Samir Kaveeshwar1, Kali N Stevens2, Dominic J Ventimiglia1, Tina Zhang1, Matheus B Schneider1, Leah E Henry1, S Ashfaq Hasan1, Mohit N Gilotra1, R Henn Frank3. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Maryland School of Medicine, 2200 Kernan Drive, Baltimore, MD, 21207, USA. 2. Case Western Reserve University/University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, Cleveland, OH, USA. 3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Maryland School of Medicine, 2200 Kernan Drive, Baltimore, MD, 21207, USA. fhenn@som.umaryland.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to determine if preoperative expectations (PE) are an independent predictor of greater 2-year outcomes and greater improvement from baseline in shoulder surgery patients. METHODS: Two-hundred and sixteen patients who underwent shoulder surgery at one institution were studied. Patients completed both preoperative and 2-year follow-up questionnaires including PROMIS (Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System) computer-adaptive testing in six domains, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, shoulder numeric pain scale (NPS), and the Marx Shoulder Activity Rating Scale (MARS). PE were measured using the Musculoskeletal Outcomes and Data Evaluation Management System (MODEMS) expectations domain, and satisfaction was measured via the Surgical Satisfaction Questionnaire (SSQ-8). RESULTS: The mean PE score was 86.2 ± 17.8. Greater PE were associated with significantly better 2-year scores for ASES, NPS, MARS, SSQ8, and PROMIS domains of Physical Function, Fatigue, Pain Interference Fatigue and Social Satisfaction. Multivariable analyses demonstrated that greater PE were an independent predictor of both better 2-year scores and greater improvement for PROMIS SS (p < 0.001), ASES (p = 0.007), and shoulder NPS (p = 0.011). CONCLUSION: Greater PE are positively associated with numerous patient-based outcomes 2 years after surgery. With regards to pain relief, shoulder function, and social satisfaction, higher PE are also predictive of better outcome scores and more improvement. This study suggests that preoperative assessment of shoulder surgery PE is important, and that counseling patients to optimize realistic expectations may lead to superior outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to determine if preoperative expectations (PE) are an independent predictor of greater 2-year outcomes and greater improvement from baseline in shoulder surgery patients. METHODS: Two-hundred and sixteen patients who underwent shoulder surgery at one institution were studied. Patients completed both preoperative and 2-year follow-up questionnaires including PROMIS (Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System) computer-adaptive testing in six domains, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, shoulder numeric pain scale (NPS), and the Marx Shoulder Activity Rating Scale (MARS). PE were measured using the Musculoskeletal Outcomes and Data Evaluation Management System (MODEMS) expectations domain, and satisfaction was measured via the Surgical Satisfaction Questionnaire (SSQ-8). RESULTS: The mean PE score was 86.2 ± 17.8. Greater PE were associated with significantly better 2-year scores for ASES, NPS, MARS, SSQ8, and PROMIS domains of Physical Function, Fatigue, Pain Interference Fatigue and Social Satisfaction. Multivariable analyses demonstrated that greater PE were an independent predictor of both better 2-year scores and greater improvement for PROMIS SS (p < 0.001), ASES (p = 0.007), and shoulder NPS (p = 0.011). CONCLUSION: Greater PE are positively associated with numerous patient-based outcomes 2 years after surgery. With regards to pain relief, shoulder function, and social satisfaction, higher PE are also predictive of better outcome scores and more improvement. This study suggests that preoperative assessment of shoulder surgery PE is important, and that counseling patients to optimize realistic expectations may lead to superior outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
Authors: Robert H Brophy; Richard L Beauvais; Edward C Jones; Frank A Cordasco; Robert G Marx Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: David Cella; William Riley; Arthur Stone; Nan Rothrock; Bryce Reeve; Susan Yount; Dagmar Amtmann; Rita Bode; Daniel Buysse; Seung Choi; Karon Cook; Robert Devellis; Darren DeWalt; James F Fries; Richard Gershon; Elizabeth A Hahn; Jin-Shei Lai; Paul Pilkonis; Dennis Revicki; Matthias Rose; Kevin Weinfurt; Ron Hays Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2010-08-04 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Sharon E Culliton; Dianne M Bryant; Tom J Overend; Steven J MacDonald; Bert M Chesworth Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2011-11-23 Impact factor: 4.757
Authors: Bailey A Dyck; Michael G Zywiel; Anisah Mahomed; Rajiv Gandhi; Anthony V Perruccio; Nizar N Mahomed Journal: Expert Rev Med Devices Date: 2014-05-03 Impact factor: 3.166
Authors: Michael C Fu; Brenda Chang; Alexandra C Wong; Benedict U Nwachukwu; Russell F Warren; David M Dines; Joshua S Dines; Frank A Cordasco; Stephen Lyman; Lawrence V Gulotta Journal: J Shoulder Elbow Surg Date: 2019-04-19 Impact factor: 3.019
Authors: Charlotte J Auer; Julia A Glombiewski; Bettina K Doering; Alexander Winkler; Johannes A C Laferton; Elizabeth Broadbent; Winfried Rief Journal: Int J Behav Med Date: 2016-02
Authors: Robert B Bourne; Bert M Chesworth; Aileen M Davis; Nizar N Mahomed; Kory D J Charron Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Rogelio A Coronado; Amee L Seitz; Erica Pelote; Kristin R Archer; Nitin B Jain Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2018-04 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: David Cella; Susan Yount; Nan Rothrock; Richard Gershon; Karon Cook; Bryce Reeve; Deborah Ader; James F Fries; Bonnie Bruce; Mattias Rose Journal: Med Care Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 2.983