\u3cem\u3eAdjuration\u3c/em\u3e by Alexander Pushkin

Translated from the Russian with commentary by J.M. McBirnie

Golf participation after rotator cuff repair: functional outcomes, rate of return and factors associated with return to play

Background Golf is a popular sport involving overhead activity and engagement of the rotator cuff (RC). This study aimed to determine to what level golfers were able to return to golf following RC repair, the barriers to them returning to golf and factors associated with their failure to return to golf. Methods Patients preoperatively identifying as golfers undergoing RC repair at the study centre from 2012 to 2020 were retrospectively followed up with to assess their golf-playing status, performance and frequency of play and functional and quality of life (QoL) outcomes. Results Forty-seven golfers (40 men [85.1%] and 7 women [14.9%]) with a mean age of 56.8 years met the inclusion criteria, and 80.1% were followed up with at a mean of 27.1 months postoperatively. Twenty-nine patients (76.3%) had returned to golf with a mean handicap change of +1.0 (P=0.291). Golf frequency decreased from a mean of 1.8 rounds per week preinjury to 1.5 rounds per week postoperatively (P=0.052). The EuroQol 5-dimension 5-level (EQ-5D-5L) index and visual analog scale (EQ-VAS) score were significantly greater in those returning to golf (P=0.024 and P=0.002), although functional outcome measures were not significantly different. The primary barriers to return were ipsilateral shoulder dysfunction (78%) and loss of the habit of play (22%). Conclusions Golfers were likely (76%) to return to golf following RC repair, including mostly to their premorbid performance level with little residual symptomatology. Return to golf was associated with a greater QoL. Persistent subjective shoulder dysfunction (78%) was the most common barrier to returning to golf. Level of evidence Level IV

Discovering the Unfindable: The Tension Between Findability and Discoverability in a Bookshop Designed for Serendipity

Serendipity is a key aspect of user experience, particularly in the context of information acquisition - where it is known as information encountering. Unexpectedly encountering interesting or useful information can spark new insights while surprising and delighting. However, digital environments have been designed primarily for goal-directed seeking over loosely-directed exploration, searching over discovering. In this paper we examine a novel physical environment - a bookshop designed primarily for serendipity - for cues as to how information encountering might be helped or hindered by digital design. Naturalistic observations and interviews revealed it was almost impossible for participants to find specific books or topics other than by accident. But all unexpectedly encoun-tered interesting books, highlighting a tension between findability and discoverability. While some of the bookshop’s design features enabled information en-countering, others inhibited it. However, encountering was resilient, as it occurred despite participants finding it hard to understand the purpose of even those features that did enable it. Findings suggest the need to consider how transparent or opaque the purpose of design features should be and to balance structure and lack of it when designing digital environments for findability and discoverability

Arthroscopic subacromial decompression for subacromial shoulder pain (CSAW): a multicentre, pragmatic, parallel group, placebo-controlled, three-group, randomised surgical trial

Background Arthroscopic sub-acromial decompression (decompressing the sub-acromial space by removing bone spurs and soft tissue arthroscopically) is a common surgery for subacromial shoulder pain, but its effectiveness is uncertain. We did a study to assess its effectiveness and to investigate the mechanism for surgical decompression. Methods We did a multicentre, randomised, pragmatic, parallel group, placebo-controlled, three-group trial at 32 hospitals in the UK with 51 surgeons. Participants were patients who had subacromial pain for at least 3 months with intact rotator cuff tendons, were eligible for arthroscopic surgery, and had previously completed a non-operative management programme that included exercise therapy and at least one steroid injection. Exclusion criteria included a full-thickness torn rotator cuff. We randomly assigned participants (1:1:1) to arthroscopic subacromial decompression, investigational arthroscopy only, or no treatment (attendance of one reassessment appointment with a specialist shoulder clinician 3 months after study entry, but no intervention). Arthroscopy only was a placebo as the essential surgical element (bone and soft tissue removal) was omitted. We did the randomisation with a computer-generated minimisation system. In the surgical intervention groups, patients were not told which type of surgery they were receiving (to ensure masking). Patients were followed up at 6 months and 1 year after randomisation; surgeons coordinated their waiting lists to schedule surgeries as close as possible to randomisation. The primary outcome was the Oxford Shoulder Score (0 [worst] to 48 [best]) at 6 months, analysed by intention to treat. The sample size calculation was based upon a target difference of 4·5 points (SD 9·0). This trial has been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01623011. Findings Between Sept 14, 2012, and June 16, 2015, we randomly assigned 313 patients to treatment groups (106 to decompression surgery, 103 to arthroscopy only, and 104 to no treatment). 24 [23%], 43 [42%], and 12 [12%] of the decompression, arthroscopy only, and no treatment groups, respectively, did not receive their assigned treatment by 6 months. At 6 months, data for the Oxford Shoulder Score were available for 90 patients assigned to decompression, 94 to arthroscopy, and 90 to no treatment. Mean Oxford Shoulder Score did not differ between the two surgical groups at 6 months (decompression mean 32·7 points [SD 11·6] vs arthroscopy mean 34·2 points [9·2]; mean difference −1·3 points (95% CI −3·9 to 1·3, p=0·3141). Both surgical groups showed a small benefit over no treatment (mean 29·4 points [SD 11·9], mean difference vs decompression 2·8 points [95% CI 0·5–5·2], p=0·0186; mean difference vs arthroscopy 4·2 [1·8–6·6], p=0·0014) but these differences were not clinically important. There were six study-related complications that were all frozen shoulders (in two patients in each group). Interpretation Surgical groups had better outcomes for shoulder pain and function compared with no treatment but this difference was not clinically important. Additionally, surgical decompression appeared to offer no extra benefit over arthroscopy only. The difference between the surgical groups and no treatment might be the result of, for instance, a placebo effect or postoperative physiotherapy. The findings question the value of this operation for these indications, and this should be communicated to patients during the shared treatment decision-making process. Funding Arthritis Research UK, the National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre, and the Royal College of Surgeons (England)