Literature DB >> 20675755

The use of patient-reported outcome measures and patient satisfaction ratings to assess outcome in hemiarthroplasty of the shoulder.

J L Rees1, J Dawson, G C R Hand, C Cooper, A Judge, A J Price, D J Beard, A J Carr.   

Abstract

We have compared the outcome of hemiarthroplasty of the shoulder in three distinct diagnostic groups, using survival analysis as used by the United Kingdom national joint registers, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) as recommended by Darzi in the 2008 NHS review, and transition and satisfaction questions. A total of 72 hemiarthroplasties, 19 for primary osteoarthritis (OA) with an intact rotator cuff, 22 for OA with a torn rotator cuff, and 31 for rheumatoid arthritis (RA), were followed up for between three and eight years. All the patients survived, with no revisions or dislocations and no significant radiological evidence of loosening. The mean new Oxford shoulder score (minimum/worst 0, maximum/best 48) improved significantly for all groups (p < 0.001), in the OA group with an intact rotator cuff from 21.4 to 38.8 (effect size 2.9), in the OA group with a torn rotator cuff from 13.3 to 27.2 (effect size 2.1) and in the RA group from 13.7 to 28.0 (effect size 3.1). By this assessment, and for the survival analysis, there was no significant difference between the groups. However, when ratings using the patient satisfaction questions were analysed, eight (29.6%) of the RA group were 'disappointed', compared with one (9.1%) of the OA group with cuff intact and one (7.7%) of the OA group with cuff torn. All patients in the OA group with cuff torn indicated that they would undergo the operation again, compared to ten (90.9%) in the OA group with cuff intact and 20 (76.9%) in the RA group. The use of revision rates alone does not fully represent outcome after hemiarthroplasty of the shoulder. Data from PROMs provides more information about change in pain and the ability to undertake activities and perform tasks. The additional use of satisfaction ratings shows that both the rates of revision surgery and PROMs need careful interpretation in the context of patient expectations.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20675755     DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.92B8.22860

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br        ISSN: 0301-620X


  9 in total

1.  The development and validation of a questionnaire for rotator cuff disorders: The Functional Shoulder Score.

Authors:  Anestis Iossifidis; Edward F Ibrahim; Charalambos Petrou; Antonis Galanos
Journal:  Shoulder Elbow       Date:  2015-09-23

2.  Preoperative factors associated with patient satisfaction 2 years after elective shoulder surgery.

Authors:  Dominic J Ventimiglia; Matthew T Chrencik; Matheus B Schneider; Tina Zhang; Murty M Munn; Logan C Kolakowski; Mohit N Gilotra; S Ashfaq Hasan; R Frank Henn
Journal:  JSES Int       Date:  2022-05-13

3.  Long-term follow-up of the Copeland mark III shoulder resurfacing hemi-arthroplasty.

Authors:  Paul Rai; Owain Davies; Jon Wand; Ewan Bigsby
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2015-10-01

4.  What is the correlation between patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) scores and patient satisfaction following elective reverse total shoulder replacement?

Authors:  Rachael L C Daw; Jo Gibson; Denise Prescot; Laura Bonnett; Matthew Smith
Journal:  Shoulder Elbow       Date:  2017-12-14

5.  Injection versus Decompression for Carpal Tunnel Syndrome-Pilot trial (INDICATE-P)-protocol for a randomised feasibility study.

Authors:  Will Mason; Daniel Ryan; Asif Khan; Hui-Ling Kerr; David Beard; Jonathan Cook; Ines Rombach; Cushla Cooper
Journal:  Pilot Feasibility Stud       Date:  2017-04-24

6.  6-Year clinical results and survival of Copeland Resurfacing hemiarthroplasty of the shoulder in a consecutive series of 279 cases.

Authors:  Andrew P Dekker; Nirad Joshi; Marie Morgan; Marius Espag; Amol A Tambe; David I Clark
Journal:  J Clin Orthop Trauma       Date:  2019-05-22

7.  Good function after shoulder arthroplasty.

Authors:  Bjørg-Tilde S Fevang; Stein H L Lygre; Glenn Bertelsen; Arne Skredderstuen; Leif I Havelin; Ove Furnes
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2012-09-05       Impact factor: 3.717

8.  The CSAW Study (Can Shoulder Arthroscopy Work?) - a placebo-controlled surgical intervention trial assessing the clinical and cost effectiveness of arthroscopic subacromial decompression for shoulder pain: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  David Beard; Jonathan Rees; Ines Rombach; Cushla Cooper; Jonathan Cook; Naomi Merritt; Alastair Gray; Stephen Gwilym; Andrew Judge; Julian Savulescu; Jane Moser; Jenny Donovan; Marcus Jepson; Caroline Wilson; Irene Tracey; Karolina Wartolowska; Benjamin Dean; Andrew Carr
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2015-05-09       Impact factor: 2.279

9.  Arthroscopic subacromial decompression for subacromial shoulder pain (CSAW): a multicentre, pragmatic, parallel group, placebo-controlled, three-group, randomised surgical trial.

Authors:  David J Beard; Jonathan L Rees; Jonathan A Cook; Ines Rombach; Cushla Cooper; Naomi Merritt; Beverly A Shirkey; Jenny L Donovan; Stephen Gwilym; Julian Savulescu; Jane Moser; Alastair Gray; Marcus Jepson; Irene Tracey; Andrew Judge; Karolina Wartolowska; Andrew J Carr
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2017-11-20       Impact factor: 79.321

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.