Stratification of the minimal clinically important difference, substantial clinical benefit, and patient acceptable symptomatic state after total shoulder arthroplasty by implant type, preoperative diagnosis, and sex

被引:1
|
作者
Simovitch, Ryan W. [1 ]
Elwell, Josie [2 ]
Colasanti, Christopher A. [3 ]
Hao, Kevin A. [4 ]
Friedman, Richard J. [5 ]
Flurin, Pierre-Henri [6 ]
Wright, Thomas W. [4 ]
Schoch, Bradley S. [7 ]
Roche, Christopher P. [2 ]
Zuckerman, Joseph D. [3 ]
机构
[1] Hosp Special Surg, W Palm Beach, FL USA
[2] Exactech Inc, Gainesville, FL USA
[3] NYU, Langone Orthoped Hosp, New York, NY USA
[4] Univ Florida, Dept Orthopaed Surg & Sports Med, Gainesville, FL USA
[5] Med Univ South Carolina, Charleston, SC USA
[6] Clin Sport Bordeaux Merignac, Dept Orthopaed Surg, Merignac, France
[7] Mayo Clin, Dept Orthopaed Surg, Jacksonville, FL USA
关键词
MCID; SCB; PASS; RTSA; reverse total shoulder arthroplasty; ATSA; anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty; QUANTIFYING SUCCESS; OUTCOMES; OSTEOARTHRITIS;
D O I
10.1016/j.jse.2024.01.040
中图分类号
R826.8 [整形外科学]; R782.2 [口腔颌面部整形外科学]; R726.2 [小儿整形外科学]; R62 [整形外科学(修复外科学)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: Clinical significance, as opposed to statistical significance, has increasingly been utilized to evaluate outcomes after total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). The purpose of this study was to identify thresholds of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) for TSA outcome metrics and determine if these thresholds are influenced by prosthesis type (anatomic or reverse TSA), sex, or preoperative diagnosis. Methods: A prospectively collected international multicenter database inclusive of 38 surgeons was queried for patients receiving a primary aTSA or rTSA between 2003 and 2021. Prospectively, outcome metrics including ASES, shoulder function score (SFS), SST, UCLA, Constant, VAS Pain, shoulder arthroplasty smart (SAS) score, forward flexion, abduction, external rotation, and internal rotation was recorded preoperatively and at each follow-up. A patient satisfaction question was administered at each follow-up. Anchor-based MCID, SCB, and PASS were calculated as defined previously overall and according to implant type, preoperative diagnosis, and sex. The percentage of patients achieving thresholds was also quantified. Results: A total of 5851 total shoulder arthroplasties (TSAs) including aTSA (n = 2236) and rTSA (n = 3615) were included in the study cohort. The following were identified as MCID thresholds for the overall (aTSA thorn rTSA irrespective of diagnosis or sex) cohort: VAS Pain (-1.5), SFS (1.2), SST (2.1), Constant (7.2), ASES (13.9), UCLA (8.2), SPADI (-21.5), and SAS (7.3), Abduction (13 degrees), Forward elevation (16 degrees), External rotation (4 degrees), Internal rotation score (0.2). SCB thresholds for the overall cohort were: VAS Pain (-3.3), SFS (2.9), SST 3.8), Constant (18.9), ASES (33.1), UCLA (12.3), SPADI (-44.7), and SAS (18.2), Abduction (30 degrees), Forward elevation (31 degrees), External rotation (12 degrees), Internal rotation score (0.9). PASS thresholds for the overall cohort were: VAS Pain (0.8), SFS (7.3), SST (9.2), Constant (64.2), ASES (79.5), UCLA (29.5), SPADI (24.7), and SAS (72.5), Abduction (104 degrees), Forward elevation (130 degrees), External rotation (30 degrees), Internal rotation score (3.2). MCID, SCB, and PASS thresholds varied depending on preoperative diagnosis and sex. Conclusion: MCID, SCB, and PASS thresholds vary depending on implant type, preoperative diagnosis, and sex. A comprehensive understanding of these differences as well as identification of clinically relevant thresholds for legacy and novel metrics is essential to assist surgeons in evaluating their patient's outcomes, interpreting the literature, and counseling their patients preoperatively regarding expectations for improvement. Given that PASS thresholds are fragile and vary greatly depending on cohort variability, caution should be exercised in conflating them across different studies. (c) 2024 Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Board of Trustees. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:e492 / e506
页数:15
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Values derived from patient reported outcomes in spine surgery: a systematic review of the minimal clinically important difference, substantial clinical benefit, and patient acceptable symptom state
    Tariq Z. Issa
    Yunsoo Lee
    Tyler W. Henry
    Delano Trenchfield
    Gregory D. Schroeder
    Alexander R. Vaccaro
    Christopher K. Kepler
    European Spine Journal, 2023, 32 : 3333 - 3351
  • [22] Values derived from patient reported outcomes in spine surgery: a systematic review of the minimal clinically important difference, substantial clinical benefit, and patient acceptable symptom state
    Issa, Tariq Z.
    Lee, Yunsoo
    Henry, Tyler W.
    Trenchfield, Delano
    Schroeder, Gregory D.
    Vaccaro, Alexander R.
    Kepler, Christopher K.
    EUROPEAN SPINE JOURNAL, 2023, 32 (10) : 3333 - 3351
  • [23] Changes and thresholds in the Forgotten Joint Score after total hip arthroplasty MINIMAL CLINICALLY IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE, MINIMAL IMPORTANT AND DETECTABLE CHANGES, AND PATIENT-ACCEPTABLE SYMPTOM STATE
    Robinson, P. G.
    MacDonald, D. J.
    Macpherson, G. J.
    Patton, J. T.
    Clement, N. D.
    BONE & JOINT JOURNAL, 2021, 103B (12): : 1759 - 1765
  • [24] Identifying Aseptic Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty Diagnoses That Achieve Minimal Clinically Important Difference and Patient Acceptable Symptom State
    Bendich, Ilya
    Tarity, Thomas D.
    Alpaugh, Kyle
    Lyman, Stephen
    Diane, Alioune
    Sculco, Peter K.
    McLawhorn, Alexander S.
    JOURNAL OF ARTHROPLASTY, 2023, 38 (07): : 1309 - 1312
  • [25] Reaching Minimal Clinically Important Difference, Substantial Clinical Benefit, and Patient-Acceptable Symptomatic State for Patient-Reported Outcome Measures following Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair Does Not Correlate with Patient Satisfaction
    Khan, Adam Z.
    Vaughan, Alayna K.
    Aman, Zachary S.
    Lazarus, Mark D.
    Williams, Gerald R.
    Namdari, Surena
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE, 2024, 13 (09)
  • [26] Defining Minimal Clinically Important Difference and Patient Acceptable Symptom State After the Latarjet Procedure
    Menendez, Mariano E.
    Sudah, Suleiman Y.
    Cohn, Matthew R.
    Narbona, Pablo
    Ladermann, Alexandre
    Barth, Johannes
    Denard, Patrick J.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE, 2022, 50 (10): : 2761 - 2766
  • [27] Meaningful values in the Forgotten Joint Score after total knee arthroplasty MINIMAL CLINICAL IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE, MINIMAL IMPORTANT AND DETECTABLE CHANGES, AND PATIENT-ACCEPTABLE SYMPTOM STATE
    Clement, N. D.
    Scott, C. E. H.
    Hamilton, D. F.
    MacDonald, D.
    Howie, C. R.
    BONE & JOINT JOURNAL, 2021, 103B (05): : 846 - 854
  • [28] Establishing the Minimal Clinically Important Difference and Patient-Acceptable Symptomatic State After Arthroscopic Meniscal Repair and Associated Variables for Achievement
    Maheshwer, Bhargavi
    Wong, Stephanie E.
    Polce, Evan M.
    Paul, Katlynn
    Forsythe, Brian
    Bush-Joseph, Charles
    Bach, Bernard R.
    Yanke, Adam B.
    Cole, Brian J.
    Verma, Nikhil N.
    Chahla, Jorge
    ARTHROSCOPY-THE JOURNAL OF ARTHROSCOPIC AND RELATED SURGERY, 2021, 37 (12): : 3479 - 3486
  • [29] Minimal clinically important difference (MCID), patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS), and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) following surgical knee ligament reconstruction: a systematic review
    Migliorini, Filippo
    Maffulli, Nicola
    Jeyaraman, Madhan
    Schafer, Luise
    Rath, Bjoern
    Huber, Thorsten
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF TRAUMA AND EMERGENCY SURGERY, 2025, 51 (01)
  • [30] What Are the Diagnosis-Specific Thresholds of Minimal Clinically Important Difference and Patient Acceptable Symptom State in Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score After Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty?
    Emara, Ahmed K.
    Pasqualini, Ignacio
    Jin, Yuxuan
    Klika, Alison K.
    Orr, Melissa N.
    Rullan, Pedro J.
    Piuzzi, Nicolas S.
    JOURNAL OF ARTHROPLASTY, 2024, 39 (07): : 1783 - 1788.e2