Minimal important difference and patient acceptable symptom state for pain, Constant-Murley score and Simple Shoulder Test in patients with subacromial pain syndrome.

BACKGROUND: The results of clinical trials should be assessed for both statistical significance and importance of observed effects to patients. Minimal important difference (MID) is a threshold denoting a difference that is important to patients. Patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) is a threshold above which patients feel well. OBJECTIVE: To determine MID and PASS for common outcome instruments in patients with subacromial pain syndrome (SAPS). METHODS: We used data from the FIMPACT trial, a randomised controlled trial of treatment for SAPS that included 193 patients. The outcomes were shoulder pain at rest and on arm activity, both measured with the 0-100 mm visual analogue scale (VAS), the Constant-Murley score (CS), and the Simple Shoulder Test (SST). The transition question was a five-point global rating of change. We used three anchor-based methods to determine the MID for improvement: the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, the mean difference of change and the mean change methods. For the PASS, we used the ROC and 75th percentile methods and calculated estimates using two different anchor question thresholds. RESULTS: Different MID methods yielded different estimates. The ROC method yielded the smallest estimates for MID: 20 mm for shoulder pain on arm activity, 10 points for CS and 1.5 points for SST, with good to excellent discrimination (areas under curve (AUCs) from 0.86 to 0.94). We could not establish a reliable MID for pain at rest. The PASS estimates were consistent between methods. The ROC method PASS thresholds using a conservative anchor question threshold were 2 mm for pain at rest, 9 mm for pain on activity, 80 points for CS and 11 points for SST, with AUCs from 0.74 to 0.83. CONCLUSION: We recommend the smallest estimate from different methods as the MID, because it is very unlikely that changes smaller than the smallest MID estimate are important to patients: 20 mm for pain VAS on arm activity, 10 points for CS and 1.5 points for SST. We recommend PASS estimates of 9 mm for pain on arm activity, 80 points for CS, and 11 points for SST. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00428870 (first registered January 29, 2007).

Subacromial decompression versus diagnostic arthroscopy for shoulder impingement: a 5-year follow-up of a randomised, placebo surgery controlled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the long-term efficacy of arthroscopic subacromial decompression (ASD) by comparing it with diagnostic arthroscopy (primary comparison), a placebo surgical intervention, and with a non-operative alternative, exercise therapy (secondary comparison). METHODS: We conducted a multicentre, three group, randomised, controlled superiority trial. We included 210 patients aged 35-65 years, who had symptoms consistent with shoulder impingement syndrome for more than 3 months. 175 participants (83%) completed the 5 years follow-up. Patient enrolment began on 1 February 2005 and the 5-year follow-up was completed by 10 October 2018. The two primary outcomes were shoulder pain at rest and on arm activity measured with Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Minimally important difference (MID) was set at 15. We used a mixed-model repeated measurements analysis of variance with participant as a random factor, the baseline value as a covariate and assuming a covariance structure with compound symmetry. RESULTS: In the primary intention to treat analysis (ASD vs diagnostic arthroscopy), there were no between-group differences that exceeded the MID for the primary outcomes at 5 years: the mean difference between groups (ASD minus diagnostic arthroscopy) in pain VAS were -2.0 (95% CI -8.5 to 4.6; p=0.56) at rest and -8.0 (-17.3 to 1.3; p=0.093) on arm activity. There were no between-group differences in the secondary outcomes or adverse events that exceeded the MID. In our secondary comparison (ASD vs exercise therapy), the mean differences between groups (ASD minus exercise therapy) in pain VAS were 1.0 (-5.6 to 7.6; p=0.77) at rest and -3.9 (-12.8 to 5.1; p=0.40) on arm activity. There were no significant between-group differences for the secondary outcomes or adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: ASD provided no benefit over diagnostic arthroscopy (or exercise therapy) at 5 years for patients with shoulder impingement syndrome.

Platelet-rich Plasma or Autologous Blood Do Not Reduce Pain or Improve Function in Patients with Lateral Epicondylitis: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and autologous blood are commonly used therapies for lateral epicondylitis, but the evidence from randomized, placebo-controlled trials is conflicting. Thus, it is still unclear if patients benefit from these treatments. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: In the setting of a randomized, placebo-controlled trial, we compared PRP, autologous blood, and saline injections in the treatment of lateral epicondylitis with respect to: (1) VAS pain scores, and (2) functional outcomes (DASH score and grip strength) 1 year after treatment. METHODS: We performed a parallel-group, randomized, controlled participant- and assessor-blinded study including adults with clinically diagnosed lateral epicondylitis. We defined lateral epicondylitis as pain in the lateral humeral epicondyle area exacerbated during resisted wrist extension and epicondyle compression. The participants were recruited from a secondary referral center, after not responding to initial nonoperative treatment. Patients with other concomitant upper-limb symptoms and surgical treatment of the elbow were excluded. Randomization sequence was generated with computer software and concealed from the investigators. We randomized 119 participants to receive an injection of PRP, autologous blood, or saline (1:1:1) in the proximal insertion of the extensor carpi radialis brevis muscle; 40 participants received PRP, 40 received autologous blood, and 39 received a saline injection. To prepare the PRP, we collected venous blood with a syringe kit followed by centrifugation, whereas autologous blood group received unprepared blood injection. Two unblinded investigators gave injections while the participant was unable to see the injection. There was no formal postinjection rehabilitation protocol and the use of NSAIDs was similar between different treatment arms. Follow-up visits were at 4, 8, 12, 26, and 52 weeks after the injection. The primary outcome measure was improvement in pain, measured with VAS scale (without specification as to whether the pain was activity related or at rest; range 0-10; a higher score indicates worse pain; the minimum clinically important difference [MCID] on the 10-cm scale was 1.5 cm), from baseline to 52 weeks. The secondary outcomes were the DASH score (range 0-100; a higher indicates a poorer outcome, and the MCID was 10.2 points) and grip strength. All patients were included in the analyses, and analyses were performed using the intention-to-treat principle. There was no crossover between treatment groups. At 52 weeks, nearly all (95% [38 of 40]) participants in autologous blood group were available for analysis whereas 78% (31 of 40) and 82% (32 of 39) were available in PRP and saline groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov and funded by the local hospital district. With 40 patients in each group, we had 80% power to detect a clinically important improvement in pain (1.5 cm on the 10-cm VAS pain scale). RESULTS: There were no clinically important differences in the mean VAS pain or DASH scores among the groups at any timepoint. At 52 weeks, the mean difference in the VAS score for pain was -0.2 (95% CI -1.5 to 1.1; p = 0.75) for PRP versus saline and 0.5 (95% CI -0.7 to 1.7; p = 0.40) for autologous blood versus saline. The corresponding mean differences in the DASH score were 0.0 (95% CI -9.2 to 9.2; p > 0.99) and 7.7 (95% CI -1.3 to 16.7; p = 0.09) and those for grip strength were 1.4 kg (95% CI -3.3 to 6.1; p = 0.56) and -0.2 kg (95% CI -5.0 to 4.5; p = 0.92). No complications occurred because of the injections. CONCLUSIONS: PRP or autologous blood injections did not improve pain or function at 1 year of follow-up in people with lateral epicondylitis compared with those who were given a saline injection. However, because the 95% CIs did not exclude the MCID in VAS scores for autologous blood versus saline at 52 weeks, it is possible that a larger study could identify a between-group difference that we missed, but the effect size of that difference (based on our findings), even if present, is likely still to be small. Until or unless future randomized trials convincingly show a benefit either to PRP or autologous blood injections, we recommend against their use in patients with lateral epicondylitis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, therapeutic study.

Arthroscopic Coracoclavicular Ligament Reconstruction of Chronic Acromioclavicular Dislocations Using Autogenous Semitendinosus Graft: A Two-Year Follow-up Study of 58 Patients.

PURPOSE: To determine the results of operatively treated chronic acromioclavicular (AC) joint dislocations after 2-year follow-up. METHODS: Fifty-eight patients with chronic acromioclavicular separations underwent arthroscopic coracoclavicular ligament reconstructions using semitendinosus autografts. Constant and Simple Shoulder Test scores were determined before and 2 years after surgery as a part of standard clinical practice. General patient satisfaction with the outcome (poor, fair, or excellent) also was assessed. In addition, for purposes of routine clinical follow-up, the coracoclavicular distance was measured from the inferior cortex of the clavicle to the superior cortex of the coracoid using anteroposterior radiographs taken 2 years after surgery. The results were compared with postoperative radiographs and changes in the distance were recorded. The clavicular drill hole was similarly measured 2 years after surgery to detect possible tunnel widening. RESULTS: The mean preoperative Constant score increased from a preoperative mean of 52.6 ± 16.5 to 94.7 ± 7.9 at 2 years postoperatively (P = .000). The Simple Shoulder Test score increased from a preoperative mean of 7.7 ± 1.64 to 11.8 ± 0.7 (P = .000). The mean coracoclavicular distance increased from 10.5 ± 3.4 to 12.4 ± 3.9 mm (P = .009). The diameter of the clavicular drill hole increased from 6.0 mm to a mean of 8.4 mm. Two coracoid fractures were observed, but no clavicular fractures. One patient experienced a deep infection, leading to total reconstruction failure, and 2 patients had superficial postoperative infections. Forty-five patients (85%) reported excellent subjective outcomes, and 8 (15%) reported a fair outcome. CONCLUSIONS: The outcomes of this series of coracoclavicular ligament reconstruction were favorable and the number of serious complications was small. However, clavicular wound issues were a significant problem. Coracoclavicular ligament reconstruction is a challenging procedure, but satisfactory results can be achieved with careful patient selection and good technique. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic case series.

Subacromial decompression versus diagnostic arthroscopy for shoulder impingement: randomised, placebo surgery controlled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of arthroscopic subacromial decompression (ASD) by comparing it with diagnostic arthroscopy, a placebo surgical intervention, and with a non-operative alternative, exercise therapy, in a more pragmatic setting. DESIGN: Multicentre, three group, randomised, double blind, sham controlled trial. SETTING: Orthopaedic departments at three public hospitals in Finland. PARTICIPANTS: 210 patients with symptoms consistent with shoulder impingement syndrome, enrolled from 1 February 2005 with two year follow-up completed by 25 June 2015. INTERVENTIONS: ASD, diagnostic arthroscopy (placebo control), and exercise therapy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Shoulder pain at rest and on arm activity (visual analogue scale (VAS) from 0 to 100, with 0 denoting no pain), at 24 months. The threshold for minimal clinically important difference was set at 15. RESULTS: In the primary intention to treat analysis (ASD versus diagnostic arthroscopy), no clinically relevant between group differences were seen in the two primary outcomes at 24 months (mean change for ASD 36.0 at rest and 55.4 on activity; for diagnostic arthroscopy 31.4 at rest and 47.5 on activity). The observed mean difference between groups (ASD minus diagnostic arthroscopy) in pain VAS were -4.6 (95% confidence interval -11.3 to 2.1) points (P=0.18) at rest and -9.0 (-18.1 to 0.2) points (P=0.054) on arm activity. No between group differences were seen between the ASD and diagnostic arthroscopy groups in the secondary outcomes or adverse events. In the secondary comparison (ASD versus exercise therapy), statistically significant differences were found in favour of ASD in the two primary outcomes at 24 months in both VAS at rest (-7.5, -14.0 to -1.0, points; P=0.023) and VAS on arm activity (-12.0, -20.9 to -3.2, points; P=0.008), but the mean differences between groups did not exceed the pre-specified minimal clinically important difference. Of note, this ASD versus exercise therapy comparison is not only confounded by lack of blinding but also likely to be biased in favour of ASD owing to the selective removal of patients with likely poor outcome from the ASD group, without comparable exclusions from the exercise therapy group. CONCLUSIONS: In this controlled trial involving patients with a shoulder impingement syndrome, arthroscopic subacromial decompression provided no benefit over diagnostic arthroscopy at 24 months. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00428870.

Arthroscopic Coracoclavicular Ligament Reconstruction Using Graft Augmentation and Titanium Implants.

Several techniques have been introduced to treat acromioclavicular separation with coracoclavicular ligament reconstruction using graft augmentation. A modified arthroscopic technique for coracoclavicular ligament reconstruction was used based on a previous technique where the supportive device and tendon graft share the clavicular and coracoid drill holes. A notable problem with the previous technique was large protruding suture knots on the washer and clavicle, which could predispose to wound infection. In this modified technique, titanium implants were introduced. The implants hid the suture knot on the clavicle, and less foreign material was needed between the clavicular and coracoid implants.

Arthroscopic partial meniscectomy versus placebo surgery for a degenerative meniscus tear: a 2-year follow-up of the randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess if arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) is superior to placebo surgery in the treatment of patients with degenerative tear of the medial meniscus. METHODS: In this multicentre, randomised, participant-blinded and outcome assessor-blinded, placebo-surgery controlled trial, 146 adults, aged 35-65 years, with knee symptoms consistent with degenerative medial meniscus tear and no knee osteoarthritis were randomised to APM or placebo surgery. The primary outcome was the between-group difference in the change from baseline in the Western Ontario Meniscal Evaluation Tool (WOMET) and Lysholm knee scores and knee pain after exercise at 24 months after surgery. Secondary outcomes included the frequency of unblinding of the treatment-group allocation, participants' satisfaction, impression of change, return to normal activities, the incidence of serious adverse events and the presence of meniscal symptoms in clinical examination. Two subgroup analyses, assessing the outcome on those with mechanical symptoms and those with unstable meniscus tears, were also carried out. RESULTS: In the intention-to-treat analysis, there were no significant between-group differences in the mean changes from baseline to 24 months in WOMET score: 27.3 in the APM group as compared with 31.6 in the placebo-surgery group (between-group difference, -4.3; 95% CI, -11.3 to 2.6); Lysholm knee score: 23.1 and 26.3, respectively (-3.2; -8.9 to 2.4) or knee pain after exercise, 3.5 and 3.9, respectively (-0.4; -1.3 to 0.5). There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in any of the secondary outcomes or within the analysed subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: In this 2-year follow-up of patients without knee osteoarthritis but with symptoms of a degenerative medial meniscus tear, the outcomes after APM were no better than those after placebo surgery. No evidence could be found to support the prevailing ideas that patients with presence of mechanical symptoms or certain meniscus tear characteristics or those who have failed initial conservative treatment are more likely to benefit from APM.

Finnish Subacromial Impingement Arthroscopy Controlled Trial (FIMPACT): a protocol for a randomised trial comparing arthroscopic subacromial decompression and diagnostic arthroscopy (placebo control), with an exercise therapy control, in the treatment of shoulder impingement syndrome.

INTRODUCTION: Arthroscopic subacromial decompression (ASD) is the most commonly performed surgical intervention for shoulder pain, yet evidence on its efficacy is limited. The rationale for the surgery rests on the tenet that symptom relief is achieved through decompression of the rotator cuff tendon passage. The primary objective of this superiority trial is to compare the efficacy of ASD versus diagnostic arthroscopy (DA) in patients with shoulder impingement syndrome (SIS), where DA differs only by the lack of subacromial decompression. A third group of supervised progressive exercise therapy (ET) will allow for pragmatic assessment of the relative benefits of surgical versus non-operative treatment strategies. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Finnish Subacromial Impingement Arthroscopy Controlled Trial is an ongoing multicentre, three-group randomised controlled study. We performed two-fold concealed allocation, first by randomising patients to surgical (ASD or DA) or conservative (ET) treatment in 2:1 ratio and then those allocated to surgery further to ASD or DA in 1:1 ratio. Our two primary outcomes are pain at rest and at arm activity, assessed using visual analogue scale (VAS). We will quantify the treatment effect as the difference between the groups in the change in the VAS scales with the associated 95% CI at 24 months. Our secondary outcomes are functional assessment (Constant score and Simple shoulder test), quality of life (15D and SF-36), patient satisfaction, proportions of responders and non-responders, reoperations/treatment conversions, all at 2 years post-randomisation, as well as adverse effects and complications. We recruited a total of 210 patients from three tertiary referral centres. We will conduct the primary analysis on the intention-to-treat basis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Pirkanmaa Hospital District and duly registered at ClinicalTrials.gov. The findings of this study will be disseminated widely through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00428870; Pre-results.

Uni- and bipolar hemiarthroplasty with a modern cemented femoral component provides elderly patients with displaced femoral neck fractures with equal functional outcome and survivorship at medium-term follow-up.

INTRODUCTION: The choice between unipolar and bipolar hemiarthroplasty for treatment of displaced intracapsular femoral neck fractures in elderly patients still remains controversial. Our objective was to compare series of elderly individuals with a displaced femoral neck fracture treated with either a cemented, modular unipolar or bipolar prosthesis with the same femoral component. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A prospective, randomized controlled trial of 175 displaced intracapsular femoral neck fractures in patients over 65 years was randomly allocated to unipolar (88) and to bipolar (87) hemiarthroplasty group. The primary end point was implant survival. Secondary end points included difference in ambulatory ability and mortality. Follow-up evaluations were performed at 2 months, at 1, 3 and 5 years. Implant and patient survival were followed until 2/2012. Survival analyses were performed using Kaplan-Meier curves with log-rank test. Data were analyzed using Chi-square test and Student's t test. RESULTS: Unipolar hemiarthroplasty group had a significantly higher dislocation rate when compared with bipolar hemiarthroplasty group. This did not translate into difference in revision rates at 8 years. Prosthetic survival ship was 0.98 (95% Cl 0.94-1.00) in the unipolar group and 0.97 (95% Cl 0.93-1.00) in the bipolar group. There were no statistically significant differences in ambulatory ability, possibility to return home mortality or early radiological acetabular erosion. There were significantly more one-time dislocations in the unipolar group, but there was no difference in incidence of revisions due to recurrent dislocations. The overall mortality rate was 6% at 30 days, 9% at 90 days, 16% at 12 months, and 53% at 5 years. There was no difference in mortality between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Unipolar hemiarthroplasty group had a significantly higher dislocation rate when compared with bipolar hemiarthroplasty group. However, both provide elderly patients with equal ambulatory ability and low revision rate at medium-term follow-up.