Quantifying success after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: the minimal clinically important percentage of maximal possible improvement

被引:3
|
作者
Nieboer, Micah J. [1 ]
Hao, Kevin A. [2 ]
Tams, Carl [3 ]
King, Joseph J. [4 ]
Wright, Thomas W. [4 ]
Simovitch, Ryan W. [5 ]
Parsons, Moby [6 ]
Schoch, Bradley S. [7 ,8 ]
机构
[1] Mayo Clin, Dept Orthoped Surg, Rochester, MN USA
[2] Univ Florida, Coll Med, Gainesville, FL USA
[3] Exactech Inc, Gainesville, FL USA
[4] Univ Florida, Dept Orthopaed Surg & Rehabil, Gainesville, FL USA
[5] Hosp Special Surg, Dept Orthopaed Surg, W Palm Beach, FL USA
[6] Knee Hip & Shoulder Ctr, Portsmouth, NH USA
[7] Mayo Clin, Dept Orthoped Surg, Jacksonville, FL USA
[8] Mayo Clin, Dept Orthoped Surg & Rehabil, 4500 San Pablo Rd, Jacksonville, FL 32224 USA
关键词
Shoulder replacement; clinical outcome; patient satisfaction; American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score; Simple Shoulder Test; Shoulder Arthroplasty Smart score; maximal outcome improvement; ELBOW SURGEONS SCORE; IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE; AMERICAN SHOULDER; OUTCOMES; PAIN;
D O I
10.1016/j.jse.2023.04.011
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: In high functioning patients, the ceiling effect associated with many patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) limits the ability to appropriately stratify success. The percentage maximal possible improvement (%MPI) was introduced as another evaluation tool, with a proposed threshold of success at 30%. It remains unclear if this threshold correlates with perceived patient success following shoulder arthroplasty. The purpose of this study was to compare the proportion of patients that achieved the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and %MPI for different outcome scores and to define the %MPI thresholds associated with patient satisfaction following primary reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA).Methods: A retrospective review was performed of an international shoulder arthroplasty database between 2003 and 2020. All primary rTSAs performed using a single implant system with minimum 2-year follow-up were reviewed. Pre-and postoperative outcome scores were evaluated for all patients to determine the raw improvement and %MPI. The proportion of patients achieving the MCID and 30% MPI were determined for each outcome score. Thresholds for the minimal clinically important %MPI (MCI-%MPI) were calculated using an anchor-based method for each outcome score and stratified by age and sex.Results: A total of 2573 shoulders with a mean follow-up of 47 months were included. Outcome scores with known ceiling effects (Simple Shoulder Test [SST], Shoulder Pain and Disability Index [SPADI], University of California-Los Angeles shoulder score [UCLA]) had higher rates of patients achieving the 30% MPI but not the previously reported MCID. Inversely, outcome scores without significant ceiling effects (Constant and Shoulder Arthroplasty Smart [SAS] scores) had higher rates of patients achieving the MCID, but not the 30% MPI. The MCI-%MPI differed among outcome scores and mean values were as follows: 33% for the SST, 27% for the Constant score, 35% for the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form (ASES) score, 43% for the UCLA score, 34% for the SPADI score, and 30% for the SAS score. The MCI-%MPI increased with greater age for SPADI (P < .04) and SAS (P < .01) scores, meaning that patients with higher thresholds required a greater fraction of the possible improvement for a given score to be satisfied but did not reach statistical significance for other scores. Females had a greater MCI-%MPI for the SAS and ASES scores and a lower MCI-MPI% for the SPADI score.Conclusion: The %MPI offers a simple method to quickly assess improvements across patient outcome scores. However, the %MPI that represents patient improvement after surgery is not uniformly the previously established 30% threshold. Surgeons should use score-specific estimates of the MCI-%MPI to gauge success when evaluating patients undergoing primary rTSA.Level of evidence: Basic Science Study; Validation of Outcome Instruments (c) 2023 Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Board of Trustees. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:2296 / 2302
页数:7
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Does the Relationship Between Preoperative Function and Achievement of Clinically Important Benchmarks of Success After Total Shoulder Arthroplasty Depend on Outcome Assessment Design?
    Hao, Kevin A.
    Hones, Keegan M.
    O'Keefe, Daniel S.
    Elwell, Josie
    Simovitch, Ryan W.
    Wright, Thomas W.
    King, Joseph J.
    Schoch, Bradley S.
    CLINICAL ORTHOPAEDICS AND RELATED RESEARCH, 2025, 483 (03) : 377 - 395
  • [32] Improvement in sleep quality after total shoulder arthroplasty
    Weinberg, Maxwell
    Mollon, Brent
    Kaplan, Daniel
    Zuckerman, Joseph
    Strauss, Eric
    PHYSICIAN AND SPORTSMEDICINE, 2020, 48 (02): : 194 - 198
  • [33] Minimal clinically important difference for improvement in six-minute walk test in persons with knee osteoarthritis after total knee arthroplasty
    King, Lauren K.
    Hawker, Gillian A.
    Stanaitis, Ian
    Woodhouse, Linda
    Jones, C. Allyson
    Waugh, Esther J.
    BMC MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS, 2022, 23 (01)
  • [34] Minimal clinically important difference for improvement in six-minute walk test in persons with knee osteoarthritis after total knee arthroplasty
    Lauren K. King
    Gillian A. Hawker
    Ian Stanaitis
    Linda Woodhouse
    C. Allyson Jones
    Esther J. Waugh
    BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 23
  • [35] Rate of Improvement in Clinical Outcomes with Anatomic and Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty
    Simovitch, Ryan W.
    Friedman, Richard J.
    Cheung, Emilie V.
    Flurin, Pierre-Henri
    Wright, Thomas
    Zuckerman, Joseph D.
    Roche, Christopher
    JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY-AMERICAN VOLUME, 2017, 99 (21): : 1801 - 1811
  • [36] Minimal important change and minimum clinically important difference values of the KOOS-12 after total knee arthroplasty
    Eckhard, Lukas
    Munir, Selin
    Wood, David
    Talbot, Simon
    Brighton, Roger
    Walter, William L.
    Bare, Jonathan
    KNEE, 2021, 29 : 541 - 546
  • [37] Nursing experience of multiple shoulder dislocations after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty
    Xiao, Gongqin
    Zhang, Jing
    He, Hangying
    ASIAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2023, 46 (02) : 876 - 877
  • [38] The minimal clinically important differences of the Simple Shoulder Test are different for different arthroplasty types
    McLaughlin, Richard J.
    Whitson, Anastasia J.
    Panebianco, Anna
    Warme, Winston J.
    Matsen, Frederick A., III
    Hsu, Jason E.
    JOURNAL OF SHOULDER AND ELBOW SURGERY, 2022, 31 (08) : 1640 - 1646
  • [39] Complications and further surgery after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty
    Kriechling, P.
    Zaleski, M.
    Loucas, R.
    Loucas, M.
    Fleischmann, M.
    Wieser, K.
    BONE & JOINT JOURNAL, 2022, 104B (03): : 401 - 407
  • [40] Postrehabilitation Exercise Considerations After Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty
    Salamh, Paul A.
    Kolber, Morey J.
    Cheatham, Scott W.
    Hanney, William J.
    Speer, Kevin P.
    Singh, Hardy
    STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING JOURNAL, 2014, 36 (04) : 23 - 33