Gregory Cunningham1, Alexandre Lädermann2, Patrick J Denard3, Omar Kherad4, Stephen S Burkhart5. 1. Division of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, Department of Surgery, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland. 2. Division of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, Department of Surgery, Geneva University Hospitals, Geneva, Switzerland; Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland; Division of Orthopaedics and Trauma Surgery, La Tour Hospital, Meyrin, Switzerland. 3. Southern Oregon Orthopedics, Medford, Oregon and Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, U.S.A. 4. Division of Internal Medicine, La Tour Hospital, Meyrin, Switzerland. 5. The San Antonio Orthopaedic Group, San Antonio, Texas, U.S.A.. Electronic address: ssburkhart@msn.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) and the Single Assessment Numerical Evaluation (SANE) scores after rotator cuff repair, rotator cuff revision, and SLAP repair. METHODS: This study was a retrospective review of a prospectively filled database of 262 patients who underwent arthroscopic surgery for rotator cuff tears or SLAP lesions between 1999 and 2007. All patients were operated on by the same surgeon, with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. The patient database included preoperative and outcome measures, such as pain, range of motion, and notably postoperative ASES and SANE scores. Any patient with incomplete data was removed from the study. RESULTS: Three groups were identified: primary rotator cuff repair (n = 135), rotator cuff revision (n = 73), and SLAP repair (n = 54). The overall mean ASES and SANE scores after surgery were 82.7 (± 20.2) and 83.3 (± 19.6), respectively. The Pearson correlation coefficient (r) between both scores was 0.8 (P < .001), demonstrating a very good correlation. In subgroup analysis, the correlation was highest in the cuff revision group (r = 0.88; P < .001) followed by the SLAP group (r = 0.78; P < .001) and primary cuff group (r = 0.75; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that there is a significant correlation between postoperative SANE and ASES rating methods in rotator cuff and SLAP repairs. We recommend the SANE score as a reliable outcome indicator for iterative follow-up, which can then be combined with a more clinically informative score such as the ASES or other process-based scores for preoperative and final workup. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative study.
PURPOSE: To compare the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) and the Single Assessment Numerical Evaluation (SANE) scores after rotator cuff repair, rotator cuff revision, and SLAP repair. METHODS: This study was a retrospective review of a prospectively filled database of 262 patients who underwent arthroscopic surgery for rotator cuff tears or SLAP lesions between 1999 and 2007. All patients were operated on by the same surgeon, with a minimum follow-up of 2 years. The patient database included preoperative and outcome measures, such as pain, range of motion, and notably postoperative ASES and SANE scores. Any patient with incomplete data was removed from the study. RESULTS: Three groups were identified: primary rotator cuff repair (n = 135), rotator cuff revision (n = 73), and SLAP repair (n = 54). The overall mean ASES and SANE scores after surgery were 82.7 (± 20.2) and 83.3 (± 19.6), respectively. The Pearson correlation coefficient (r) between both scores was 0.8 (P < .001), demonstrating a very good correlation. In subgroup analysis, the correlation was highest in the cuff revision group (r = 0.88; P < .001) followed by the SLAP group (r = 0.78; P < .001) and primary cuff group (r = 0.75; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that there is a significant correlation between postoperative SANE and ASES rating methods in rotator cuff and SLAP repairs. We recommend the SANE score as a reliable outcome indicator for iterative follow-up, which can then be combined with a more clinically informative score such as the ASES or other process-based scores for preoperative and final workup. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative study.
Authors: Samuel G McClatchy; Griffin M Heise; William M Mihalko; Frederick M Azar; Richard A Smith; Dexter H Witte; John G Stanfill; Thomas W Throckmorton; Tyler J Brolin Journal: Shoulder Elbow Date: 2020-05-14