Background: Free bone block (FBB) procedures for anterior shoulder instability have been proposed as an alternative to or bail-out for the Latarjet procedure. However, studies comparing the outcomes of these treatment modalities are limited. Purpose: To systematically review and perform a meta-analysis comparing the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing anterior shoulder stabilization with a Latarjet or FBB procedure. Study Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched from inception to 2019 for human-participants studies published in the English language. The search was performed according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement including studies reporting clinical outcomes of patients undergoing Latarjet or FBB procedures for anterior shoulder instability with minimum 2-year follow-up. Case reports and technique articles were excluded. Data were synthesized, and a random effects meta-analysis was performed to determine the proportions of recurrent instability, other complications, progression of osteoarthritis, return to sports, and patient-reported outcome (PRO) improvement. Results: A total of 2007 studies were screened; of these, 70 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. These studies reported outcomes on a total of 4540 shoulders, of which 3917 were treated with a Latarjet procedure and 623 were treated with an FBB stabilization procedure. Weighted mean follow-up was 75.8 months (range, 24-420 months) for the Latarjet group and 92.3 months (range, 24-444 months) for the FBB group. No significant differences were found between the Latarjet and the FBB groups in the overall random pooled summary estimate of the rate of recurrent instability (5% vs 3%, respectively; P = .09), other complications (4% vs 5%, respectively; P = .892), progression of osteoarthritis (12% vs 4%, respectively; P = .077), and return to sports (73% vs 88%; respectively, P = .066). American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores improved after both Latarjet and FBB, with a significantly greater increase after FBB procedures (10.44 for Latarjet vs 32.86 for FBB; P = .006). Other recorded PRO scores improved in all studies, with no significant difference between groups. Conclusion: Current evidence supports the safety and efficacy of both the Latarjet and FBB procedures for anterior shoulder stabilization in the presence of glenoid bone loss. We found no significant differences between the procedures in rates of recurrent instability, other complications, osteoarthritis progression, and return to sports. Significant improvement in PROs was demonstrated for both groups. Significant heterogeneity existed between studies on outcomes of the Latarjet and FBB procedures, warranting future high-quality, comparative studies.

has drastically altered our lives in an unprecedented manner, shuttering industries and leaving most of the country in isolation as we adapt to the evolving crisis. Orthopedic surgery has not been spared from these effects, with the postponement of elective procedures in an attempt to mitigate disease transmission and preserve hospital resources as the pandemic continues to expand. During these turbulent times, it is crucial to understand that although patients' and care-providers' safety is paramount, canceling or postponing essential surgical care is not without consequences and may be irreversibly detrimental to patients' health and quality of life in some cases. The optimal solution to how to balance effectively the resumption of standard surgical care while doing everything possible to limit the spread of COVID-19 is undetermined and could include such strategies as social distancing, screening forms and tests, including temperature screening, segregation of inpatient and outpatient teams, proper use of protective gear, and the use of ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs) to provide elective, yet ultimately essential, surgical care while conserving resources and protecting the health of patients and health care providers. Of importance, these recommendations do not and should not supersede evolving United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and relevant federal, state and local public health guidelines. Level of Evidence: Level V.T he first confirmed case of COVID-19 in the United States was reported in northern Washington on January 20 of this year. Since then, the 2019 Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) has upended our society and placed an unprecedented strain on health care systems across the country. 1 Orthopedic surgery has not been

Background: The Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System Upper Extremity (PROMIS UE) questionnaire has been validated as an effective and efficient outcome measure after rotator cuff repair (RCR). However, definitions of clinically significant outcomes used in interpreting this outcome measure have yet to be defined. Purpose: To define clinically significant outcomes of the PROMIS UE questionnaire in patients undergoing arthroscopic RCR. Study Design: Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 3. Methods: We reviewed charts of consecutive patients undergoing RCR in our institution between 2017 and 2018 and included patients who were administered the PROMIS UE before surgery and 12 months after surgery. At 12 months postoperatively, patients were asked domain-specific anchor questions regarding their function and satisfaction after surgery, which were then used to determine the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), Patient Acceptable Symptomatic State (PASS), and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) using receiver operating characteristic and area under the curve (AUC) analysis. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis was utilized to identify patient factors associated with clinically significant outcomes. Results: A total of 105 patients with RCR and minimum 12-month postoperative PROMIS UE were included in the analysis. The defined clinically significant outcomes were 4.87 for the MCID using a distribution-based method, 7.95 for the SCB (sensitivity, 0.708; specificity, 0.833; AUC, 0.760), and 39.00 for the PASS (sensitivity, 0.789; specificity, 0.720; AUC, 0.815). Among respondents, 79.0%, 62.9%, and 64.8% achieved the MCID, SCB, and PASS score thresholds, respectively. Workers’ compensation was negatively associated with achievement of the PASS. Lower preoperative PROMIS UE scores were associated with obtaining the MCID (odds ratio [OR], 0.871; P = .001) and the SCB (OR, 0.900; P = .040), whereas higher preoperative scores were predictive of achieving the PASS (OR, 1.111; P = .020). Conclusion: This study defines the clinically significant outcomes for the PROMIS UE after RCR, of which the majority of patients achieved the MCID, PASS, and SCB at 12 months after surgery. These thresholds should be considered in future study design and interpretation of PROMIS UE in patients with RCR.

No abstract

Purpose Glenoid augmentation using free bone blocks for anterior shoulder instability has been proposed as an alternative to or bail-out for the Latarjet procedure. The purpose of this investigation was to systematically review and compare outcomes of patients undergoing glenoid augmentation using free bone block autografts versus allografts. Methods A systematic review using PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases was performed in line with the PRISMA statement. Studies reporting outcomes of patients treated with free bone block procedures for anterior shoulder instability with minimum 2-year follow-up were included. Random efects modelling was used to compare patientreported outcomes, return to sports, recurrent instability, non-instability related complications, and development of arthritis between free bone block autografts and allografts. Results Eighteen studies comprising of 623 patients met the inclusion criteria for this investigation. There were six studies reporting on the use of allografts (of these, two used distal tibial, three iliac crest, and one femoral head allograft) in 173 patients and twelve studies utilizing autografts (of these, ten used iliac crest and two used free coracoid autograft) in 450 patients. Mean age was 28.7 ± 4.1 years for the allograft group and 27.8 ± 3.8 years for the autograft group (n.s). Mean follow-up was 98 months in autograft studies and 50.8 months for allograft studies (range 24-444 months, n.s). Overall mean increase in Rowe score was 56.2 with comparable increases between autografts and allografts (n.s). Pooled recurrent instability rates were 3% (95% CI, 1-7%; I 2 = 77%) and did not difer between the groups (n.s). Arthritic progression was evident in 11% of autografts (95% CI, 2-27%; I 2 = 90%) and 1% (95% CI, 0-8%; I 2 = 63%) of allografts (n.s). The overall incidence of non-instability related complications was 5% (95% CI, 2-10%; I 2 = 81%) and was similar between the groups (n.s). Pooled return to sports rate was 88% (95% CI, 76-96%; I 2 = 76%). Conclusion Glenoid augmentation using free bone block autograft or allograft in the setting of recurrent anterior shoulder instability with glenoid bone loss is efective and safe. Outcomes and complication incidence using autografts and allografts were comparable. Due to the high degree of heterogeneity in the data and outcomes reported in available studies, which consist primarily of retrospective case series, future prospective trials investigating long-term outcomes using free bone block autograft versus allograft for anterior shoulder instability with glenoid bone loss are warranted. Level of evidence IV.