression stockings were used, and consequently there was a 4.0% rate of readmission for thromboembolic disease alone, compared with the study by White and colleagues³⁴ (1998), which explicitly used anticoagulation and boasted a 1.7% rate of readmission for thromboembolic disease. This isolated comparison illustrates the effect of routine anticoagulation and the changes in surgical standards over the 3 decades.

The numbers from this systematic review and meta-analysis represent an international benchmark for TJA as a procedure. Knowing the top reasons for readmission will lead to more focus on joint-related and medical issues (surgical site infection, thromboembolic disease) before discharge to avoid readmission after elective unilateral primary TJA. Although readmission rates have received attention in the United States as a primary means of combating soaring health care costs, knowing the rates for a common procedure applies broadly as an indicator for standard of care worldwide, according to the World Health Organization.⁵⁵ This study is the first systematic review and meta-analysis of documented readmission rates and reasons for readmission to identify overall and cause-specific rates after TJA. The hope is that our findings will add clarity to the literature and help guide the decisions of physicians and policymakers.

Conclusion

Readmission rates are an increasingly important metric in the United States and around the world, yet there is no consensus regarding overall readmission rates and reasons for readmission after primary unilateral TJAs. Our systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature found overall unplanned readmission rates of 5.6% (30 days) and 7.7% (90 days) for THA and 3.3% (30 days) and 9.7% (90 days) for TKA. At both 30 and 90 days, the most common readmission reasons were joint-specific (THA) and surgical site infection (TKA). New investigations should be directed toward developing countermeasures to lower the rates of readmission.

Total joint arthroplasty (TJA) is a clinically effective, cost-effective treatment for symptomatic arthritis.^1,2 After TJA, patients report reduced pain, restored range of motion, high satisfaction, and ability to return to a more active lifestyle.^3-7 The number of total hip arthroplasties (THAs) performed in the United States is expected to reach 572,000 by 2030, a 174% increase, and the number of total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) 3.5 million, nearly a 7-fold increase.^8,9 Since 2005, the cost of THA has risen more than 4 times, to $13.43 billion, and the cost of TKA has risen more than 5 times, to $40.8 billion.^8,9 Given the demand and price tag, TJA is the single largest cost in the Medicare budget.¹⁰

Given its potential to improve care and reduce costs, reducing readmission rates in the surgical setting is a priority for physicians and policymakers.¹¹ Readmissions for TJA are highly scrutinized as a performance indicator—the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) started including them in its readmissions penalty program in 2013—and were recently validated as a measure of surgical quality.^12-14 Accurate assessments of readmissions after TJA are unclear, with rates ranging from 1% to 8.5% between 7 and 90 days after surgery.^2,15-17 The early success of TJA as an elective (and more frequently outpatient) procedure has paradoxically translated to less tolerance for readmissions. Post-TJA complications resulting in readmission are subject to financial penalties, and there is an implicit judgment of inadequate surgical management.¹²

Not only is the readmission rate poorly characterized, but there is no consensus on the leading reasons for readmissions after primary elective unilateral TJAs. The range of rates, reasons, and follow-up periods reported in the literature is wide.^18,19 CMS plans to monitor readmissions over 7 to 90 days after surgery (the period depends on the complication), whereas a significant portion of the orthopedic literature documents 90-day rates.¹⁹ In 2012, the Yale New Haven Health Services Corporation/Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation prepared for CMS a comprehensive report identifying rates of post-TJA complications and readmissions.²⁰ The report, however, is limited to US hospitals and Medicare patients and therefore may overstate the rates, given this population’s documented comorbidities and the reimbursement variations between Medicare and commercial insurance.²¹ Lack of consensus on readmissions after primary elective unilateral TJAs requires that we synthesize available data to answer several questions: What is the overall readmission rate 30 and 90 days after TJA? What are the primary reasons for readmission 30 and 90 days after TJA? What are the cause-specific readmission rates? We performed a systematic review and a meta-analysis to answer these questions and to add clarity to the literature in order to help guide policy.

Materials and Methods

We performed a systematic review in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines.²² Two reviewers independently completed structured searches of the Medline and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases. Search terms were: (total hip replacement OR hip arthroplasty OR total hip arthroplasty OR total knee replacement OR knee arthroplasty OR total knee arthroplasty) AND (readmission OR complication OR discharge). They updated the search June 1, 2013. Four limits were applied: publication between January 1, 1982 and December 12, 2012; human subjects only; age 19+ years; and English-language articles. Study eligibility was determined by using standardized criteria as defined by the inclusion and exclusion criteria described in 3 stages: title review, abstract review, and full-article review. The reviewers also performed ancestry searches, including searches for major review articles and bibliographies of all retrieved studies, to identify additional studies not identified in the keyword searches. Discrepancies were resolved by author consensus.

Inclusion criteria were original studies that presented level I to III evidence and that were identified in structured online searches; published in English between January 1, 1982 and December 31, 2012; involved patients older than 19 years; and reported both readmission rates and reasons at follow-up 30 or 90 days after elective primary unilateral TJA, regardless of indication. Exclusion criteria were studies that reported data from hip fracture, knee fracture, and pelvis fracture cases; those that reported data from hemiarthroplasty, Birmingham hip resurfacing procedures, other resurfacing procedures, simultaneous bilateral hip or knee arthroplasties, unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, patellofemoral arthroplasty, metastatic or bone cancer, or revision hip or knee arthroplasty; those that did not report extractable reasons for readmission; those that reported complications but did not specify readmission rates; and those that reported readmission data only from after the 90-day follow-up window. In cases in which multiple studies reported data from the same patient population, only the largest or most recent report was used.

Two reviewers extracted the quantitative data from eligible studies. The 2 primary outcomes of interests were all-cause readmission rates, and reasons for readmission 30 and 90 days after TJA. Other extracted data were evidence level; publication journal, year, and country; data source (academic institution, Medicare); study design; number of patients; patient characteristics; surgical approach; follow-up period; overall readmission rate; anticoagulant use; tourniquet use; and compression stocking use. In addition, all post-TJA readmissions were assumed to be unplanned, except for staged sequential bilateral arthroplasty for osteoarthritis (excluded from analysis).

Readmission reasons were divided into 4 major categories as defined by the literature and the authors: thromboembolic disease, joint-specific reasons, surgical site infection, and surgical sequelae. The diagnoses in these categories are listed in Table 1. Other extracted reasons were cardiac dysrhythmia and pneumonia.

In cases in which there were at least 2 comparable studies, a meta-analysis was performed to obtain pooled estimates of the proportion of patients readmitted at 30 or 90 days. We calculated a Higgins I² measure for between-study heterogeneity and random-effects analysis, using the method of DerSimonian and Laird²³ if I² was greater than 0.5. Pooled estimates were obtained for both overall and cause-specific reasons for readmission for all reasons reported in at least 3 studies. Small-study or publication bias was assessed using funnel plot asymmetry when at least 5 studies were analyzed as recommended.²⁴ The meta-analytic findings for both overall and cause-specific readmission are presented as pooled proportions with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). All meta-analyses were performed using Stata 10.0.

Results

Fifteen unique TJA studies (12 THA, 10 TKA) met the criteria for the meta-analysis.^20,25-38Figure 1 depicts the PRISMA flowchart for study identification.²²

Of the 12 studies eligible for the THA analysis (Table 2), 6 were conducted in the United States,^{20,26,27,30,33,34} 5 in Europe,^{25,28,29,32,35} and 1 in Canada.³¹ Seven of the 12 studies reported readmission rates at 30 days, and 7 reported rates at 90 days (2 reported rates at both follow-ups). We analyzed a total of 113,396 patients at the 30-day window and 192,380 patients at the 90-day window. Mean age was 74.2 years. The included studies were variable and sparse in their reporting of specific characteristics (Table 3).

Of the 10 studies (2 prospective, 8 retrospective) eligible for the TKA analysis (Table 4), 6 were conducted in the United States,^{20,26,27,34,36,37} 3 in Europe,^25,29,35 and 1 in Asia.³⁸ Four of the 10 studies reported readmission rates at 30 days, and 7 reported rates at 90 days (1 reported rates at both follow-ups).²⁷ We analyzed a total of 3,278,635 patients at the 30-day window and 272,419 patients at the 90-day window. Mean age was 74.3 years. The included studies were quite variable and sparse in their reporting of specific characteristics (Table 5).

We performed random-effects meta-analyses of all unplanned readmissions at both 30 and 90 days (all I²s > 0.5). Among 5 THA studies that reported overall rates at 30 days,^{20,27,28,32,33} the estimated overall unplanned rate among the 120,272 index surgeries was 5.6% (95% CI, 3.2%-8.0%). Among 5 THA studies that reported overall rates at 90 days,^20,25-27,31 the estimated overall unplanned rate among the 192,380 index surgeries was 7.7% (95% CI, 3.2%-12.2%) (I² = 1.00). Among 3 TKA studies that reported overall rates at 30 days,^27,37,38 the estimated overall unplanned rate among the 3,278,635 index surgeries was 3.3% (95% CI, 0.7%-5.9%). Among 5 TKA studies that reported overall rates at 90 days,^20,25-27,36 the estimated overall unplanned rate among the 272,419 index surgeries was 9.7% (95% CI, 7.1%-12.4%) (I² = 0.97).

30-Day Readmission Rates

The most common reason for readmission 30 days after THA discharge was joint-specific. This reason accounted for 39.3% of all unplanned readmissions among studies that reported joint-specific causes, with an estimated pooled rate of 2.2% (95% CI, 0.0%-4.6%; P < .001; I² = 1.00) among 4 studies. The second and third most common reasons were surgical sequelae (1.6%; 95% CI, 0.8%-2.5%; P < .001; I² = 0.95) and thromboembolic disease (1.5%; 95% CI, 1.0%-1.9%; P < .001; I² = 0.95). See Figure 2 for 30-day THA readmission rates. The fourth most common readmission reason was surgical site infection (0.6%; 95% CI, 0.2%-1.1%; P < .001; I² = 0.94). Only these 4 reasons could be pooled, as cardiac dysrhythmia, pneumonia, and bleeding were reported in only 1 study each.

The most common reason for readmission 30 days after TKA discharge was surgical site infection. This reason accounted for 12.1% of all unplanned readmissions among studies that reported surgical site infections, with an estimated pooled rate of 0.4% (95% CI, 0.3%-0.6%; P < .001; I² = 0.61) among 3 studies. The second and third most common reasons were joint-specific and thromboembolic disease, both occurring 0.3% of the time. Joint-specific reasons were reported in 2 studies (95% CI, 0.0%-0.8%; P = .259; I² = 0.94). Thromboembolic disease was reported in 4 studies (95% CI, 0.0%-0.7%; P = .067; I² = 0.98) (Figure 3). Only these 3 reasons could be pooled, as cardiac dysrhythmia, pneumonia, and “sequelae” were reported in only 1 study each.

90-Day Readmission Rates

Consistent with the 30-day THA results, the most common reason for readmission 90 days after THA discharge was joint-specific. This reason accounted for 31.2% of all unplanned readmissions among studies that reported joint-specific causes, with an estimated pooled rate of 2.4% (95% CI, 0.0%-4.9%; P < .001; I² = 1.00) among 5 studies. The second and third most common reasons were surgical sequelae (1.6%; 95% CI, 1.0%-2.2%; P < .003; I² = 0.83) and thromboembolic disease (1.0%; 95% CI, 0.7%-1.4%; P < .001; I² = 0.97). See Figure 4 for 90-day THA readmission rates. The fourth most common readmission reason was surgical site infection (0.6%; 95% CI, 0.2%-1.0%; P < .001; I² = 0.99). Only these 4 reasons could be pooled, as cardiac dysrhythmia, pneumonia, and bleeding were reported by only 1 study each.

Consistent with the 30-day TKA results, the most common reason for readmission 90 days after TKA discharge was surgical site infection. This reason accounted for 9.3% of all unplanned readmissions among studies that reported surgical site infections, with an estimated pooled rate of 0.9% (95% CI, 0.4%-1.4%; P < .001; I² = 0.93) among 5 studies. The second and third most common reasons were joint-specific and thromboembolic disease, both occurring 0.7% of the time. Joint-specific reasons were reported in 5 studies (95% CI, 0.2%-1.1%; P =.003; I² = 0.94). Thromboembolic disease was reported in 7 studies (95% CI, 0.3%-1.1%; P < .001; I² = 0.97) (Figure 5). Bleeding was reported in 3 studies, with a pooled rate of 0.4% (95% CI, 0.0%-0.9%; P = .128; I² = 0.83). Cardiac dysrhythmia was reported in 2 studies, with an estimated pooled rate of 0.3% (95% CI, 0.2%-0.5%; P < .001). Only these 5 reasons could be pooled, as pneumonia and “sequelae” were reported in only 1 study each.

Discussion

This study is the first systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature to identify overall and cause-specific readmission rates after TJA.

For THA, 30- and 90-day readmission rates were 5.6% and 7.7%, respectively. Joint-specific causes were the most common reason for readmission at both 30 and 90 days after THA. For TKA, 30- and 90-day rates were 3.3% and 9.7%, respectively. Surgical site infection was the most common reason for readmission at both 30 and 90 days after TKA.

Hospital readmissions are an important area of scrutiny for Medicare and the health care systems broadly. Readmissions after surgery are deemed quality indicators potentially suggesting incomplete management of active issues and inadequate preparation for discharge.³⁹ Unplanned readmissions also place a significant economic burden on Medicare: $17.5 billion in 2010.⁴⁰ Given their association with quality of overall surgical care, improved readmission rates have the potential to improve the standard of care and reduce costs.

Higher readmission rates will significantly affect hospitals as CMS shifts to bundling payments for acute-care episodes, such as TJA.^41-43 Further, private and public health care payers are increasingly using unplanned 30- and 90-day readmission rates as a marker of quality of care. However, there is little agreement about readmission rates and reasons, let alone what follow-up window should be used to define orthopedic readmissions. One study involving the MEDPAR (Medicare Provider Analysis and Review) database found that a common reason for readmission after major hip or knee surgery was “aftercare” for surgical sequelae (10.3%)¹⁵; another study found a 15% increase in post-THA hospitalizations, most commonly for a mechanical complication (joint-related).⁴⁴ There are no prior complete systematic reviews or meta-analyses of overall rates of readmissions after primary unilateral TJAs, or of the reasons for these readmissions. The closest such report, the Yale report to CMS, was skewed to a proportion of US hospitals treating a population prone to significant comorbidities.²⁰

Although the strength of this study lies in its rigorous identification and extraction of data, notable clarifications must be made when synthesizing the information. First, the definitions of various thromboembolic events varied greatly. Some studies reported deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) separately, whereas others reported only DVT or only PE. Some studies reported rates of readmission for “thromboembolic disorder,” and one²⁵ reported rates for DVT, PE, and thromboembolic disorder. To pool these related events, we created a composite definition that included DVT, PE, and thromboembolic disorders, which we termed thromboembolic disease. We also created a composite measure for joint-specific reasons for readmission. This category included joint infection that definitely required reentry into the joint, but using this category may have led to underestimation of surgical site infection rates, which were defined separately. Third, there was significant variation in documentation of surgical site infection among the studies included in this review. Some studies specified superficial wounds, whereas others did not categorize complications as superficial, deep, or intracapsular, which would qualify as a “joint-specific” cause. Despite this variation, surgical site infection after TJA was found to be the most common reason for readmission.

Our systematic review and meta-analysis were limited, as any others are, by the quality of studies investigated. Few studies reported cause-specific rates and reasons for readmission. Given the small sample, formal tests for small-study or publication bias could not be performed. Some studies included tremendous amounts of data, and International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes were used without physician review of readmission diagnoses. In the absence of oversight, many readmissions could have been misinterpreted and incorrectly logged, or simply miscoded. Saucedo and colleagues^27,45 found that readmission diagnostic codes were often unverified. Numerous other studies corroborated this lack of correlation with physician-derived readmission diagnoses in just 25% of cases.^46-54 Another study limitation is the unknown number of patients who had TJA but presented and were subsequently readmitted to a different hospital. Last, as this review included patients who had surgery performed within a 30-year period, it could not address the shifts in postoperative management that occurred in that time, particularly with respect to anticoagulation. This limitation was partially addressed in THA by dividing final studies into 3 decades. Of these studies, only 1 was from the first decade, 3 were from the second, and the rest were from the third. Of the 3 from the second decade, only the study by Warwick and colleagues²⁹ (1995) explicitly did not use anticoagulation, but compression stockings were used, and consequently there was a 4.0% rate of readmission for thromboembolic disease alone, compared with the study by White and colleagues³⁴ (1998), which explicitly used anticoagulation and boasted a 1.7% rate of readmission for thromboembolic disease. This isolated comparison illustrates the effect of routine anticoagulation and the changes in surgical standards over the 3 decades.

The numbers from this systematic review and meta-analysis represent an international benchmark for TJA as a procedure. Knowing the top reasons for readmission will lead to more focus on joint-related and medical issues (surgical site infection, thromboembolic disease) before discharge to avoid readmission after elective unilateral primary TJA. Although readmission rates have received attention in the United States as a primary means of combating soaring health care costs, knowing the rates for a common procedure applies broadly as an indicator for standard of care worldwide, according to the World Health Organization.⁵⁵ This study is the first systematic review and meta-analysis of documented readmission rates and reasons for readmission to identify overall and cause-specific rates after TJA. The hope is that our findings will add clarity to the literature and help guide the decisions of physicians and policymakers.

Conclusion

Readmission rates are an increasingly important metric in the United States and around the world, yet there is no consensus regarding overall readmission rates and reasons for readmission after primary unilateral TJAs. Our systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature found overall unplanned readmission rates of 5.6% (30 days) and 7.7% (90 days) for THA and 3.3% (30 days) and 9.7% (90 days) for TKA. At both 30 and 90 days, the most common readmission reasons were joint-specific (THA) and surgical site infection (TKA). New investigations should be directed toward developing countermeasures to lower the rates of readmission.

Total joint arthroplasty (TJA) is a clinically effective, cost-effective treatment for symptomatic arthritis.^1,2 After TJA, patients report reduced pain, restored range of motion, high satisfaction, and ability to return to a more active lifestyle.^3-7 The number of total hip arthroplasties (THAs) performed in the United States is expected to reach 572,000 by 2030, a 174% increase, and the number of total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) 3.5 million, nearly a 7-fold increase.^8,9 Since 2005, the cost of THA has risen more than 4 times, to $13.43 billion, and the cost of TKA has risen more than 5 times, to $40.8 billion.^8,9 Given the demand and price tag, TJA is the single largest cost in the Medicare budget.¹⁰

Given its potential to improve care and reduce costs, reducing readmission rates in the surgical setting is a priority for physicians and policymakers.¹¹ Readmissions for TJA are highly scrutinized as a performance indicator—the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) started including them in its readmissions penalty program in 2013—and were recently validated as a measure of surgical quality.^12-14 Accurate assessments of readmissions after TJA are unclear, with rates ranging from 1% to 8.5% between 7 and 90 days after surgery.^2,15-17 The early success of TJA as an elective (and more frequently outpatient) procedure has paradoxically translated to less tolerance for readmissions. Post-TJA complications resulting in readmission are subject to financial penalties, and there is an implicit judgment of inadequate surgical management.¹²

Not only is the readmission rate poorly characterized, but there is no consensus on the leading reasons for readmissions after primary elective unilateral TJAs. The range of rates, reasons, and follow-up periods reported in the literature is wide.^18,19 CMS plans to monitor readmissions over 7 to 90 days after surgery (the period depends on the complication), whereas a significant portion of the orthopedic literature documents 90-day rates.¹⁹ In 2012, the Yale New Haven Health Services Corporation/Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation prepared for CMS a comprehensive report identifying rates of post-TJA complications and readmissions.²⁰ The report, however, is limited to US hospitals and Medicare patients and therefore may overstate the rates, given this population’s documented comorbidities and the reimbursement variations between Medicare and commercial insurance.²¹ Lack of consensus on readmissions after primary elective unilateral TJAs requires that we synthesize available data to answer several questions: What is the overall readmission rate 30 and 90 days after TJA? What are the primary reasons for readmission 30 and 90 days after TJA? What are the cause-specific readmission rates? We performed a systematic review and a meta-analysis to answer these questions and to add clarity to the literature in order to help guide policy.

Materials and Methods

We performed a systematic review in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines.²² Two reviewers independently completed structured searches of the Medline and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases. Search terms were: (total hip replacement OR hip arthroplasty OR total hip arthroplasty OR total knee replacement OR knee arthroplasty OR total knee arthroplasty) AND (readmission OR complication OR discharge). They updated the search June 1, 2013. Four limits were applied: publication between January 1, 1982 and December 12, 2012; human subjects only; age 19+ years; and English-language articles. Study eligibility was determined by using standardized criteria as defined by the inclusion and exclusion criteria described in 3 stages: title review, abstract review, and full-article review. The reviewers also performed ancestry searches, including searches for major review articles and bibliographies of all retrieved studies, to identify additional studies not identified in the keyword searches. Discrepancies were resolved by author consensus.

Inclusion criteria were original studies that presented level I to III evidence and that were identified in structured online searches; published in English between January 1, 1982 and December 31, 2012; involved patients older than 19 years; and reported both readmission rates and reasons at follow-up 30 or 90 days after elective primary unilateral TJA, regardless of indication. Exclusion criteria were studies that reported data from hip fracture, knee fracture, and pelvis fracture cases; those that reported data from hemiarthroplasty, Birmingham hip resurfacing procedures, other resurfacing procedures, simultaneous bilateral hip or knee arthroplasties, unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, patellofemoral arthroplasty, metastatic or bone cancer, or revision hip or knee arthroplasty; those that did not report extractable reasons for readmission; those that reported complications but did not specify readmission rates; and those that reported readmission data only from after the 90-day follow-up window. In cases in which multiple studies reported data from the same patient population, only the largest or most recent report was used.

Two reviewers extracted the quantitative data from eligible studies. The 2 primary outcomes of interests were all-cause readmission rates, and reasons for readmission 30 and 90 days after TJA. Other extracted data were evidence level; publication journal, year, and country; data source (academic institution, Medicare); study design; number of patients; patient characteristics; surgical approach; follow-up period; overall readmission rate; anticoagulant use; tourniquet use; and compression stocking use. In addition, all post-TJA readmissions were assumed to be unplanned, except for staged sequential bilateral arthroplasty for osteoarthritis (excluded from analysis).

Readmission reasons were divided into 4 major categories as defined by the literature and the authors: thromboembolic disease, joint-specific reasons, surgical site infection, and surgical sequelae. The diagnoses in these categories are listed in Table 1. Other extracted reasons were cardiac dysrhythmia and pneumonia.

In cases in which there were at least 2 comparable studies, a meta-analysis was performed to obtain pooled estimates of the proportion of patients readmitted at 30 or 90 days. We calculated a Higgins I² measure for between-study heterogeneity and random-effects analysis, using the method of DerSimonian and Laird²³ if I² was greater than 0.5. Pooled estimates were obtained for both overall and cause-specific reasons for readmission for all reasons reported in at least 3 studies. Small-study or publication bias was assessed using funnel plot asymmetry when at least 5 studies were analyzed as recommended.²⁴ The meta-analytic findings for both overall and cause-specific readmission are presented as pooled proportions with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). All meta-analyses were performed using Stata 10.0.

Results

Fifteen unique TJA studies (12 THA, 10 TKA) met the criteria for the meta-analysis.^20,25-38Figure 1 depicts the PRISMA flowchart for study identification.²²

Of the 12 studies eligible for the THA analysis (Table 2), 6 were conducted in the United States,^{20,26,27,30,33,34} 5 in Europe,^{25,28,29,32,35} and 1 in Canada.³¹ Seven of the 12 studies reported readmission rates at 30 days, and 7 reported rates at 90 days (2 reported rates at both follow-ups). We analyzed a total of 113,396 patients at the 30-day window and 192,380 patients at the 90-day window. Mean age was 74.2 years. The included studies were variable and sparse in their reporting of specific characteristics (Table 3).

Of the 10 studies (2 prospective, 8 retrospective) eligible for the TKA analysis (Table 4), 6 were conducted in the United States,^{20,26,27,34,36,37} 3 in Europe,^25,29,35 and 1 in Asia.³⁸ Four of the 10 studies reported readmission rates at 30 days, and 7 reported rates at 90 days (1 reported rates at both follow-ups).²⁷ We analyzed a total of 3,278,635 patients at the 30-day window and 272,419 patients at the 90-day window. Mean age was 74.3 years. The included studies were quite variable and sparse in their reporting of specific characteristics (Table 5).

We performed random-effects meta-analyses of all unplanned readmissions at both 30 and 90 days (all I²s > 0.5). Among 5 THA studies that reported overall rates at 30 days,^{20,27,28,32,33} the estimated overall unplanned rate among the 120,272 index surgeries was 5.6% (95% CI, 3.2%-8.0%). Among 5 THA studies that reported overall rates at 90 days,^20,25-27,31 the estimated overall unplanned rate among the 192,380 index surgeries was 7.7% (95% CI, 3.2%-12.2%) (I² = 1.00). Among 3 TKA studies that reported overall rates at 30 days,^27,37,38 the estimated overall unplanned rate among the 3,278,635 index surgeries was 3.3% (95% CI, 0.7%-5.9%). Among 5 TKA studies that reported overall rates at 90 days,^20,25-27,36 the estimated overall unplanned rate among the 272,419 index surgeries was 9.7% (95% CI, 7.1%-12.4%) (I² = 0.97).

30-Day Readmission Rates

The most common reason for readmission 30 days after THA discharge was joint-specific. This reason accounted for 39.3% of all unplanned readmissions among studies that reported joint-specific causes, with an estimated pooled rate of 2.2% (95% CI, 0.0%-4.6%; P < .001; I² = 1.00) among 4 studies. The second and third most common reasons were surgical sequelae (1.6%; 95% CI, 0.8%-2.5%; P < .001; I² = 0.95) and thromboembolic disease (1.5%; 95% CI, 1.0%-1.9%; P < .001; I² = 0.95). See Figure 2 for 30-day THA readmission rates. The fourth most common readmission reason was surgical site infection (0.6%; 95% CI, 0.2%-1.1%; P < .001; I² = 0.94). Only these 4 reasons could be pooled, as cardiac dysrhythmia, pneumonia, and bleeding were reported in only 1 study each.

The most common reason for readmission 30 days after TKA discharge was surgical site infection. This reason accounted for 12.1% of all unplanned readmissions among studies that reported surgical site infections, with an estimated pooled rate of 0.4% (95% CI, 0.3%-0.6%; P < .001; I² = 0.61) among 3 studies. The second and third most common reasons were joint-specific and thromboembolic disease, both occurring 0.3% of the time. Joint-specific reasons were reported in 2 studies (95% CI, 0.0%-0.8%; P = .259; I² = 0.94). Thromboembolic disease was reported in 4 studies (95% CI, 0.0%-0.7%; P = .067; I² = 0.98) (Figure 3). Only these 3 reasons could be pooled, as cardiac dysrhythmia, pneumonia, and “sequelae” were reported in only 1 study each.

90-Day Readmission Rates

Consistent with the 30-day THA results, the most common reason for readmission 90 days after THA discharge was joint-specific. This reason accounted for 31.2% of all unplanned readmissions among studies that reported joint-specific causes, with an estimated pooled rate of 2.4% (95% CI, 0.0%-4.9%; P < .001; I² = 1.00) among 5 studies. The second and third most common reasons were surgical sequelae (1.6%; 95% CI, 1.0%-2.2%; P < .003; I² = 0.83) and thromboembolic disease (1.0%; 95% CI, 0.7%-1.4%; P < .001; I² = 0.97). See Figure 4 for 90-day THA readmission rates. The fourth most common readmission reason was surgical site infection (0.6%; 95% CI, 0.2%-1.0%; P < .001; I² = 0.99). Only these 4 reasons could be pooled, as cardiac dysrhythmia, pneumonia, and bleeding were reported by only 1 study each.

Consistent with the 30-day TKA results, the most common reason for readmission 90 days after TKA discharge was surgical site infection. This reason accounted for 9.3% of all unplanned readmissions among studies that reported surgical site infections, with an estimated pooled rate of 0.9% (95% CI, 0.4%-1.4%; P < .001; I² = 0.93) among 5 studies. The second and third most common reasons were joint-specific and thromboembolic disease, both occurring 0.7% of the time. Joint-specific reasons were reported in 5 studies (95% CI, 0.2%-1.1%; P =.003; I² = 0.94). Thromboembolic disease was reported in 7 studies (95% CI, 0.3%-1.1%; P < .001; I² = 0.97) (Figure 5). Bleeding was reported in 3 studies, with a pooled rate of 0.4% (95% CI, 0.0%-0.9%; P = .128; I² = 0.83). Cardiac dysrhythmia was reported in 2 studies, with an estimated pooled rate of 0.3% (95% CI, 0.2%-0.5%; P < .001). Only these 5 reasons could be pooled, as pneumonia and “sequelae” were reported in only 1 study each.

Discussion

This study is the first systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature to identify overall and cause-specific readmission rates after TJA.

For THA, 30- and 90-day readmission rates were 5.6% and 7.7%, respectively. Joint-specific causes were the most common reason for readmission at both 30 and 90 days after THA. For TKA, 30- and 90-day rates were 3.3% and 9.7%, respectively. Surgical site infection was the most common reason for readmission at both 30 and 90 days after TKA.

Hospital readmissions are an important area of scrutiny for Medicare and the health care systems broadly. Readmissions after surgery are deemed quality indicators potentially suggesting incomplete management of active issues and inadequate preparation for discharge.³⁹ Unplanned readmissions also place a significant economic burden on Medicare: $17.5 billion in 2010.⁴⁰ Given their association with quality of overall surgical care, improved readmission rates have the potential to improve the standard of care and reduce costs.

Higher readmission rates will significantly affect hospitals as CMS shifts to bundling payments for acute-care episodes, such as TJA.^41-43 Further, private and public health care payers are increasingly using unplanned 30- and 90-day readmission rates as a marker of quality of care. However, there is little agreement about readmission rates and reasons, let alone what follow-up window should be used to define orthopedic readmissions. One study involving the MEDPAR (Medicare Provider Analysis and Review) database found that a common reason for readmission after major hip or knee surgery was “aftercare” for surgical sequelae (10.3%)¹⁵; another study found a 15% increase in post-THA hospitalizations, most commonly for a mechanical complication (joint-related).⁴⁴ There are no prior complete systematic reviews or meta-analyses of overall rates of readmissions after primary unilateral TJAs, or of the reasons for these readmissions. The closest such report, the Yale report to CMS, was skewed to a proportion of US hospitals treating a population prone to significant comorbidities.²⁰

Although the strength of this study lies in its rigorous identification and extraction of data, notable clarifications must be made when synthesizing the information. First, the definitions of various thromboembolic events varied greatly. Some studies reported deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) separately, whereas others reported only DVT or only PE. Some studies reported rates of readmission for “thromboembolic disorder,” and one²⁵ reported rates for DVT, PE, and thromboembolic disorder. To pool these related events, we created a composite definition that included DVT, PE, and thromboembolic disorders, which we termed thromboembolic disease. We also created a composite measure for joint-specific reasons for readmission. This category included joint infection that definitely required reentry into the joint, but using this category may have led to underestimation of surgical site infection rates, which were defined separately. Third, there was significant variation in documentation of surgical site infection among the studies included in this review. Some studies specified superficial wounds, whereas others did not categorize complications as superficial, deep, or intracapsular, which would qualify as a “joint-specific” cause. Despite this variation, surgical site infection after TJA was found to be the most common reason for readmission.

Our systematic review and meta-analysis were limited, as any others are, by the quality of studies investigated. Few studies reported cause-specific rates and reasons for readmission. Given the small sample, formal tests for small-study or publication bias could not be performed. Some studies included tremendous amounts of data, and International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes were used without physician review of readmission diagnoses. In the absence of oversight, many readmissions could have been misinterpreted and incorrectly logged, or simply miscoded. Saucedo and colleagues^27,45 found that readmission diagnostic codes were often unverified. Numerous other studies corroborated this lack of correlation with physician-derived readmission diagnoses in just 25% of cases.^46-54 Another study limitation is the unknown number of patients who had TJA but presented and were subsequently readmitted to a different hospital. Last, as this review included patients who had surgery performed within a 30-year period, it could not address the shifts in postoperative management that occurred in that time, particularly with respect to anticoagulation. This limitation was partially addressed in THA by dividing final studies into 3 decades. Of these studies, only 1 was from the first decade, 3 were from the second, and the rest were from the third. Of the 3 from the second decade, only the study by Warwick and colleagues²⁹ (1995) explicitly did not use anticoagulation, but compression stockings were used, and consequently there was a 4.0% rate of readmission for thromboembolic disease alone, compared with the study by White and colleagues³⁴ (1998), which explicitly used anticoagulation and boasted a 1.7% rate of readmission for thromboembolic disease. This isolated comparison illustrates the effect of routine anticoagulation and the changes in surgical standards over the 3 decades.

The numbers from this systematic review and meta-analysis represent an international benchmark for TJA as a procedure. Knowing the top reasons for readmission will lead to more focus on joint-related and medical issues (surgical site infection, thromboembolic disease) before discharge to avoid readmission after elective unilateral primary TJA. Although readmission rates have received attention in the United States as a primary means of combating soaring health care costs, knowing the rates for a common procedure applies broadly as an indicator for standard of care worldwide, according to the World Health Organization.⁵⁵ This study is the first systematic review and meta-analysis of documented readmission rates and reasons for readmission to identify overall and cause-specific rates after TJA. The hope is that our findings will add clarity to the literature and help guide the decisions of physicians and policymakers.

Conclusion

Readmission rates are an increasingly important metric in the United States and around the world, yet there is no consensus regarding overall readmission rates and reasons for readmission after primary unilateral TJAs. Our systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature found overall unplanned readmission rates of 5.6% (30 days) and 7.7% (90 days) for THA and 3.3% (30 days) and 9.7% (90 days) for TKA. At both 30 and 90 days, the most common readmission reasons were joint-specific (THA) and surgical site infection (TKA). New investigations should be directed toward developing countermeasures to lower the rates of readmission.