Literature DB >> 27392769

What Change in American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Score Represents a Clinically Important Change After Shoulder Arthroplasty?

Brian C Werner1, Brenda Chang2, Joseph T Nguyen2, David M Dines2, Lawrence V Gulotta2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) questionnaire was developed to provide a standardized method for evaluating shoulder function. Previous studies have determined the clinical responsiveness of this outcome measure for heterogenous populations or patients with nonoperatively treated rotator cuff disease. Currently, to our knowledge, no studies exist that establish the clinically relevant change in the ASES score after shoulder arthroplasty. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We asked: (1) What are the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) for the ASES score after primary and reverse shoulder arthroplasties? (2) Are the MCID and SCB for the ASES score different between primary and reverse shoulder arthroplasties? (3) What patient-related factors are associated with achieving the MCID and SCB after total shoulder arthroplasty and reverse shoulder arthroplasty?
METHODS: A longitudinally maintained institutional shoulder arthroplasty registry was retrospectively queried for patients who underwent primary shoulder arthroplasty, including anatomic or reverse total shoulder arthroplasty from 2007 to 2013, with a minimum 2-year followup. Seven hundred ninety-four patients were identified and eligible; 304 of these patients did not have 2 years of followup or complete datasets, resulting in a study cohort of 490 patients (62% of the 794 potentially eligible). The MCID and SCB of the ASES score for these patients was calculated using an anchor-based method, using four different anchors measuring satisfaction with work, activities, overall, and activity from the SF-36. The MCID (anchored to somewhat satisfied) and SCB (very satisfied) of the ASES score were calculated for the entire cohort and stratified by arthroplasty type. Multivariate logistic regression of patient-related factors that influence the MCID and SCB achievement was performed.
RESULTS: The MCID for all patients combined ranged from 6.3 to 13.5; for the overall satisfaction anchor, the MCID was 13.5 ± 4.5 (95% CI, 4.8-22.3). The SCB for the overall cohort ranged from 12.0 to 36.6; for the overall satisfaction anchor, the SCB was 36.6 ± 3.8 (95% CI, 29.1-44.1). There were no differences in the MCID of the ASES score between anatomic and reverse shoulder arthroplasty for any of the anchors (p = 0.159-0.992) or the SCB for any of the anchors (p = 0.467-0.977). Combining anatomic and reverse shoulder arthroplasty in one group, higher preoperative ASES score (odds ratio [OR], 0.96; 95% CI, 0.94-0.98; p < 0.001), having a reverse shoulder arthroplasty (OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.16-0.85; p = 0.016), and having rheumatoid arthritis were independent predictors of not achieving an MCID for the ASES 2 years after surgery. Higher preoperative ASES score (OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.89-0.92; p < 0.001), a diagnosis of rotator cuff tear arthropathy (OR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.07-0.30; p < 0.001), a diagnosis of back pain (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.24-0.71); p = 0.002), and living alone (OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.19-0.69; p = 0.002) were all independent predictors of not achieving SCB after shoulder arthroplasty.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients with glenohumeral arthritis or rotator cuff tear arthropathy who undergo primary conventional total or reverse shoulder arthroplasty and have at least a nine-point improvement in their ASES score experience a clinically important change, whereas those who have at least a 23-point improvement in their ASES score experience a substantial clinical benefit. High preoperative function was associated with a decreased likelihood of achieving clinically important change after total shoulder arthroplasty. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27392769      PMCID: PMC5085930          DOI: 10.1007/s11999-016-4968-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res        ISSN: 0009-921X            Impact factor:   4.176


  18 in total

1.  American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form, patient self-report section: reliability, validity, and responsiveness.

Authors:  Lori A Michener; Philip W McClure; Brian J Sennett
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2002 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.019

2.  The minimal clinically important difference for function and strength in patients undergoing reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

Authors:  Carlos Torrens; Pau Guirro; Fernando Santana
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2015-09-28       Impact factor: 3.019

3.  Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for massive rotator cuff tear: risk factors for poor functional improvement.

Authors:  Robert U Hartzler; Brandon M Steen; Michael M Hussey; Michael C Cusick; Benjamin J Cottrell; Rachel E Clark; Mark A Frankle
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2015-07-11       Impact factor: 3.019

4.  Clinical outcomes of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in patients aged younger than 60 years.

Authors:  Robert A Sershon; Geoffrey S Van Thiel; Emery C Lin; Kevin C McGill; Brian J Cole; Nikhil N Verma; Anthony A Romeo; Gregory P Nicholson
Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg       Date:  2013-10-12       Impact factor: 3.019

Review 5.  Health economic studies: an introduction to cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness, and cost-utility analyses.

Authors:  Peter D Angevine; Sigurd Berven
Journal:  Spine (Phila Pa 1976)       Date:  2014-10-15       Impact factor: 3.468

6.  Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific Quality of Life Questionnaire.

Authors:  E F Juniper; G H Guyatt; A Willan; L E Griffith
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1994-01       Impact factor: 6.437

7.  Comparison of hemiarthroplasty and reverse shoulder arthroplasty for the treatment of proximal humeral fractures in elderly patients.

Authors:  Derek J Cuff; Derek R Pupello
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2013-11-20       Impact factor: 5.284

8.  Minimal clinically important differences in ASES and simple shoulder test scores after nonoperative treatment of rotator cuff disease.

Authors:  Robert Z Tashjian; Julia Deloach; Andrew Green; Christina A Porucznik; Amy P Powell
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 5.284

Review 9.  Patient satisfaction: Implications and predictors of success.

Authors:  Eric D Shirley; James O Sanders
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2013-05-15       Impact factor: 5.284

10.  Minimal clinically important improvement (MCII) and patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) in total hip arthroplasty (THA) patients 1 year postoperatively.

Authors:  Aksel Paulsen; Ewa M Roos; Alma B Pedersen; Søren Overgaard
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2013-11-29       Impact factor: 3.717

View more
  37 in total

1.  Statistics In Brief: Minimum Clinically Important Difference-Availability of Reliable Estimates.

Authors:  Mitchell Maltenfort; Claudio Díaz-Ledezma
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2017-01-03       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 2.  Advances and Update on Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Stephen G Thon; Adam J Seidl; Jonathan T Bravman; Eric C McCarty; Felix H Savoie; Rachel M Frank
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2020-02

Review 3.  Minimal Clinically Important Difference, Substantial Clinical Benefit, and Patient Acceptable Symptom State of Outcome Measures Relating to Shoulder Pathology and Surgery: a Systematic Review.

Authors:  Favian Su; Sachin Allahabadi; Dale N Bongbong; Brian T Feeley; Drew A Lansdown
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2021-01-12

4.  Comparative Effectiveness of Operative Versus Nonoperative Treatment for Rotator Cuff Tears: A Propensity Score Analysis From the ROW Cohort.

Authors:  Nitin B Jain; Gregory D Ayers; Run Fan; John E Kuhn; Jon J P Warner; Keith M Baumgarten; Elizabeth Matzkin; Laurence D Higgins
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  2019-09-13       Impact factor: 6.202

5.  Which Is the Best Outcome Measure for Rotator Cuff Tears?

Authors:  Dominique I Dabija; Jacquelyn S Pennings; Kristin R Archer; Gregory D Ayers; Laurence D Higgins; John E Kuhn; Keith M Baumgarten; Elizabeth Matzkin; Nitin B Jain
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2019-08       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  Minimal Clinically Important Difference of Shoulder Outcome Measures and Diagnoses: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Dominique I Dabija; Nitin B Jain
Journal:  Am J Phys Med Rehabil       Date:  2019-08       Impact factor: 2.159

7.  Preoperative PROMIS Scores Predict Postoperative PROMIS Score Improvement for Patients Undergoing Hand Surgery.

Authors:  David N Bernstein; Jeff R Houck; Ronald M Gonzalez; Danielle M Wilbur; Richard J Miller; David J Mitten; Warren C Hammert
Journal:  Hand (N Y)       Date:  2018-08-03

8.  Minimal Clinically Important Differences and Substantial Clinical Benefit in Patient-Reported Outcome Measures after Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation.

Authors:  Takahiro Ogura; Jakob Ackermann; Alexandre Barbieri Mestriner; Gergo Merkely; Andreas H Gomoll
Journal:  Cartilage       Date:  2018-09-15       Impact factor: 4.634

9.  Acromion Compromise Does Not Significantly Affect Clinical Outcomes After Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Matched Case-Control Study.

Authors:  Brian C Werner; Lawrence V Gulotta; Joshua S Dines; David M Dines; Russell F Warren; Edward V Craig; Samuel A Taylor
Journal:  HSS J       Date:  2018-11-27

10.  Use of Platelet-Rich Plasma for the Improvement of Pain and Function in Rotator Cuff Tears: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis With Bias Assessment.

Authors:  Xiao Chen; Ian A Jones; Ryan Togashi; Caron Park; C Thomas Vangsness
Journal:  Am J Sports Med       Date:  2019-11-19       Impact factor: 6.202

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.