Factors That Increase the Risk of Infection After Elbow Arthroscopy: Analysis of Patient Demographics, Medical Comorbidities, and Steroid Injections in 2,704 Medicare Patients

Ten years of experience with elbow native joint arthritis: a multicenter retrospective cohort study

Background: Elbow native joint septic arthritis (NJSA) is a rare condition, constituting 6 %-9 % of all native septic arthritis cases. It is associated with elevated mortality and morbidity. This study aims to clarify the characteristics, management, and outcomes of elbow NJSA. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed adults diagnosed with elbow NJSA who underwent surgical intervention at Mayo Clinic facilities from January 2012 to December 2021. Diagnosis relied on clinical presentation, synovial fluid white blood cell (WBC) count, and aspiration or operative cultures. Results: Among 557 patients with NJSA during the study time frame, 19 (3.4 %) were found to have elbow NJSA. The median age of these patients was 64 years. Joint aspirations were conducted in 16 cases (84.2 %). The median synovial fluid WBC count was 43 139 cells mm-3. Crystals were observed in three patients (15.8 %). Synovial fluid and operative tissue samples revealed 12.5 % and 20 % positive Gram stains, mostly indicating Gram-positive cocci clusters. Open arthrotomy (72.2 %) was the predominant surgical approach, and three patients (16.7 %) required reoperation within 90 d. The median antimicrobial therapy duration was 30 d (interquartile range: 22-44 d). Non-tuberculosis mycobacterium (NTM) was detected in two patients, with a treatment duration of 274 and 374 d, respectively. Complications included joint contracture and joint resection. Conclusions: Elbow NJSA is an infrequent condition associated with significant complications, such as the necessity for reoperation. Although the synovial fluid WBC count, crystals, and Gram stain positivity were less helpful for diagnosis in this study, positive Gram stain and culture results from operative tissue specimens demonstrated greater effectiveness in diagnosing elbow NJSA.

The Mechanisms and Safety of Corticosteroid Injections in Orthopaedic Surgery

» Corticosteroid injections (CSIs), including intra-articular, perineural, and those involving tendon sheaths or bursae, offer potential relief from osteoarthritic and inflammatory musculoskeletal pain, including gout attacks, as well as tarsal tunnel syndrome, plantar fasciitis, and interdigital neuromas.» CSI for musculoskeletal pain is commonly used as a nonoperative management option for both diagnostic and therapeutic purposes, offering pain relief, typically lasting from days to months.» CSIs are often performed prior to surgery as part of the nonoperative management of many conditions, with multiple CSIs within the year of surgery increasing postoperative infection risk in some major joints.» Despite the potential benefits of CSI, there are risks, including a potential increase in the risk of surgical site infection secondary to bacterial contamination and the immunomodulating effect of corticosteroids when given in the perioperative period.» To date, a multitude of studies across orthopaedic subspecialties has reported on perioperative infection risk associated with CSIs. However, heterogeneity in study design and patient populations has made standardized recommendations challenging. It is, therefore, difficult to elucidate, with a high level of evidence, the most appropriate perioperative timeline for CSI administration for which infection risk is nonsignificant.

Emergency department utilization after elbow arthroscopy

Background

Elbow arthroscopy has defined indications for which technical pearls and outcomes have been described. However, other aspects of the postoperative course, such as postprocedural emergency department (ED) visits, have received less attention. The current study defined the incidence and factors associated with ED visits in the 90 days following elbow arthroscopy by leveraging a large, national, multiinsurance, administrative database.

Methods

Adult patients who underwent elective elbow arthroscopy were identified in the 2010 to Q1 2022 PearlDiver Mariner161 national administrative database. Those who visited the ED in the 90 days following surgery were identified and compared to those who did not based on age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Index, geographic region of the United States, and insurance type by multivariate analyses. The timing (weeks following surgery), reasons for ED visit (elbow-related or not), and ED-to-hospital admission (presence or absence) were also assessed. Finally, the rate of those who were admitted during an ED visit was described.

Results

A total of 16,310 elbow arthroscopy patients were identified, of which ED visits in the 90 days following surgery were noted for 1086 (6.7%). ED visits were independently associated with younger age (odds ratio [OR, 95% confidence interval (CI)]: 1.23 [1.17, 1.29] per decade decrease), higher Elixhauser Comorbidity Index (OR [95% CI]: 1.21 [1.19, 1.23] per 1-point increase), different geographic region (OR [95% CI]: 1.42 [1.19, 1.71] for Midwest relative to West), and insurance (OR [95% CI]: 1.88 [1.48, 2.39] for Medicaid relative to Commercial) (P < .001 for each). The incidence of all-cause ED visits was highest during the first two postoperative weeks and gradually decreased over the following weeks. The reason for ED visits related to the elbow decreased from 65% in month one, to 37.7% in month two, to 26.6% in month three. Of those visiting the ED, 12.4% went on to be admitted (for any reason).

Conclusion

A significant proportion of patients from a large cohort of elbow arthroscopy patients visited the ED at least once in the 90 days following surgery. The defined associated factors and timing of these ED visits can help optimize postoperative care pathways.

Hand and Upper Extremity Surgical Site Infection Rates Associated With Perioperative Corticosteroid Injection: A Review of the Literature

BACKGROUND

Corticosteroid injection (CSI) has a relatively high benefit-to-risk ratio and is commonly administered to treat musculoskeletal conditions. However, perioperative CSI has been associated with an increased risk of postoperative infection. The literature suggests delaying surgery after CSI to minimize the risk of postoperative infection. We review the literature to summarize the most current knowledge on the association between perioperative CSI and infection rates for different hand and upper extremity procedures.

METHODS

Two independent reviewers conducted a literature search using PubMed and Web of Science databases (through October 1, 2022). The database searches used were (((injection) AND (infection)) AND (risk)) AND ((hand) OR (wrist) OR (elbow) OR (shoulder)). English-language articles were screened for infection rates associated with CSI given temporally around upper extremity surgery, focusing between 6 months preoperatively and 1 month postoperatively.

RESULTS

Nineteen articles including database queries and retrospective case-control or cohort studies were used after screening 465 articles. Most infection rates were increased in hand, wrist, elbow, and shoulder surgery between 3 months preoperatively and 1 month postoperatively. Intraoperative injection during elbow arthroscopy demonstrated increased infection rate relative to other upper extremity surgeries.

CONCLUSIONS

Corticosteroid injection increased the risk of infection temporally around upper extremity surgeries; however, CSI provides benefits. The consensus regarding CSI timeline perioperatively has yet to be determined. The evidence supports an increased benefit-to-risk ratio when giving corticosteroids greater than 3 months preoperatively and greater than 1 month postoperatively for most upper extremity procedures, with relative contraindications within 1 month of upper extremity surgery.

Open versus arthroscopic treatment of the rheumatoid elbow arthritis: a comparison of complications at two years utilizing a nationally representative database

PURPOSE

Symptomatic rheumatoid arthritis (RA) can be addressed surgically with open procedures or elbow arthroscopy. Previous studies comparing outcomes of open to arthroscopic arthrolysis for the management of RA did not utilize a large database study. The aim was to compare demographics and two-year complications, in RA patients undergoing open or arthroscopic elbow arthrolysis.

METHODS

A retrospective, cohort study was performed utilizing a private, nationwide, all-payer database. We queried the database to identify patients undergoing open (n = 578) or arthroscopic (n = 379) arthrolysis for elbow RA. The primary goal of the study was to compare complications at two-years. Categorical variables were assessed utilizing the chi-squared test; while, continuous variables were analyzed using the Student's t-test. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to assess risk factors for infection following open or arthroscopic arthrolysis.

RESULTS

RA patients undergoing open elbow arthrolysis were older (55 vs. 49 years, p < 0.001), predominately female (61.6% vs 60.9%, p = 0.895), and likely to have chronic kidney disease (20.4 vs. 12.9%), and DM (45.2 vs. 32.2%) (both p < 0.005). Open elbow arthrolysis was also associated with higher rates of infection (31.7 vs. 4.7%) and wound complications (26.8 vs. 3.4%) (both p = 0.001). Nerve injury rates were found to be similar (8.3 vs. 9.0%, p = 0.81). On multivariable logistic regression, open elbow procedures were associated with the highest risk for infection (OR: 8.43).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing open arthrolysis for RA were at a higher risk of infection and wound complications compared to arthroscopic arthrolysis utilizing a nationally representative database. While there appears to be a difference in outcomes following these two procedures, higher level evidence is needed to draw more definitive conclusions.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Retrospective, Level III.

30-Day complications, operative time, and overnight admission following elective elbow arthroscopy

Background

Although arthroscopic procedures are generally considered safer than open procedures, they are not without complications. This study's purpose is to characterize patient demographics, medical complications, overnight admissions, and prolonged operative times for patients undergoing elective elbow arthroscopy using a national database.

Methods

This retrospective study used the ACS NSQIP database with data from 2015 to 2020. Patients undergoing elbow arthroscopy were identified, and those undergoing emergent surgery were excluded. Patient demographics, clinical characteristics, medical comorbidities, 30-day complications, overnight admission rates, and operative times were recorded and analyzed.

Results

Overall, 815 patients undergoing elective elbow arthroscopy were included. The mean age was 46.8 years. Mean BMI was 29.7 kg/m2, and 75.2% (n = 613) were male sex. The most common comorbidity was smoking (14.8%, n = 121). The cumulative complication rate was 2.5% (n = 20). The most common complication was surgical site infection (n = 7, 0.9%). 10.7% of patients required at least one overnight hospital stay. 20.2% of patients had a prolonged operative time ≥ 120 min.

Conclusion

Elbow arthroscopy is not without complications and morbidity despite being a minimally invasive procedure and advances made in surgical technique. Surgeons should use this information to facilitate shared-surgical decision making, preoperative patient counselling, and preoperative patient optimization.

Perioperative steroid injection in elbow arthroscopy

The goal of the present study was to evaluate the incidence of infection after perioperative intra-articular steroid injection during elbow arthroscopy. Starting from May 2019, we prospectively included all patients that underwent an elbow arthroscopy for various indications. All patients received preoperative antibiotics intravenously and a corticosteroid injection immediately after portal closure. Patients who needed ligamentous repair and aged below 18 years old were excluded. Final follow up of all patients was 3 months. In total, 108 elbow arthroscopies were performed in 100 patients. No major complications and 1 minor complication were seen. One patient developed a seroma that resolved spontaneously after 14 days without intervention or antibiotics. In this patient group, a perioperative corticosteroid injection following elbow arthroscopy did not increase the chance of infection.

Early Arthroscopic Debridement May Be More Cost-Effective Than Nonoperative Management for Symptomatic Osteochondritis Dissecans Lesions of the Capitellum

Purpose

To compare the cost-effectiveness of an initial trial of nonoperative treatment to that of early arthroscopic debridement for stable osteochondritis dissecans (OCD) lesions of the capitellum.

Methods

A Markov Chain Monte Carlo probabilistic model was developed to evaluate the outcomes and costs of 1,000 simulated patients undergoing nonoperative management versus early arthroscopic debridement for stable OCD lesions of the capitellum. Health utility values, treatment success rates, and transition probabilities were derived from the published literature. Costs were determined on the basis of the typical patient undergoing each treatment strategy at our institution. Outcome measures included costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

Results

Mean total costs resulting from nonoperative management and early arthroscopic debridement were $5,330 and $21,672, respectively. On average, early arthroscopic debridement produced an additional 0.64 QALYS, resulting in an ICER of $25,245/QALY, which falls well below the widely accepted $50,000 willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold. Overall, early arthroscopic debridement was determined to be the preferred cost-effective strategy in 69% of patients included in the microsimulation model.

Conclusion

Results of the Monte Carlo microsimulation and probabilistic sensitivity analysis demonstrated early arthroscopic debridement to be a cost-effective treatment strategy for the majority of stable OCD lesions of the capitellum. Although early arthroscopic debridement was associated with higher total costs, the increase in QALYS that resulted from early surgery was enough to justify the cost difference based on an ICER substantially below the $50,000 WTP threshold.

Level of Evidence

Level III, economic computer simulation model.

Preoperative Corticosteroid Injections Within 4 Weeks of Arthroscopic Shoulder Procedures Are Associated With Increased Postoperative Infection Rates

PURPOSE

To refine the understanding of the effect of timing of corticosteroid injections (CSIs) and shoulder arthroscopy on postoperative infection.

METHODS

An insurance database was used to determine all patients who underwent shoulder arthroscopy for a 5-year period with an associated preoperative ipsilateral corticosteroid injection. Patients were stratified into cohorts based on timing of preoperative CSI: (1) 0-<2 weeks, (2) 2-<4 weeks, (3) 4-<6 weeks, and (4) 6-<8 weeks. Patients were pooled to include all patients who had a CSI less than 4 weeks and those longer than 4 weeks. A cohort of patients who never had a corticosteroid injection before undergoing arthroscopy were used as a control. All patients had a follow-up of 2 years. Multivariable regression analyses were performed using R Studio with significance defined as P < .05.

RESULTS

Multivariate logistic regression showed a greater odds ratio (OR) for postoperative infection in patients who received CSI 0-<2 weeks before shoulder arthroscopy at 90 days (3.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.62-5.57, P < .001), 1 year (2.51, 95% CI 1.46-4.12, P < .001), and 2 years (2.08, 95% CI 1.27-3.28, P = .002) compared with the control group. Patients who received CSI 2-<4 weeks before shoulder arthroscopy had greater OR for infection at 90 days (2.26, 95% CI 1.28-3.83, P = .03), 1 year (1.82, 95% CI 1.13-2,82, P = .01), and 2 years (1.62, 95% CI 1.10-2.47, P = .012). Patients who received CSI after 4 weeks had similar ORs of infection at 90 days (OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.78-1.69, P = .48) 1 year (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.85-1.63 P = .33), and 2 years (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.83-1.42, P = .54), compared with the control cohort.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study shows the postoperative infection risk is greatest when CSIs are given within 2 weeks of shoulder arthroscopy, whereas CSIs given within 2-<4 weeks also portend increased risk, albeit to a lesser degree. The risk of postoperative infection is not significantly increased when CSIs are given more than 1 month before surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative, prognosis study.

Editorial Commentary: Avoiding Complications in Elbow Arthroscopy: Know the Indications, Learn the Anatomy, and Master a Safe Technique

Elbow arthroscopy enables surgeons to treat a vast range of elbow injuries and pathologies in a minimally invasive manner. It has a lower morbidity rate and is often followed by a faster recovery than traditional open surgery unless it is followed by a serious complication. Although most complications are minor and transient, the incidence of both minor and major complications is considerably higher than that after arthroscopy of other joints, specifically the risk of neurovascular injury including permanent nerve injury because of the proximity of neurovascular structures. A recent review of 114 studies reported a median 3% incidence of complications and 2% incidence of reoperation, with transient nerve palsies accounting for about one third. Surgeon experience may influence complication rates; a survey suggested that surgeons need to experience more than 200 cases to be considered expert. In addition, patient-related factors such as obesity, female gender, age over 65 years, elevated blood sugar levels, hypercoagulable disorder, tobacco or alcohol use or both, as well as history of previous surgery and perioperative corticosteroid injections are identified as risk factors for complications after elbow arthroscopy. Keys to avoiding complications include precise surgical indications and understanding the 3-dimensional anatomy-especially the relationship of the various nerves to the portals and joint capsule.

Open versus arthroscopic elbow arthrolysis for primary osteoarthritis: A comparison of demographics and complications at two years

Introduction

Open techniques have traditionally been utilized in the surgical management of elbow osteoarthritis (OA). However, advances in elbow arthroscopy, in conjunction with the movement towards minimally invasive surgery, have led to an increase in the utilization of an arthroscopic approach. The primary aim of this investigation was to compare demographics and complication rates between patients undergoing open or arthroscopic arthrolysis for elbow OA with a secondary objective of identifying risk factors for infection with each treatment.

Methods

A retrospective review of a private, all-payer database was performed to identify patients undergoing either open (n = 1482) or arthroscopic (n = 2341) arthrolysis for elbow osteoarthritis. The primary outcome was 2-year complications, which included infection, wound complications, and nerve injuries. Categorical variables were compared utilizing chi-square analyses, while continuous variables were compared using independent sample t-tests. Odd ratios (OR) were ascertained to quantify the risk attributed to open arthrolysis compared to arthroscopic. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to assess risk factors for infection following open or arthroscopic arthrolysis of an elbow with OA.

Results

Age was significantly higher in the open cohort (55 ± 13.4 years) compared to the arthroscopic cohort (52 ± 13.1 years) (p < 0.001). The open cohort was more likely to be female (32.0 vs. 22.9%, p < 0.001) and have a Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) greater than three (9.2 vs. 7.1%, p < 0.001). Open procedures were associated with an increased risk of nerve injury (OR: 1.50) and wound complications (OR: 7.70) compared to arthroscopic arthrolysis. Multivariable logistic regression identified open procedures as a risk factor for infection (OR: 11.15). Moreover, diabetes (OR: 1.48), chronic kidney disease (OR: 1.89) and tobacco use (OR: 2.29) were found as risk factors for infection among the open cohort.

Conclusions

This study found patients undergoing open arthrolysis of OA to be older and have a greater number of medical comorbidities compared to those undergoing arthroscopic arthrolysis. Open arthrolysis was associated with an increased rate of infection, nerve injury and wound complications compared to arthroscopic arthrolysis. After controlling for age and comorbidities with multivariable logistic regression, open arthrolysis remained a risk factor for infection. Arthroscopic elbow arthrolysis is associated with a lower risk of complications, including infection and may be favored for the management of OA of the elbow.

Level of Evidence

III (retrospective cohort study).

Have Elbow Arthroscopy Hospitalizations Decreased over the Years? An Epidemiological Italian Study from 2001 to 2016

This study describes the trends of elbow arthroscopy in Italy and other countries in order to evaluate the yearly rates of EA. Its purpose is for future epidemiological studies to be able to compare their data between countries in order to understand the reasons for the increasing and decreasing trends. Data for this study were obtained from National Hospital Discharge records (SDO) at the Italian Ministry of Health (INHS). Data regarding sex, age, region of residence, region of surgery, length of hospitalization, and procedure codes were included. In total, 2414 elbow arthroscopies were performed in Italy from 2001 to 2016 in the adult population. The highest number of procedures was found in the 40-44 and 45-49 years age groups. Males represented the majority of patients undergoing EA both in total and over the years. An increase from 2001 to 2010 and a decrease from 2010 to 2016 were reported in the present analysis. According to other studies, males of 40-44 and 45-49 years age groups represent the most treated patients. Further epidemiological studies would provide data that could be compared between countries, reaching a general consensus on the best indications for this procedure.

Complications of Elbow Arthroscopic Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Elbow arthroscopic surgery has been popularized and has made significant progress during the past 3 decades. The elbow joint is relatively small and is in close proximity to many neurovascular structures. These factors make elbow arthroscopic surgery technically demanding and liable to complications.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the rate of complications after elbow arthroscopic surgery.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines were followed to perform this systematic review and meta-analysis. PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase were searched up to July 2021. All clinical studies that reported complications after elbow arthroscopic surgery were included; a total of 1208 articles were initially found. Case reports, reviews, abstracts, imaging studies, technique studies, nonclinical studies, and those not reporting postoperative complications were excluded. Complication rates were pooled across studies and reported as percentages. Complications were expressed as weighted proportions with 95% CIs.

RESULTS

A total of 95 studies (14,289 elbows) were included in the meta-analysis. The overall weighted complication rate was 11.0% (95% CI, 8.8%-13.5%), with postoperative stiffness being the most commonly encountered complication (4.5% [95% CI, 2.1%-7.6%]; 158/8818 procedures). The second most encountered complication was the need for subsequent surgery with a weighted proportion of 4.1% (95% CI, 2.9%-5.6%; 177/8853 procedures) followed by nerve injury with a weighted proportion of 3.4% (95% CI, 2.6%-4.3%; 267/13,725 procedures). The ulnar nerve was the most commonly injured nerve (2.6% [95% CI, 1.9%-3.4%]; 123/6290 procedures).

CONCLUSION

The results of this study showed that elbow arthroscopic surgery is a relatively safe procedure with low complication rates.

The Impact of Corticosteroid Injection Timing on Infection Rates Following Spine Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Systematic review/meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to assess how the risk of infection following lumbar spine surgery varies as a function of the timing of preoperative corticosteroid spinal injections (CSIs).

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched and data was pooled for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Six studies were identified for inclusion. Two (33.3%) demonstrated a significant relationship between the timing of preoperative CSIs and the risk of postoperative infection, while 4 (66.7%) demonstrated no impact. A total of 2.5% (110/4,448) of patients who underwent CSI <1 month before surgery experienced a postoperative infection, as compared to 1.2% (1,466/120, 943) of controls, which was statistically significant (RR = 1.986 95% CI 1.202-3.282 P = 0.007). A total of 1.6% (25/1,600) of patients who underwent CSI 0-3 months before surgery experienced a postoperative infection, as compared to 1.6% (201/12, 845) of controls (RR = 0.887 95% CI 0.586-1.341, P = 0.569). A total of 1.1% (199/17 870) of patients who underwent CSI 3-6 months before surgery experienced a postoperative infection, as compared to 1.3% (1,382/102, 572) of controls (RR = 1.053 95% CI 0.704-1.575, P = 0.802). Differences in infection risk for 0-3 months and 3-6 months were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

CSIs <1 month prior to lumbar spine surgery are a significant risk factor for infection, while CSIs beyond that point showed no such association. Surgeons should consider avoiding CSIs <1 month of the use of CSIs of the spine.

Complications in Elbow Arthroscopy: Management and Prevention

With advances in the understanding of elbow anatomy, pathologies of the elbow, arthroscopic instrumentation, and surgical techniques over recent decades, elbow arthroscopy has become a valuable treatment modality for a variety of conditions. Elbow arthroscopy has gained utility for treating problems such as septic arthritis, osteoarthritis, synovitis, osteophyte and loose body excision, contracture release, osteochondral defects, select fractures, instability, and lateral epicondylitis. Accordingly, precise knowledge of the neurovascular anatomy, safe arthroscopic portal placement, indications, and potential complications are required to maximize patient outcomes and assist in educating patients. This comprehensive review provides the reader an understanding of the potential complications associated with arthroscopic procedures of the elbow and to describe strategies for prevention and management.

The Effects of Sleeper and Superman Stretches on Time-Zero Shoulder Range of Motion in Collegiate Athletes

Purpose

This study aimed to determine whether prone cross-body adduction (superman stretch) improves range of motion (ROM) more than the sleeper stretch.

Methods

Collegiate overhead athletes were randomized to either a sleeper group or a superman stretch group. ROM measurements were collected before and after stretches by three orthopedic surgeons.

Results

We assessed a total of 212 shoulders. Both stretches demonstrated significant improvements in ROM, except horizontal adduction, which only improved in the superman stretch group.

Conclusions

The superman stretch may be superior in producing immediate improvements in horizontal adduction when compared to the traditional sleeper stretch.

A systematic review of elbow arthroscopy complications : Complications, risk factors, and safety tips

PURPOSE

To determine the complications from elbow arthroscopy for the past 16 years, and to summarize the most reported safety techniques and risk factors.

METHODS

Eligibility criteria included level I to IV evidence articles that were published after 2005 in the English language. Excluded were vet, paediatric, and cadaver studies. Open and arthroscopic-assisted elbow procedures were not included. Two online databases were comprehensively searched (PubMed and PMC) in April 2021. Relevant paper selection was conducted by two independent reviewers. MINORS score, demographic properties, indications, procedure type, complication rates, reoperation rates, reported risk factors, and safety techniques were recorded.

RESULTS

Fifty-two articles met the criteria and were included. No relevant level I to II evidence studies were discovered. The mean age ranged from 31 to 65 years. The average body mass indexes were between 26 and over 40 kg/m². There was a prevalence of male sex (from 50.2 to 79.2%). Most of the studies reported a minimum follow-up (range, 4 weeks-12 months). The most common arthroscopic procedure was debridement (up to 73% in Leong et al.'s study). The average MINORS score was 12 (range, 10-16). The total complications rate ranged from 1.5 to 11%, with a few studies reporting over 25%. Nerve injury rate was 1.26-7.5%. Re-operation rate ranged from none (100 procedures) to 11.8%.

CONCLUSIONS

Elbow arthroscopy is a successful procedure with a low overall complications rate (from 1.5 to 11%), and a low nerve injury rate (from 1.26 to 7.5%). Risk factors include patient-related factors (obesity, female sex, age over 65 years, elevated blood sugar levels, hypercoagulable disorder, tobacco and alcohol use), preoperative elbow impairment/previous surgery, and periprocedural steroid injections. Our review discovered a re-operation rate of 2 to 18%.

Infection complicating 794 primary and revision arthroscopies. Accuracy of actual prophylactic procedures against infection and results from a single orthopedic center in Poland

Introduction

Septic arthritis after arthroscopy (SAAA) is a devasting complication which reported frequency varies about 0.04%–5.7%. The aim of the study is to analyze frequency of SAAA at one orthopedic center, risk factors and accuracy of actual prophylactic measures.

Materials and Methods

A retrospective study (level of evidence: V) includes 794 (665 primary and 129 revision) “clean” arthroscopies performed in the years 2017–2018 with confirmed joint infection during 30 days after operation without the use of non-resorbable implants and up to 1 year after procedures with non-resorbable implants. Demographic and medical data about potential risk factors of SAAA were analyzed: patients age, sex, operated joint, type of procedure, primary or revision procedure, the use of drains, usage of non-absorbable implant, time of surgery, BMI, time lapse from index operation to diagnosis of SAAA, length of hospital stay, causative microorganisms. All operations were performed by eight different but experienced surgeons, in operation theatre with vertical laminar flow with the capacity of 50 air exchanges per hour. The perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis consisted of one preoperative dose 1 g cefazolin in simple arthroscopies, which was prolonged to 24 hours with 3 doses in cases of implantation of non-absorbable implant (55.8% of patients).

Results

From 794 cases 4 have been infected: 2 after knee arthrolysis, one after ACL reconstruction and one after rotator cuff repair. There were 2 early, with manifestation within 30 days, and 2 late-onset SAAA. Infections occurred in 0.5% of all arthroscopies and in 0.47% of knee arthroscopies alone. Patients age and time of surgery have not been found significantly different in infected and non-infected cases, whereas age and time of surgery have been significantly different in revision and non-revision cases.

Conclusions

Primarily aseptic arthroscopic procedures performed with respect to actual perioperative preventive measures have a low risk of postoperative septic arthritis. The risk increases with patients age and time of operation, but not significantly.

A Safe Interval between Preoperative Intra-articular Corticosteroid Injections and Subsequent Knee Arthroscopy

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the influence of intra-articular corticosteroid injections prior to knee arthroscopy on the rate of postoperative infection and define a safe timing interval between intra-articular corticosteroid injections and subsequent knee arthroscopy. The PearlDiver Database was used to identify patients who underwent a knee arthroscopy from 2007 to 2017. Patients were sorted into an injection cohort if they received any intra-articular corticosteroid injections within 6 months before surgery and a control cohort if they received no such injections. The injection cohort was then stratified into subgroups based on the timing of the most recent injection. We identified two types of postoperative infection in the 6 months following surgery: a broad definition of infection using knee infection diagnoses, and a narrow definition of infection requiring surgical treatment. The effects of the timing of preoperative corticosteroid injections on the rates of postoperative infection were investigated. The rate of broadly defined postoperative infection was significantly higher in the 0 to 2 weeks injection group (6.90%, 20/290) than the control group (2.01%, 1,449/72,089, p < 0.001; odds ratio [OR]:3.61 [95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.29, 5.70]). We observed a significant difference regarding the rate of narrowly defined postoperative infection requiring surgical treatment between the 0 and 2 weeks injection group (1.38%, 4/290) and the control group (0.27%, 192/72,089, p < 0.001, OR:5.24 [95% CI: 1.94, 14.21]). No significant differences were observed between other subgroups and the control group in both types of postoperative infection. Intra-articular corticosteroid injections within 2 weeks of knee arthroscopy were statistically significantly associated with higher rates of postoperative infection. This is a Level III, retrospective comparative study.

Trends in Corticosteroid Injections for Treatment of Lateral Epicondylitis: An Analysis of 80,169 Patients

Corticosteroid (CS) injections are a frequently used treatment modality for lateral epicondylitis (LE) despite an increasing number of studies suggesting their lack of efficacy. The objective of this study was to review the annual utilization of CS injections for treatment of LE, as well as that of other nonsurgical treatments and surgical treatments, to understand how recent publications have affected the practice of physicians in treating LE.

Corticosteroid Injections 1 Month Before Arthroscopic Meniscectomy Increase the Risk of Surgical-Site Infection

PURPOSE

To define the incidence of postoperative infections in patients who receive corticosteroid injections prior to arthroscopic meniscectomy, to determine whether there is a temporal relation between injections and the risk of surgical-site infections, and to identify corresponding risk factors.

METHODS

The Humana administrative claims database was reviewed for patients undergoing arthroscopic meniscectomy within 1 year of injection and those undergoing arthroscopic meniscectomy without prior injection. Patients with preoperative injections were further stratified by the duration in months between the injection and the surgical procedure. Surgical-site infection within 6 months of surgery was recorded. Univariate analysis and binary logistic regression were performed to determine independent risk factors for surgical-site infection. Statistical significance was defined as P < .05.

RESULTS

We identified patients with (n = 11,652) and without (n = 37,261) a history of a knee corticosteroid injection within 1 year of arthroscopic meniscectomy with at least 6 months of database activity from 2007 to 2017. In patients who received knee injections within 1 month prior to surgery, the rate of development of postoperative infections was twice that in patients who did not receive an injection (1.28% vs 0.63%; odds ratio [OR], 1.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.24-2.62; P = .001). Multivariate logistic regression identified male sex (OR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.14-1.71; P = .001), diabetes (OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.19-1.85; P < .001), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.27-1.94; P < .001), obesity (OR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.07-1.63; P = .010), tobacco use (OR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.30-1.98; P < .001), and preoperative injections within 1 month of surgery (OR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.21-2.54; P = .002) as significant predictors, whereas injections administered more than 1 month before surgery were not significantly associated with postoperative surgical-site infection after arthroscopic meniscectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Injections 1 month before arthroscopic meniscectomy significantly increase the risk of surgical-site infection. However, injections can be safely administered more than 1 month prior to surgery because there is no increased risk of postoperative infection at this time point.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective cohort study.

Post-operative septic arthritis after arthroscopy: modern diagnostic and therapeutic concepts

PURPOSE

Septic arthritis is a significant complication following arthroscopic surgery, with an estimated overall incidence of less than 1%. Despite the low incidence, an appropriate diagnostic and therapeutic pathway is required to avoid serious long-term consequences, eradicate the infection, and ensure good treatment outcomes. The aim of this current review article is to summarize evidence-based literature regarding diagnostic and therapeutic options of post-operative septic arthritis after arthroscopy.

METHODS

Through a literature review, up-to-date treatment algorithms and therapies have been identified. Additionally, a supportive new algorithm is proposed for diagnosis and treatment of suspected septic arthritis following arthroscopic intervention.

RESULTS

A major challenge in diagnostics is the differentiation of the post-operative status between a non-infected hyperinflammatory joint versus septic arthritis, due to clinical symptoms, (e.g., rubor, calor, or tumor) can appear identical. Therefore, joint puncture for microbiological evaluation, especially for fast leukocyte cell-count diagnostics, is advocated. A cell count of more than 20.000 leukocyte/µl with more than 70% of polymorphonuclear cells is the generally accepted threshold for septic arthritis.

CONCLUSION

The therapy is based on arthroscopic or open surgical debridement for synovectomy and irrigation of the joint, in combination with an adequate antibiotic therapy for 6-12 weeks. Removal of indwelling hardware, such as interference screws for ACL repair or anchors for rotator cuff repair, is recommended in chronic cases.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Establishing the learning curve for elbow arthroscopy: surgeon and trainee perspectives on number of cases needed and optimal methods for acquiring skill

BACKGROUND

Elbow arthroscopy has increased in frequency as its indications have widened. Despite this growth, a learning curve has not yet been defined.

HYPOTHESIS

We hypothesized that there would be significant differences in perspective between trainees and established surgeons for the number of cases needed to reach each skill level and what they felt are the most valuable training tools.

METHODS

Orthopedic attending physicians and trainees were asked to complete a questionnaire assessing participant demographics, case volumes required to reach defined skill levels (novice, safe, competent, proficient, and expert), and the efficacy of various learning methodologies for elbow arthroscopy. The value of educational methods was assessed using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not at all valuable; 5 = extremely valuable).

RESULTS

The study population consisted of 323 total participants, of whom 224 (69.3%) were attending surgeons and 99 (30.7%) were trainees (resident or fellow physicians). According to the attending physicians, the mean numbers of cases needed to reach each skill level were 19 to be safe, 42 to be competent, 93 to be proficient, and 230 to be expert. These case numbers were not significantly different from the perspectives of trainees. Across the respondents, there were no significant differences in the number of cases needed to reach each level of skill based on the respondents' level of training, years of experience, type of fellowship, or self-reported skill level.Although both groups highly valued live surgery (4.7 of 5) and cadaveric practice (4.6 of 5) for acquiring skill, attendings placed higher value on reading (4.0 vs. 3.3, P < .001), videos/live demos (4.2 vs. 3.6, P < .001), and formal courses (4.5 vs. 4.1, P < .001) than trainees. Both groups place relatively low value on surgical simulators (2.8-3.6).

CONCLUSIONS

There was considerable agreement among attending surgeons and trainees in terms of the number of cases needed to attain various skill levels of elbow arthroscopy, which was consistent regardless of fellowship background, self-reported skill level, career length, and elbow arthroscopy case volume. However, there was some disagreement between attending surgeons and trainees over the most valuable methods for acquiring surgical skill with trainees placing less value on textbooks, surgical videos, and formal courses compared with attending surgeons. An understanding of the elbow arthroscopy learning curve will help trainees and their training programs establish case volume targets before safe, independent practice. Future studies should aim to clinically validate this learning curve.

Editorial Commentary: Elbow Arthroscopy Is a Safe Procedure. Sure

Elbow arthroscopy is a procedure that is of great potential use and yet also of grave potential risks. To balance the risk-versus-reward consideration, one must be aware of the potential complications associated with this procedure, weigh them against the potential advantages, and understand one's own skills and familiarity with the procedure. There is no doubt that elbow arthroscopy has changed and even revolutionized our management of pathology about the elbow; however, one must bear in mind that this comes at a risk of complications that cannot be reduced to zero.

Complications of Elbow Arthroscopy in a Community-Based Practice

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to report the complications of elbow arthroscopy in a large community practice with multiple surgeons and to analyze potential risk factors for these complications.

METHODS

Patient demographic information, surgical variables, surgeon variables, and complications were retrospectively reviewed for all elbow arthroscopies performed within the health network from 2006 to 2014. Inclusion criteria included patients of any age undergoing a primary and revision elbow arthroscopy, which may have been performed in conjunction with other procedures. Exclusion criteria included incorrectly coded procedures where arthroscopy was not performed and no postoperative follow-up. Statistical calculations were performed using a binary logistic regression analysis to fit a logistic regression model.

RESULTS

560 consecutive elbow arthroscopies in 528 patients performed between 2006 and 2014, by 42 surgeons at 14 facilities, were reviewed. 113 procedures were performed in pediatric patients under the age of 18. The average age was 38.6 years (range: 5-88). There were 444 males. The average length of follow-up was 375.8 days (2 to 2,739 days). Overall, heterotopic ossification occurred in 14 of 560 cases (2.5%) (all males), and 20 of 560 (3.5%) cases developed transient nerve palsies (8 ulnar, 8 radial, 1 median, 3 medial antebrachial cutaneous). There were 3 (0.5%) deep and 11 (2%) superficial infections. There were no vascular injuries, compartment syndrome, deep vein thrombosis, or pulmonary embolism. Elevated blood sugar was a significantly higher risk for infection (odds ratio [OR] 4.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.337 to 12.645; P = .0136). Previous elbow surgery (OR 3.57, 95% CI 1.440 to 8.938; P = .006) and female sex (OR 4.05; 95% CI 1.642 to 9.970; P = .002) had a significantly higher risk for nerve injury. Relative to pediatric patients, there were higher odds in adults for nerve injury, infection, and heterotopic ossification, but none reached significance.

CONCLUSIONS

Elbow arthroscopy is a safe procedure with low complication rates. Diabetes is a risk factor for infection. Prior surgery and female sex are risk factors for nerve injury.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Case series, level 4.

What You Don't Know Until It's Too Late! Arthroscopy Podcasts Could Change Your Practice

Podcasts provide a follow-up on articles from Arthroscopy, Arthroscopy Techniques, and Arthroscopy, Sports Medicine, and Rehabilitation. Readers could learn a great deal by interviewing the authors of scientific studies, and Podcasters do exactly that.

The Timing of Injections Prior to Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair Impacts the Risk of Surgical Site Infection

BACKGROUND

Corticosteroid injections are a common treatment for rotator cuff tears. Because of concerns of infection, a surgical procedure is often delayed following injections. The purpose of this investigation was to determine if there is a temporal relationship between corticosteroid injections and the risk of surgical site infection after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. We hypothesized that the incidence of surgical site infection is higher in patients who received a preoperative injection and this relationship exists in a temporal manner as those patients receiving an injection closer to the operative date have a higher risk of infection.

METHODS

The PearlDiver database was reviewed for patients undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair from 2007 to 2016. Patients were stratified into 2 cohorts: those undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair within 1 year of injection (n = 12,060), and those undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair without prior injection (n = 48,763). Patients with preoperative injections were further stratified by the duration in months that the injection was performed prior to the surgical procedure. Surgical site infection within 6 months of the surgical procedure was recorded. Statistical analysis included chi-square and multivariate binomial logistic regression analyses to identify risk factors for surgical site infection. Results were considered significant at p < 0.05.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the incidence of surgical site infection in patients receiving a shoulder injection at 0.7% compared with the control cohort at 0.8% (odds ratio [OR], 0.9 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.7 to 1.1]; p = 0.2). However, patients receiving an injection within 1 month prior to operative management had a significantly higher rate of surgical site infection overall at 1.3% compared with the control group at 0.8% (OR, 1.7 [95% CI, 1.0 to 2.9]; p = 0.04). On multivariate analysis, male sex (OR, 1.7 [95% CI, 1.4 to 1.9]; p = 0.001), obesity (OR, 1.4 [95% CI, 1.2 to 1.6]; p < 0.001), diabetes (OR, 1.3 [95% CI, 1.1 to 1.5]; p < 0.001), smoking status (OR, 1.7 [95% CI, 1.4 to 1.9], p < 0.001), and preoperative corticosteroid injections within 1 month of the surgical procedure (OR, 2.1 [95% CI, 1.5 to 2.7]; p < 0.001) were independent risk factors for development of a surgical site infection.

CONCLUSIONS

Injections within 1 month of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair significantly increases the risk of surgical site infection. However, there is no increased risk of infection if the surgical procedure is delayed by 1 month following an injection.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Preoperative Injections May Be an Iatrogenic Cause of Reoperation After Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair

PURPOSE

To determine whether an association exists between preoperative shoulder injections and reoperations in patients undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (aRCR).

METHODS

The PearlDiver Patient Records Database was reviewed for Humana-insured patients undergoing aRCR after a shoulder injection. Two matched groups were created: aRCR within 1 year of injection (n = 12,054) and aRCR without prior injection within 1 year of surgery (n = 12,054). Reoperation rates within 3 months, at 3 to 6 months, and at 6 to 12 months postoperatively were assessed. Statistical analysis was performed with the χ-square test.

RESULTS

The rate of reoperation within 3 months of the index procedure was higher in the control group (3.7% vs 3.1%, P = .01); however, 3 to 6 months after the index procedure, the rate of reoperation was higher in patients who received an injection within 1 year of the index procedure (1.8% vs 1.4%, P = .03). During the same intervals, the rate of revision rotator cuff repair (RCR) within 3 months of the index procedure was higher in the control group (2.9% vs 2.6%) and the rate of revision RCR 3 to 6 months after the index procedure was higher in patients who received an injection within 1 year of the index procedure (1.1% vs 0.9%); however, these results were not statistically significant (P = .3 and P = .8, respectively). The incidence of revision RCR (1.6% vs 1.1%; odds ratio, 1.4; P = .003) and incidence of subacromial decompression (1.5% vs 1.1%; odds ratio, 1.3; P = .01) 6 to 12 months after the index procedure were significantly higher in patients receiving an injection within 1 year before surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative shoulder injections may increase the risk of revision RCR and subacromial decompression by up to 150% in patients 6 to 12 months after index surgery compared with patients who did not receive a preoperative injection. However, the absolute increase in these revision procedures is only 0.5%.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, comparative study.

Corticosteroid or hyaluronic acid injections to the carpometacarpal joint of the thumb joint are associated with early complications after subsequent surgery

Truven MarketScan® Databases were used to identify patients with thumb carpometacarpal arthritis who underwent surgical treatment. Pre-operative corticosteroid or hyaluronic acid injections were identified, as were post-operative complications. Multivariable regressions assessed the relationship between injections and complications. Of 16,268 patients, 4462 had steroid injections and 252 received hyaluronic acid injections. Twenty-one per cent (3381 patients) had post-operative complications. Diabetes and smoking increased the odds of complications in all models. Odds of any complication, most notably infectious complications, were increased 20% by corticosteroids (OR 1.2; 95% CI: 1.1 to 1.3). More than three injections increased the odds of a complication by 70% (OR 1.7; 95% CI: 1.3 to 2.1). Hyaluronic acid increased the odds of wound-healing complications by 110% (OR 2.1; 95% CI: 1.3 to 3.4). Corticosteroid and hyaluronic acid injections for thumb carpometacarpal arthritis increase the odds of post-operative complications. Level of evidence: IV.

Prospective outcome assessment of arthroscopic arthrolysis for traumatic and degenerative elbow contracture

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of arthroscopic elbow release for both traumatic and degenerative contractures from intraoperative recording through the recovery time until final follow-up.

METHODS

The study is based on 54 consecutive patients with extrinsic elbow contracture (traumatic in 31 and degenerative in 23) treated with arthroscopic arthrolysis by a single surgeon in 2011-2015. Range of motion (ROM) and the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS) were recorded preoperatively; intraoperatively; following release; and in the 1st, 3rd, 8th, 12th, and 26th weeks and at 2 years postoperatively.

RESULTS

Significant improvements were noted in extension, flexion, and range of motion, measured both intraoperatively and at all follow-up visits. The greatest improvement in the range of motion was achieved at the time of surgery (from 89° ± 28° to 131° ± 14°, P < .001); it then decreased at 1 week to 103° ± 22° (P < .001) and slowly recovered to reach 124° ± 22° after 2 years. This was better than the preoperative value (P < .001) but worse than the intraoperative value (P = .002). A similar pattern was observed in both traumatic and degenerative contractures. The MEPS improved from 73 ± 12 preoperatively to 93 ± 14 at the final evaluation (P < .001). The ROM and MEPS results at every follow-up were comparable for both traumatic and degenerative contractures. ROM improved regardless of the severity of contracture.

CONCLUSIONS

Arthroscopic elbow arthrolysis was similarly efficient in ROM restoration in both traumatic and degenerative contractures and regardless of the severity of contracture. After early deterioration, the achieved gain slowly recovers over a period of 6 months but may not recover to the ranges achieved during arthroscopy.

Administrative Databases in Sports Medicine Research

There has been a dramatic rise in the use of large-scale health administrative databases to investigate clinical outcomes within sports medicine over the past few years. Although these data sets identify large numbers of patients, allowing for the investigation of regional trends, health care utilization, and outcomes of surgical intervention, they were not designed with the intention of answering clinical questions. Recognizing the methodological limitations associated with these databases is prudent to avoid propagating spurious conclusions. This article offers an overview of the administrative databases commonly used within the orthopedic sports medicine literature and provides key principles for their critical appraisal.

Risk Factors for Infection After Shoulder Arthroscopy in a Large Medicare Population

BACKGROUND

Shoulder arthroscopy is well established as a highly effective and safe procedure for the treatment for several shoulder disorders and is associated with an exceedingly low risk of infectious complications. Few data exist regarding risk factors for infection after shoulder arthroscopy, as previous studies were not adequately powered to evaluate for infection.

PURPOSE

To determine patient-related risk factors for infection after shoulder arthroscopy by using a large insurance database.

STUDY DESIGN

Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

The PearlDiver patient records database was used to query the 100% Medicare Standard Analytic Files from 2005 to 2014 for patients undergoing shoulder arthroscopy. Patients undergoing shoulder arthroscopy for a diagnosis of infection or with a history of prior infection were excluded. Postoperative infection within 90 days postoperatively was then assessed with International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision codes for a diagnosis of postoperative infection or septic shoulder arthritis or a procedure for these indications. A multivariate binomial logistic regression analysis was then utilized to evaluate the use of an intraoperative steroid injection, as well as numerous patient-related risk factors for postoperative infection. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs were calculated for each risk factor, with P < .05 considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

A total of 530,754 patients met all inclusion and exclusion criteria. There were 1409 infections within 90 days postoperatively (0.26%). Revision shoulder arthroscopy was the most significant risk factor for infection (OR, 3.25; 95% CI, 2.7-4.0; P < .0001). Intraoperative steroid injection was also an independent risk factor for postoperative infection (OR, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.2-1.9; P = .002). There were also numerous independent patient-related risk factors for infection, the most significant of which were chronic anemia (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.4-1.8; P < .0001), malnutrition (OR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.2-1.7; P = .001), male sex (OR, 2.71; 95% CI, 2.4-3.1; P < .0001), morbid obesity (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.2-1.6; P < .0001), and depression (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.2-1.5; P < .0001).

CONCLUSION

Intraoperative steroid injection was a significant independent risk factor for postoperative infection after shoulder arthroscopy. There were also numerous significant patient-related risk factors for postoperative infection, including revision surgery, obesity, male sex, chronic anemia, malnutrition, depression, and alcohol use, among others.

Editorial Commentary: Be Careful With Preoperative Injections Prior to Hip Arthroscopy-Use a Three-Month Threshold to Reduce Infection Risk

A large private insurer and Medicare in the United States was queried to evaluate the risk of postarthroscopic hip infection in patients who had preoperative injections. A 3-month threshold was established, showing a significant risk of postoperative infection (2.2% [odds ratio 6.1; P < .001] for private insured patients and 2.8% [odds ratio 2.0; P = .04] for Medicare patients) if performed within 3 months of surgery (vs controls not undergoing a preoperative injection).