Literature DB >> 29398395

Quantifying success after total shoulder arthroplasty: the substantial clinical benefit.

Ryan Simovitch1, Pierre-Henri Flurin2, Thomas Wright3, Joseph D Zuckerman4, Christopher P Roche5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: An understanding of the substantial clinical benefit (SCB) after total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) may help to gauge a minimum threshold beyond which a patient perceives his or her outcome as being substantially better. This study quantifies SCB for 7 outcome metrics and active motion measurements after shoulder arthroplasty and determines how these values vary based on prosthesis type, patient age at surgery, sex, and length of follow-up.
METHODS: A total of 1,568 shoulder arthroplasties with 2-year minimum follow-up were performed by 13 shoulder surgeons and enrolled in a multicenter registry. The SCB for the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Shoulder Assessment, Constant Score, University of California Los Angeles Shoulder Rating Scale, Simple Shoulder Test, Shoulder Pain and Disability Index, global shoulder function, and visual analog scale pain scores, as well as active abduction, flexion, and external rotation were calculated for different patient cohorts using an anchor-based method.
RESULTS: The anchor-based SCB results were American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, 31.5 ± 2.0; Constant Score, 19.1 ± 1.7; University of California Los Angeles Shoulder Rating Scale score, 12.6 ± 0.5; Simple Shoulder Test score,  3.4 ± 0.3; Shoulder Pain and Disability Index score,  45.4 ± 2.2; global shoulder function, 3.1 ± 0.2; visual analog scale, 3.2 ± 0.3; active abduction, 28.5° ± 3.1°; active forward flexion, 35.4° ± 3.5°; and active external rotation, 11.7° ± 1.9°. Anatomic TSA patients, male patients, and patients of longer follow-up duration were associated with higher SCB values than female patients, reverse TSA patients, and patients of shorter follow-up duration.
CONCLUSION: Our analysis demonstrated two-thirds of patients achieved the SCB threshold after TSA. Generally, a change of 30% of the total possible score for each outcome metric approximates or exceeds this SCB threshold.
Copyright © 2017 Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Board of Trustees. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty; SCB; reverse total shoulder arthroplasty; shoulder arthroplasty; shoulder replacement; substantial clinical benefit

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29398395     DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2017.12.014

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Shoulder Elbow Surg        ISSN: 1058-2746            Impact factor:   3.019


  21 in total

1.  One and two-year clinical outcomes for a polyethylene glenoid with a fluted peg: one thousand two hundred seventy individual patients from eleven centers.

Authors:  Frederick A Matsen; Joseph P Iannotti; R Sean Churchill; Lieven De Wilde; T Bradley Edwards; Matthew C Evans; Edward V Fehringer; Gordon I Groh; James D Kelly; Christopher M Kilian; Giovanni Merolla; Tom R Norris; Giuseppe Porcellini; Edwin E Spencer; Anne Vidil; Michael A Wirth; Stacy M Russ; Moni Neradilek; Jeremy S Somerson
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2018-12-03       Impact factor: 3.075

2.  Arthroscopic treatment and subacromial decompression of calcific tendinitis without removal of the calcific deposit results in rapid resolution of symptoms and excellent clinical outcomes in commercial airline pilots and cabin crew.

Authors:  Erik Hohmann; Kevin Tetsworth
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2022-02-17       Impact factor: 3.067

3.  Improved Clinical Outcomes After Lateralized Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Jóni Nunes; Renato Andrade; Clara Azevedo; Nuno V Ferreira; Nuno Oliveira; Emílio Calvo; João Espregueira-Mendes; Nuno Sevivas
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2021-12-13       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  Establishing the Minimal Clinically Important Difference and Substantial Clinical Benefit for the Pain Visual Analog Scale in a Postoperative Hand Surgery Population.

Authors:  Dustin J Randall; Yue Zhang; Haojia Li; James C Hubbard; Nikolas H Kazmers
Journal:  J Hand Surg Am       Date:  2022-05-27       Impact factor: 2.342

5.  Substantial Inconsistency and Variability Exists Among Minimum Clinically Important Differences for Shoulder Arthroplasty Outcomes: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  David A Kolin; Michael A Moverman; Nicholas R Pagani; Richard N Puzzitiello; Jeremy Dubin; Mariano E Menendez; Andrew Jawa; Jacob M Kirsch
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2022-03-17       Impact factor: 4.755

6.  A randomised trial comparing two rehabilitation approaches following reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.

Authors:  Peter K Edwards; Jay R Ebert; Brendan Joss; Timothy Ackland; Allan Wang
Journal:  Shoulder Elbow       Date:  2020-07-09

7.  CORR Insights®: Substantial Inconsistency and Variability Exists Among Minimum Clinically Important Differences for Shoulder Arthroplasty Outcomes: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Joseph D Zuckerman
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2022-04-14       Impact factor: 4.755

8.  Substantial clinical benefit, responsiveness, and sensitivity to change of three common outcome measures following shoulder arthroplasty.

Authors:  Helen Razmjou; Leila Rahnama; Richard Holtby; Darren Drosdowech; Robin Richards
Journal:  SAGE Open Med       Date:  2020-07-27

9.  Articular surface failure in hybrid anatomic glenoid components: a unique failure mechanism.

Authors:  Joseph G Monir; William K Powers; Joseph J King; Thomas W Wright; Bradley S Schoch
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2021-06-15

10.  What Is the Accuracy of Three Different Machine Learning Techniques to Predict Clinical Outcomes After Shoulder Arthroplasty?

Authors:  Vikas Kumar; Christopher Roche; Steven Overman; Ryan Simovitch; Pierre-Henri Flurin; Thomas Wright; Joseph Zuckerman; Howard Routman; Ankur Teredesai
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2020-10       Impact factor: 4.755

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.