Conventional Radiograph Is Still Advised in the Diagnostic Work-up of a Shoulder Dislocation; a Letter to the Editor

Dear editor: A shoulder dislocation is a common diagnosis at the emergency department, showing an incidence of 23.9 per 100,000 person-years. In the current diagnostic work-up, a radiograph is often used to confirm the dislocation. As radiographs are associated with radiation exposure, the ultrasound has been proposed as an alternative. Therefore, the study by Entezari et al is of great importance in evaluating the applicability of the ultrasound. However, the authors suggest that the ultrasound can be used as an alternative to the radiograph. In our opinion, an important advantage of the radiograph has not been discussed and we question some decisions that were made in terms of methodology. Therefore, we think that this study has to be seen in the light of these remarks

A modified Delphi study to identify which items should be evaluated in shoulder instability research:a first step in developing a core outcome set

Background: The aim of this study was to identify items that healthcare providers and/or patients consider important to include in a questionnaire for clinical trials and cohort studies in shoulder instability research. This could serve as a basis to develop a core outcome set for shoulder instability research. Methods: Healthcare providers and patients were included in a panel for a modified Delphi consensus study. The study consisted of three rounds, comprising (1) identifying items, (2) rating the importance of the items, and (3) rating the importance again after seeing a summary of the results of round two. Importance was rated on a 9-point Likert scale. Consensus was defined as ≥ 80% of the panel giving a score of 7 or higher. Results: In total, 44 healthcare providers and 30 patients completed all three rounds. Round one identified 54 items. After round three, the panel reached a consensus on 11 items that should be included in a questionnaire, comprising re-dislocation (99%), instable feeling of the shoulder (96%), limitations during sport (93%), patient satisfaction with the shoulder (93%), fear/anxiety for re-dislocation (91%), range of motion (88%), return to old level of functioning (85%), performing daily activities (85%), return to sport (82%), return to work (82%), and trusting the shoulder (81%). Conclusion: Healthcare providers and patients reached a consensus on 11 items that should be included in a questionnaire for shoulder instability research. These items can facilitate design and development of future clinical trials and form the basis for the development of a core outcome set.</p

A modified Delphi study to identify which items should be evaluated in shoulder instability research:a first step in developing a core outcome set

Background: The aim of this study was to identify items that healthcare providers and/or patients consider important to include in a questionnaire for clinical trials and cohort studies in shoulder instability research. This could serve as a basis to develop a core outcome set for shoulder instability research. Methods: Healthcare providers and patients were included in a panel for a modified Delphi consensus study. The study consisted of three rounds, comprising (1) identifying items, (2) rating the importance of the items, and (3) rating the importance again after seeing a summary of the results of round two. Importance was rated on a 9-point Likert scale. Consensus was defined as ≥ 80% of the panel giving a score of 7 or higher. Results: In total, 44 healthcare providers and 30 patients completed all three rounds. Round one identified 54 items. After round three, the panel reached a consensus on 11 items that should be included in a questionnaire, comprising re-dislocation (99%), instable feeling of the shoulder (96%), limitations during sport (93%), patient satisfaction with the shoulder (93%), fear/anxiety for re-dislocation (91%), range of motion (88%), return to old level of functioning (85%), performing daily activities (85%), return to sport (82%), return to work (82%), and trusting the shoulder (81%). Conclusion: Healthcare providers and patients reached a consensus on 11 items that should be included in a questionnaire for shoulder instability research. These items can facilitate design and development of future clinical trials and form the basis for the development of a core outcome set.</p

Genome-wide association and Mendelian randomisation analysis provide insights into the pathogenesis of heart failure

Heart failure (HF) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. A small proportion of HF cases are attributable to monogenic cardiomyopathies and existing genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have yielded only limited insights, leaving the observed heritability of HF largely unexplained. We report results from a GWAS meta-analysis of HF comprising 47,309 cases and 930,014 controls. Twelve independent variants at 11 genomic loci are associated with HF, all of which demonstrate one or more associations with coronary artery disease (CAD), atrial fibrillation, or reduced left ventricular function, suggesting shared genetic aetiology. Functional analysis of non-CAD-associated loci implicate genes involved in cardiac development (MYOZ1, SYNPO2L), protein homoeostasis (BAG3), and cellular senescence (CDKN1A). Mendelian randomisation analysis supports causal roles for several HF risk factors, and demonstrates CAD-independent effects for atrial fibrillation, body mass index, and hypertension. These findings extend our knowledge of the pathways underlying HF and may inform new therapeutic strategies

Arthroscopic and open debridement in primary elbow osteoarthritis:a systematic review and meta-analysis

Primary osteoarthritis (OA) of the elbow can cause disabling symptoms of pain, locking, stiffness, and a limitation in the range of motion. There is no consensus regarding the role of open and arthroscopic debridement in the treatment of symptomatic primary elbow OA. The aim of this study is to systematically review the outcome of surgical debridement. A preoperative/postoperative comparison will be made between the two surgical procedures. All studies reporting on debridement as treatment for primary elbow OA with a minimum of one-year followup were included. Outcome parameters were functional results, complications, and performance scores. Data were extracted from 21 articles. The arthroscopic group consisted of 286 elbows with a weighted mean follow-up of 40 ± 17 months (range, 16–75). The open group consisted of 300 elbows with a weighted mean follow-up of 55 ± 20 months (range, 19–85). Both procedures showed improvement in Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), range of motion (ROM) flexion-extension, and ROM pronation-supination. Only in ROM flexion was a statistically significant difference in improvement seen between the groups in favour of the open group. The arthroscopic group showed improvement in pain visual analogue scale (VAS) scores. Nothing could be stated about pain VAS scores in the open group due to a lack of data. In the arthroscopic group 18 complications (6%) were described, in the open group 29 complications (12%). Surgical debridement is an effective treatment for the disabling symptoms of primary elbow OA with an acceptable complication rate

Changes in Scapular Function, Shoulder Strength, and Range of Motion Occur After Latarjet Procedure

Purpose: To evaluate the current literature on the effects of anatomic changes caused by the Latarjet procedure and to identify areas for future research. Methods: English-language studies that addressed the consequences of anatomic alterations after the open Latarjet procedure were included. Articles written in languages other than English, reviews, and case reports were excluded. Titles and abstracts were screened by 2 authors. Studies that met the inclusion criteria were screened by the same authors. The following data were extracted from the included studies: authors, year of publication, journal, country of origin, aims or purpose, study population and sample size, methods, procedure, intervention type, and key findings that relate to the scoping review questions. Results: Twenty-two studies were included for analysis, yielding the following findings: First, the Latarjet procedure may change the position of the scapula owing to pectoralis minor tenotomy and/or transfer of the conjoint tendon. Second, dissection of the coracoacromial ligament may result in increased superior translation of the humeral head. The impact of this increased translation on patients’ function remains unclear. Third, the subscapularis split shows, overall, better internal rotation strength compared with subscapularis tenotomy. Fourth, passive external rotation may be limited after capsular repair. Fifth, despite the movement of the conjoint tendon, elbow function seems unchanged. Finally, the musculocutaneous nerve is lengthened with a changed penetration angle into the coracobrachialis muscle, but the clinical impact seems limited. Conclusions: The Latarjet procedure leads to anatomic and biomechanical changes in the shoulder. Areas of future research may include better documentation of scapular movement (bilateral, as well as preoperative and postoperative) and elbow function, the effect of (degenerative) rotator cuff ruptures after the Latarjet procedure on shoulder function, and the impact of capsular closure and its contribution to the development of glenohumeral osteoarthritis. Clinical Relevance: This comprehensive overview of anatomic changes after the Latarjet procedure, with its effects on shoulder and elbow function, showed gaps in the current literature. Orthopaedic shoulder surgeons and physical therapists could use our findings when providing patient information and performing future clinical research.Biomechatronics & Human-Machine Contro

Surgical Intervention Following a First Traumatic Anterior Shoulder Dislocation Is Worthy of Consideration

Up to 60% of patients experience recurrence after a first traumatic anterior shoulder dislocation (FTASD), which is often defined as having experienced either dislocation or subluxation. Thus surgical intervention after FTASD is worthy of consideration and is guided by the number of patients who need to receive surgical intervention to prevent 1 redislocation (i.e., number needed to treat), (subjective) health benefit, complication risk, and costs. Operative intervention through arthroscopic stabilization can be successful in reducing recurrence risk in FTASD, as has been shown in multiple randomized controlled trials. Nevertheless, there is a large “gray area” for the indication of arthroscopic stabilization, and it is therefore heavily debated which patients should receive operative treatment. Previous trials showed widely varying redislocation rates in both the intervention and control group, meta-analysis shows 2% to 19% after operative and 20% to 75% after nonoperative treatment, and redislocation rates may not correlate with patient-reported outcomes. The literature is quite heterogeneous, and a major confounder is time to follow-up. Furthermore, there is insufficient standardization of reporting of outcomes and no consensus on definition of risk factors. As a result, surgery is a reasonable intervention for FTASD patients, but in which patients it best prevents redislocation requires additional refinement