Eric C Makhni1, Michael E Steinhaus2, Zachary S Morrow3, Charles M Jobin4, Nikhil N Verma5, Brian J Cole5, Bernard R Bach5. 1. Division of Sports Medicine, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA. Electronic address: ericmakhnimd@gmail.com. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA. 3. Drexel Medical School, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 4. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA. 5. Division of Sports Medicine, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, IL, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Assessments used to measure outcomes associated with rotator cuff pathology and after repair are varied. This lack of standardization leads to difficulty drawing comparisons across studies. We hypothesize that this variability in patient-reported outcome measures and objective metrics used in rotator cuff studies persists even in high-impact, peer reviewed journals. METHODS: All studies assessing rotator cuff tear and repair outcomes in 6 orthopedic journals with a high impact factor from January 2010 to December 2014 were reviewed. Cadaveric and animal studies and those without outcomes were excluded. Outcome measures included range of motion (forward elevation, abduction, external rotation, and internal rotation), strength (in the same 4 planes), tendon integrity imaging, patient satisfaction, and functional assessment scores. RESULTS: Of the 156 included studies, 63% documented range of motion measurements, with 18% reporting range of motion in all 4 planes. Only 38% of studies reported quantitative strength measurements. In 65% of studies, tendon integrity was documented with imaging (38% magnetic resonance imaging/magnetic resonance anrhrogram, 31% ultrasound, and 8% computed tomography arthrogram). Finally, functional score reporting varied significantly, with the 5 most frequently reported scores ranging from 16% to 61% in studies, and 15 of the least reported outcomes were each reported in ≤6% of studies. CONCLUSIONS: Significant variability exists in outcomes reporting after rotator cuff tear and repair, making comparisons between clinical studies difficult. Creating a uniformly accepted, validated outcomes tool that assesses pain, function, patient satisfaction, and anatomic integrity would enable consistent outcomes assessment after operative and nonoperative management and allow comparisons across the literature.
BACKGROUND: Assessments used to measure outcomes associated with rotator cuff pathology and after repair are varied. This lack of standardization leads to difficulty drawing comparisons across studies. We hypothesize that this variability in patient-reported outcome measures and objective metrics used in rotator cuff studies persists even in high-impact, peer reviewed journals. METHODS: All studies assessing rotator cuff tear and repair outcomes in 6 orthopedic journals with a high impact factor from January 2010 to December 2014 were reviewed. Cadaveric and animal studies and those without outcomes were excluded. Outcome measures included range of motion (forward elevation, abduction, external rotation, and internal rotation), strength (in the same 4 planes), tendon integrity imaging, patient satisfaction, and functional assessment scores. RESULTS: Of the 156 included studies, 63% documented range of motion measurements, with 18% reporting range of motion in all 4 planes. Only 38% of studies reported quantitative strength measurements. In 65% of studies, tendon integrity was documented with imaging (38% magnetic resonance imaging/magnetic resonance anrhrogram, 31% ultrasound, and 8% computed tomography arthrogram). Finally, functional score reporting varied significantly, with the 5 most frequently reported scores ranging from 16% to 61% in studies, and 15 of the least reported outcomes were each reported in ≤6% of studies. CONCLUSIONS: Significant variability exists in outcomes reporting after rotator cuff tear and repair, making comparisons between clinical studies difficult. Creating a uniformly accepted, validated outcomes tool that assesses pain, function, patient satisfaction, and anatomic integrity would enable consistent outcomes assessment after operative and nonoperative management and allow comparisons across the literature.
Authors: Bauke Kooistra; Navin Gurnani; Alexander Weening; Michel van den Bekerom; Derek van Deurzen Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2019-09-18 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Eric C Makhni; Jason T Hamamoto; John D Higgins; Taylor Patterson; Justin W Griffin; Anthony A Romeo; Nikhil N Verma Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2017-03-09
Authors: Mitchell I Kennedy; Colin Murphy; Grant J Dornan; Gilbert Moatshe; Jorge Chahla; Robert F LaPrade; Matthew T Provencher Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2019-05-30
Authors: Jeremy Goodman; Brian C Lau; Ryan J Krupp; Charlie L Getz; Brian T Feeley; C Benjamin Ma; Alan L Zhang Journal: JSES Open Access Date: 2018-02-22