Tumors of the appendicular skeleton commonly affect the proximal humerus, but there is no consensus regarding the best reconstructive technique after proximal humerus resection for tumors of the shoulder. We wished to perform a systematic review to determine which surgical reconstruction offers the (1) best functional outcome as measured by the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society (MSTS) score, (2) longest construct survival, and (3) lowest complication rate after proximal humerus resection for malignant or aggressive benign tumors of the shoulder. We searched the literature up to June 1, 2013, from MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. Only studies reporting results in English, Dutch, or German and with followups of 80% or more of the patients at a minimum of 2 years were included. Twenty-nine studies with 693 patients met our criteria, seven studies (24%) were level of evidence III and the remainder were level IV. Studies reported on reconstruction with prostheses (n = 17), osteoarticular allografts (n = 10), and allograft-prosthesis composites (n = 11). Owing to substantial heterogeneity and bias, we narratively report our results. Functional scores in prosthesis studies ranged from 61% to 77% (10 studies, 141 patients), from 50% to 78% (eight studies, 84 patients) in osteoarticular graft studies, and from 57% to 91% (10 studies, 141 patients) in allograft-prosthesis composite studies. Implant survival ranged from 0.38 to 1.0 in the prosthesis group (341 patients), 0.33 to 1.0 in the osteoarticular allograft group (143 patients), and 0.33 to 1.0 in allograft-prosthesis group (132 patients). Overall complications per patient varied between 0.045 and 0.85 in the prosthesis group, 0 and 1.5 in the osteoarticular graft group, and 0.19 and 0.79 in the prosthesis-composite graft group. We observed a higher fracture rate for osteoarticular allografts, but other specific complication rates were similar. Owing to the limitations of our systematic review, we found that allograft-prosthesis composites and prostheses seem to have similar functional outcome and survival rates, and both seem to avoid fractures that are observed with osteoarticular allografts. Further collaboration in the field of surgical oncology, using randomized controlled trials, is required to establish the superiority of any particular treatment.

Background: This prospective study identified the association of demographic, injury, psychological, and social variables, measured early during recovery, with limitations in function (measured by the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Upper Extremity Physical Function Computer Adaptive Test [PROMIS UE]) at 6 to 9 months after a distal radial fracture. Additionally, we assessed variables associated with the PROMIS UE; the abbreviated version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (QuickDASH); the Patient-Rated Wrist Evaluation (PRWE); and the 3-Level EuroQol 5 Dimensions Index (EQ-5D-3L) over time. Methods: A total of 364 adult patients (73% female), with a median age of 65 years (interquartile range, 45.5 to 77 years), who sustained an isolated distal radial fracture completed questionnaires at 3 time periods after the fracture: within 1 week, between 2 and 4 weeks, and between 6 and 9 months. We created a multivariable regression model and a generalized least squares random effects model, accounting for multicollinearity using correlation matrices, the variable inflation factor, and the partial R². Results: Multiple variables within a week of the injury correlated with 6 to 9-month limitations in bivariate analysis. Being retired (partial R² = 0.19; p < 0.001), using opioids after the fracture (partial R² = 0.04; p < 0.001), using antidepressants (partial R² = 0.11; p < 0.001), greater pain interference (partial R² = 0.03; p = 0.001), and greater pain catastrophization (partial R² = 0.04; p = 0.002) within 1 week of the injury were strong predictors of greater limitations (PROMIS UE) at 6 to 9 months in multivariable analysis. Longitudinal analysis of variables over time demonstrated greater pain interference, greater fear of movement, lower self-efficacy, older age, and female sex as strong predictors of limitations. Conclusions: Recovery from a distal radial fracture is influenced by a series of demographic, psychological, and social variables. Of these factors, being retired, using opioids, using antidepressants, greater pain interference, and greater pain catastrophization within a week of the injury explain the largest amounts of unique variance in self-perceived upper-extremity physical function. Evaluating the impact of change in variables over time underlined the influence of pain interference as well as the influence of fear of movement and self-efficacy (or resiliency) on limitations in physical function and general health. These findings have important implications for identifying individuals who can benefit from behavioral interventions for these psychological factors to optimize recovery. Level of Evidence: Prognostic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background: Among people with musculoskeletal disorders, much of the variation in magnitude of incapability and pain intensity is accounted for by mental and social health opportunities rather than severity of pathology. Current questionnaires seem to combine distinct aspects of mental health such as unhelpful thoughts and distress regarding symptoms, and they can be long and burdensome. To identify personalized health strategies, it would be helpful to measure unhelpful thoughts and distress regarding symptoms at the point of care with just a few questions in a way that feels relevant to a person’s health. Questions/purposes: (1) Do questions that address unhelpful thoughts and distress regarding symptoms independently account for variation in accommodation of pain? (2) Which questions best measure unhelpful thoughts and distress regarding symptoms? Methods: This is a cross-sectional questionnaire study of people seeking care regarding upper and lower extremity conditions from one of eight specialist clinicians (one upper extremity, one arthroplasty, and one sports surgeon and their three nurse practitioners and two physician assistants) in one urban office. Between June 2020 and September 2020, 171 new and returning patients were approached and agreed to participate, and 89% (153) of patients completed all questionnaires. The most common reason for noncompletion was the use of a pandemic strategy allowing people to use their phone to finish the questionnaire, with more people leaving before completion. Women and divorced, separated, or widowed people were more likely to not complete the survey, and we specifically account for sex and marital status as potential confounders in our multivariable analysis. Forty-eight percent (73 of 153) of participants were women, with a mean age 48 ± 16 years. Participants completed demographics and the validated questionnaires: Pain Catastrophizing Scale, Negative Pain Thoughts Questionnaire, Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia, Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale, and Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (a measure of accommodation to pain). In an exploratory factor analysis, we found that questions group together on four topics: (1) distress about symptoms (unhelpful feelings of worry and despair), (2) unhelpful thoughts about symptoms (such as worst-case thinking and pain indicating harm), (3) being able to plan, and (4) discomfort with uncertainty. We used a multivariable analysis, accounting for potential confounding demographics, to determine whether the identified question groupings account for variation in accommodation of pain—and thus are clinically relevant. Then, we used a confirmatory factor analysis to determine which questions best represent clinically relevant groupings of questions. Results: After accounting for sex, marital status, work, and income, we found that distress and unhelpful thoughts about symptoms were independently associated with accommodation of pain, and together, they explained 60% of its variation (compared with 52% for distress alone and 40% for unhelpful thoughts alone). Variation in symptoms of distress was best measured by the question “I feel I can’t stand it anymore” (76%). Variation in unhelpful thoughts was best addressed by the question “I wouldn’t have this much pain if there wasn’t something potentially dangerous going on in my body” (64%). Conclusion: We found that distress (unhelpful feelings) and unhelpful thoughts about symptoms are separate factors with important and comparable associations with accommodation to pain. It also appears that these two factors can be measured with just a few questions. Being attentive to the language people use and the language of influential questions might improve clinician identification of mental health opportunities in the form of distress and unhelpful thoughts about symptoms, which in turn might contribute to better accommodation and alleviation of symptoms. Level of Evidence: Level II, prognostic study.

Background: There is wide variation in activity intolerance for a given musculoskeletal pathophysiology. In other words, people often experience illness beyond what one would expect given their level of pathophysiology. Mental health (i.e., cognitive bias regarding pain [e.g., worst-case thinking] and psychological distress [symptoms of anxiety and depression]) is an important and treatable correlate of pain intensity and activity intolerance that accounts for much of this variation. This study tested the degree to which psychological distress accentuates the role of cognitive bias in the relationship between pain intensity and activity intolerance. Methods: We enrolled 125 adults with musculoskeletal illness in a cross-sectional study. Participants completed measures of activity intolerance related to pain (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System [PROMIS] Pain Interference Computer Adaptive Test [CAT]) and in general (PROMIS Physical Function CAT]), measures of psychological distress (PROMIS Depression CAT and PROMIS Anxiety CAT), a numeric rating scale (NRS) for pain intensity, measures of pain-related cognitive bias (4-question versions of the Negative Pain Thoughts Questionnaire [NPTQ-4], Pain Catastrophizing Scale [PCS-4], and Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia [TSK-4]), and a survey of demographic variables. We assessed the relationships of these measures through mediation and moderation analyses using structural equation modeling. Results: Mediation analysis confirmed the large indirect relationship between pain intensity (NRS) and activity intolerance (PROMIS Pain Interference CAT and Physical Function CAT) through cognitive bias. Symptoms of depression and anxiety had an unconditional (consistent) relationship with cognitive bias (NPTQ), but there was no significant conditional effect/moderation (i.e., no increase in the magnitude of the relationship with increasing symptoms of depression and anxiety). Conclusions: Psychological distress accentuates the role of cognitive bias in the relationship between pain intensity and activity intolerance. In other words, misconceptions make humans ill, more so with greater symptoms of depression or anxiety. Orthopaedic surgeons can approach their daily work with the knowledge that addressing common misconceptions and identifying psychological distress as a health improvement opportunity are important aspects of musculoskeletal care. Level of Evidence: Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.