Job satisfaction and practice characteristics of shoulder and elbow surgeons: a survey of American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons society members.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study is to assess the current trends in fellowship training, career satisfaction, practice characteristics, and surgical case volume among shoulder and elbow surgeons. METHODS: A web-based, anonymous 25-item survey was sent to the membership of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) in October of 2022. Questions posed included respondent demographics, fellowship training, career satisfaction, practice characteristics, and surgical case characteristics. Descriptive statistics were performed to report demographic information, assess job and training satisfaction rates, and evaluate practice characteristics. Chi-squared and independent samples t-tests were performed to analyze satisfaction rates, job applications, and surgical case volume with regard to years in practice and practice setting. RESULTS: Twenty percent (243/1248) of ASES members satisfactorily completed the survey. Of the 243 ASES member respondents, 97% (236/243) stated that they would pursue their fellowship training again. Ninety-eight percent (239/243) of respondents were satisfied with their specialty choice. One-hundred percent (242/243) were satisfied with their training in shoulder. Seventy-two percent (176/243) were satisfied with their training in elbow. Seventy-four percent (179/243) were satisfied with their job availability and 85% (207/243) were satisfied with their job location. The mean total number of orthopedic surgical cases per year was 393 ± 171. The mean total number of shoulder cases per year was 253 ± 149. The mean total number of elbow cases per year was 41 ± 41. Physicians who have been in practice for 11 years or more were comparatively more satisfied (90% vs. 80%) with their job location (P value = .008) and job availability (81% vs. 64%, P value < .001). Additionally, senior surgeons completed more orthopedic (431 vs. 347, P value < .001) and shoulder (279 vs. 220, P value = .002) cases annually than surgeons earlier in their careers. Satisfaction rates, job applications, and surgical case volume did not associate with practice setting. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of ASES member shoulder and elbow surgeons are satisfied with their training, their case volume and complexity, and their specialty choice. Fewer surgeons are satisfied with their elbow training and overall elbow case volume remains low among shoulder and elbow surgeons. Shoulder and elbow surgeons earlier in their careers perform fewer surgical cases, are less satisfied with their job availability and location, and completed more job applications for their first job after fellowship when compared to more senior surgeons.

Measure what matters: Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) score as the critical measure for shoulder outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Implementation of a system anchored in patient outcomes is challenged to gain widespread adoption required to demonstrate the value of care provided for shoulder conditions. This is in large part because of the administrative burden created by current tools and clinical implementation barriers that limit practical use and therefore leave most clinicians, administrators, payers, and patients without a measure of what matters most: Are patients improving? Thus, we must ask ourselves, How do we accurately and efficiently measure and report quality of care in a simple, reliable, and easily communicated manner? We propose that the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) score is the best solution to measure patient improvement and can be used universally for all shoulder conditions. The measure is simple, valid, reliable, and sensitive to change and has the lowest implementation barrier compared with all other outcome measures. METHODS: We synthesized the available literature (11 studies) that demonstrates strong psychometrics comparable to legacy measures across >4000 patients with a wide range of shoulder conditions. RESULTS: SANE scores range from 40% to 60% at baseline for most patients before treatment and range from 75% to 85% at 1 year after therapy depending on the condition, similar to legacy scores such as the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score. Additionally, the SANE score shows similar baseline and post-care measures across conditions that can be used to guide clinical care. This finding shows that the observed baseline and improvement scores can provide valuable patient assessment and can be used in aggregate for quality improvement and other value-based purposes. CONCLUSION: We strongly recommend the SANE score as the primary patient outcome measure for patients with all shoulder conditions, given the value of measuring every patient's progress and growing pressure to quantify patient outcomes.

American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons perspectives on political advocacy.

BACKGROUND: Physician involvement in political advocacy has become increasingly important in recent years. This study aims to explore the types of involvement and barriers to involvement in political advocacy among American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) members, identify issues considered most important by ASES members, and assess demographic factors that might correlate with involvement in political advocacy efforts among ASES members. METHODS: This survey was conducted by the ASES Political Advocacy Committee over a 2-week period in June 2021. The survey collected demographic information including sex, ethnicity, years in practice, practice type, political affiliation, and level of current involvement in political advocacy. Additional questions consisted of thoughts regarding current health care policy issues and the role of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons/ASES regarding such policy issues. RESULTS: We received 297 responses for a total response rate of 27%. Of those who responded, 24.6% identified as Democrat, 33% identified as Republican, and 42.4% identified as Independent. There was no difference in political affiliation between membership groups. Physician Reimbursement (82%), Medical Liability Reform (50%), and Physician Ownership (50%) were the most important issues identified among respondents. Physician Ownership, Physician Reimbursement and Graduate Medical Education and Student Loan Reform were most important to those in early practice, while Quality and Research was most important to those with greater than 25 years of practice experience. CONCLUSION: There is strong agreement among surgeons regarding the most important political advocacy issues. The efforts of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and ASES should focus on these areas. Additionally, the vast majority of respondents felt that advocacy efforts had a positive impact on patients and surgeons.

Utility of superior augments in reverse shoulder arthroplasty (Exactech, Equinoxe GPS) without significant glenoid deformity.

BACKGROUND: Superior augment use may help avoid superior tilt while minimizing removal of inferior glenoid bone. Therefore, our goal was to compare superior augments vs. no-augment baseplates in reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) for patients with rotator cuff dysfunction and no significant superior glenoid erosion. METHODS: A multicenter retrospective analysis of 145 patients who underwent RSA with intraoperative navigation (Equinoxe GPS; Exactech) and 3-year follow-up (mean 32 months' follow-up, range 20-61 months) who had preoperative superior inclination less than 10° and retroversion less than 15°. Patient demographics, radiographic measurements, surgical characteristics, patient-reported outcomes at preoperative and postoperative visit closest to 3 years, and adverse events at final follow-up were obtained. Operative time, planned inclination, and planned version of the baseplate were obtained. χ2 test was used to compare categorical variables, and Student t test was used to compare the augment and no-augment cohorts. RESULTS: The study population consisted of 54 superior augment patients and 91 no-augment patients. The augment cohort had lower body mass index (27.2 vs. 29.4, P = .023) and higher native superior inclination (5.9° vs. 1.4°, P < .001). No difference between the augment and no-augment cohorts was found regarding age (P = .643), gender (P = .314), medical comorbidities (P > .05), surgical indication (P = .082), and native glenoid version (P = .564). The augment cohort had higher internal rotation score (4.6 vs. 3.9, P = .023), and all remaining range of motion (ROM) and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) preoperatively were not significantly different. At final follow-up, active ROM in all planes was not different between the cohorts. Regarding PROs, the postoperative Shoulder Arthroplasty Smart score was significantly higher (78.0 vs. 73.6, P = .042), and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form score trended toward higher (83.6 vs. 77.5, P = .063) in the augment cohort. The augment cohort had a significantly lower proportion of patients who planned to have superior baseplate tilt (1.9% vs. 14.3%, P = .012) and had greater mean inclination correction (6.3° vs. 1.3°, P < .001), compared with the no-augment cohort. Adverse events were rare, and there was no significant difference found between the augment and no-augment cohorts (5.6% vs. 3.3%, P = .509). DISCUSSION: Superior augmented baseplate in RSA with minimal superior glenoid erosion is associated with similar ROM and adverse events with somewhat improved postoperative PROs compared with nonaugmented baseplates at the 3-year follow-up. Additionally, superior augments resulted in a greater proportion of baseplates planned to avoid superior tilt, and trended toward shorter operative times. Further investigation of long-term glenoid baseplate loosening is imperative to fully understand the cost-effectiveness of superior augments in the setting of minimal glenoid deformity.

ChatGPT performance on the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons maintenance of certification exam.

BACKGROUND: While multiple studies have tested the ability of large language models (LLMs), such as ChatGPT, to pass standardized medical exams at different levels of training, LLMs have never been tested on surgical sub-specialty examinations, such as the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) Maintenance of Certification (MOC). The purpose of this study was to compare results of ChatGPT 3.5, GPT-4, and fellowship-trained surgeons on the 2023 ASES MOC self-assessment exam. METHODS: ChatGPT 3.5 and GPT-4 were subjected to the same set of text-only questions from the ASES MOC exam, and GPT-4 was additionally subjected to image-based MOC exam questions. Question responses from both models were compared against the correct answers. Performance of both models was compared to corresponding average human performance on the same question subsets. One sided proportional z-test were utilized to analyze data. RESULTS: Humans performed significantly better than Chat GPT 3.5 on exclusively text-based questions (76.4% vs. 60.8%, P = .044). Humans also performed significantly better than GPT 4 on image-based questions (73.9% vs. 53.2%, P = .019). There was no significant difference between humans and GPT 4 in text-based questions (76.4% vs. 66.7%, P = .136). Accounting for all questions, humans significantly outperformed GPT-4 (75.3% vs. 60.2%, P = .012). GPT-4 did not perform statistically significantly betterer than ChatGPT 3.5 on text-only questions (66.7% vs. 60.8%, P = .268). DISCUSSION: Although human performance was overall superior, ChatGPT demonstrated the capacity to analyze orthopedic information and answer specialty-specific questions on the ASES MOC exam for both text and image-based questions. With continued advancements in deep learning, LLMs may someday rival exam performance of fellowship-trained surgeons.

Higher preoperative expectations predict better outcomes in shoulder surgery patients.

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.

No difference in abstract publication rates between the open and closed American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons meetings from 2013 to 2019.

BACKGROUND: The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) society has advanced the practice of shoulder and elbow care through the exhibition of research at academic meetings. The ASES annual meeting is a closed (member-only) conference annually held in October, while the specialty day is an open (non-members included) event that takes place during the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) meeting week in March. This study aims to compare the rate of publication for abstracts presented at the open and closed ASES meetings from 2013 to 2019. METHODS: The ASES website was searched to obtain the annual meeting and specialty day program agendas from 2013 to 2019. A standardized search protocol was employed to identify conference abstracts that went on to be published. Publications associated with an ASES abstract were analyzed through several variables including the time to publication, journal impact factor (JIF), and level of evidence. RESULTS: There was no difference between the rates of publication of the open (76.5%, 121/158) and closed (75.3%, 223/296) meetings (P = .904). The median time to publication significantly differed between the open (7 months, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 5.0-10.0) and closed (11 months, 95% CI: 9.0-13.0) meetings (P = .02). There was no difference between the median JIF between the open (2.69, 95% CI: 2.41-2.81) and closed (2.73, 95% CI: 2.41-2.81) meetings. The distribution of the level of evidence in published articles comparing the open and closed meetings did not differ significantly (P = .446). DISCUSSION: The overall quality of academic research presented at orthopedic subspecialty conferences can be objectively evaluated through abstract publication rates. Our analysis demonstrates that there is not a single significant difference among the publication rates, median JIF, and level of evidence distribution between the ASES open and closed meetings from 2013 to 2019. Impactful research is showcased at both the open and closed meetings. Societies that limit submissions from members only at annual meetings can consider soliciting research from non-members. While the quality of research would not decline if non-ASES members were invited to participate, the presence of a closed annual meeting may be a valuable tool for societies to expand their reach through member-exclusive benefits.

Factors associated with humeral stem revision in anatomic to reverse total shoulder arthroplasty revision.

BACKGROUND: Recent advances in implant technology have allowed for modular or platform humeral stem insertion during initial anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). These systems allow for humeral stem retention during conversion to reverse TSA (RTSA). However, some patients still require humeral stem revision when undergoing revision to RTSA. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the association between patient-specific factors and radiographic parameters with humeral stem revision vs. retention during conversion from TSA to RTSA. METHODS: Retrospective chart review was conducted for patients who underwent a revision TSA to RTSA between January 2010 and May 2022 at a single institution. Patients were included if their prosthesis included a convertible humeral stem. Patient demographic information, surgical details, and postoperative outcomes and complications were collected. Radiographic parameters were measured by 2 graders on radiographs taken prior to the revision procedure. The need for humeral stem revision and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form (ASES) scores (preoperative and 2 years) were also noted. Statistical analysis was performed using chi-square test for categorical variables and t test for continuous variables. RESULTS: One hundred seven patients were included, with 52 undergoing humeral stem revision. Patients were revised an average of 51.0 ± 54 months after primary TSA. Younger patient age (63.6 vs. 68.5 years, P = .017) and use of a lateralized glenosphere (1.6 mm vs. 0.4 mm, P < .001) were significantly associated with need for humeral stem revision. Glenoid to humeral head cut distance (28.3 mm vs. 26.3 mm, P = .076) approached significant association with the need for humeral stem revision. All other measurements were not associated with the need for humeral stem revision. Improvement of ASES scores at 2 years' follow-up was higher in the nonrevised group (increase of 33.4 points) than the revision group (23.3), but this did not reach significance (P = .149). Estimated blood loss and surgical time were significantly higher in the stem revision group than the non-revised group (P = .048 and P < .001, respectively). CONCLUSION: Younger patients and those receiving a lateralized glenosphere were more likely to undergo humeral stem revision during conversion from TSA to RTSA. Glenoid to the humeral head cut distance should be studied further as a potential indication for humeral stem revision, as it correlates with the space available for a revision implant. This information can guide surgeons with preoperative planning for a revision arthroplasty.

Reverse shoulder arthroplasty with and without baseplate wedge augmentation in the setting of glenoid deformity and rotator cuff deficiency-a multicenter investigation.

INTRODUCTION: Glenoid baseplate augments have recently been introduced as a way of managing glenoid monoplanar or biplanar abnormalities in reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). The purpose of this study is to evaluate the difference in clinical outcomes, complications, and revision rates between augmented and standard baseplates in RSA for rotator cuff arthropathy patients with glenoid deformity. METHODS: A multicenter retrospective analysis of 171 patients with glenoid bone loss who underwent RSA with and without augmented baseplates was performed. Preoperative inclusion criteria included minimum follow-up of 2 years and preoperative retroversion of 15°-30° and/or a beta angle 70°-80°. Version and beta angle were measured on computed tomographic scans, when available, and plain radiographs. Shoulder range of motion (ROM) and patient-reported outcomes were obtained from preoperative and multiple postoperative time points. RESULTS: The study consisted of 84 standard baseplate patients and 87 augmented baseplate patients. The augment cohort had greater mean preoperative glenoid retroversion (17° vs. 9°, P < .001). At >5-year follow-up, the increase in postoperative active abduction (52° vs. 31°, P = .023), forward flexion (58° vs. 35°, P = .020), and internal rotation score (2.8° vs. 1.1°, P = .001) was significantly greater in the augment cohort. Additionally, >5-year follow-up American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form score (87.0 ± 16.6 vs. 75.9 ± 22.4, P = .022), Constant score (78.0 ± 9.7 vs. 64.6 ± 15.1, P < .001), and Shoulder Arthroplasty Smart score (81.2 ± 6.5 vs. 71.2 ± 13.6, P = .003) were significantly higher in the augment cohort. Revision rate was low overall, with no difference between the augment and no augment groups (0.7% vs. 3.0%, P = .151). CONCLUSION: In comparing augments to standard nonaugment baseplates in the setting of RSA with glenoid deformity, our results demonstrate greater postoperative improvements in multiple planes of active ROM in the augment cohort. Additionally, the augment cohort demonstrated greater postoperative level and improvement in scores for multiple clinical outcome metrics up to >5 years of follow-up with no difference in complication or revision rates, supporting the use of augmented glenoid baseplates in RSA with glenoid deformity.

Can the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation be used as a stand-alone subjective outcome instrument in patients undergoing rotator cuff repair?

BACKGROUND/HYPOTHESIS: There is no consensus to which patient-determined shoulder outcome scores should be considered when analyzing patient outcomes. Use of multiple patient-determined outcomes may be redundant and cause increased responder burden. The Single Assessment Numeric (SANE) has not been widely accepted as a stand-alone shoulder-specific outcome measure. The hypothesis was that SANE will correlate with and be comparable in responsiveness to other subjective outcome measures that have been used in a stand-alone fashion in patients undergoing rotator cuff repair (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form [ASES], Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index [WORC], and the Simple Shoulder Test [SST]). In addition, the SANE will be more relevant to each patient compared to the ASES, further supporting its use as a stand-alone shoulder-specific outcomes measure. METHODS: A retrospective review of a database of patients undergoing rotator cuff repair was reviewed where the SANE was recorded with the ASES, WORC, and/or SST. Correlations were determined using the Pearson coefficient. Subgroup analysis was performed to determine if correlations differed in (1) preoperative and (2) postoperative outcome determinations. Responsiveness was determined by calculating the standardized response mean (SRM) and the effect size (ES) of all scores. Relevance and precision of the SANE and ASES were examined using 150 consecutive patients to determine the number of questions in each score that were not answered. RESULTS: Correlation was excellent for the SANE and the ASES (n = 1838, r = 0.81, P < .0001), the WORC (n = 1793, r = 0.82, P < .0001), and the SST (n = 1836, r = 0.76, P < .0001). Correlation of preoperative scores was moderate and postoperative scores were excellent when comparing the SANE with all 3 scores. All scores were highly responsive, with the SRM of the SANE = 2.1, ASES = 2.2, WORC = 2.4, and the SST = 1.8. The ES of the SANE = 2.4, ASES = 2.7, WORC = 3.0, and the SST = 2.1. One hundred percent of the SANE scores were answered completely compared with 57% (P < .0001) of the ASES, with significant variability found in the answers to the "work" and "score" questions. CONCLUSION: In patients undergoing rotator cuff repair, the SANE highly correlated and has equivalent responsiveness with the WORC, ASES, and SST, which have been used as stand-alone shoulder-specific outcomes measures. The SANE may provide the same information as the WORC, ASES, and SST regarding outcome with significant reduction in responder burden. This study supports that the SANE can be used as a subjective, stand-alone instrument for patients undergoing rotator cuff repair.

Two-year outcomes with a bioinductive collagen implant used in augmentation of arthroscopic repair of full-thickness rotator cuff tears: final results of a prospective multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Full-thickness rotator cuff tears (FTRCTs) represent a common shoulder injury that, if untreated, can progress in size, become increasingly painful, and inhibit function. These lesions are often surgically repaired, with double-row arthroscopic repair often preferred for larger tears. Biological augmentation technologies have been developed to improve rates of postoperative radiographic retear and enhance patient-reported outcomes after surgical FTRCT repair. This study sought to confirm that augmented repair with a bioinductive bovine collagen implant results in favorable retear rates and patient outcomes with follow-up to 2 years. METHODS: A prospective multicenter cohort study was undertaken to determine the efficacy and safety of augmenting single- or double-row arthroscopic repair of FTRCTs with a bioinductive bovine collagen implant. Of 115 adult patients participating, 66 (57.4%) had medium (1-3-cm) tears and 49 (42.6%) had large (3-5-cm) tears. Magnetic resonance imaging and patient-reported outcomes (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form [ASES] and Constant-Murley Score [CMS]) were performed and recorded at baseline, 3 months, 1 year, and 2 years. RESULTS: Mean duration of follow-up was 2.1 years (range, 1.5-2.9 years). Between baseline and 2-year follow-up, mean total thickness of the supraspinatus tendon increased by 12.5% for medium tears and by 17.1% for large tears. Radiographic retear was noted in 7 of 61 available patients (11.5%) with medium tears, and in 14 of 40 patients (35.0%) with large tears. In both groups, these tears primarily occurred before the 3-month follow-up visit (13 of 21 [61.9%]). Radiographic retear with the supplemented double-row (DR) repair technique was 13.2% overall (12 of 91 DR patients; 11.3% for medium tears and 15.8% for large tears). The minimal clinically important difference was achieved by >90% of patients with both medium and large tears for both ASES and CMS. There were 2 serious adverse events classified by the treating surgeon as being possibly related to the device and/or procedure (1 case of swelling/drainage and 1 case of intermittent pain). Nine patients (7.8%; 4 medium tears and 5 large tears) required reoperation of the index rotator cuff surgery. CONCLUSION: Final 2-year data from this study confirm that using this implant in augmentation of arthroscopic double-row repair of FTRCTs provides favorable rates of radiographic retear and substantial functional recovery. The relative safety of the device is also further supported.

Early career opportunities and practice characteristics of recent graduates of shoulder and elbow fellowship programs.

BACKGROUND: There exists anecdotal evidence that influential faculty members actively dissuade orthopedic surgery residents from pursuing a fellowship in shoulder and elbow due to a perceived lack of availability of jobs following graduation. The aims of the present study are to evaluate whether this perception is true by characterizing the early career opportunities and practice characteristics of recent graduates of shoulder and elbow fellowship programs through a survey of graduates of the past 5 years. METHODS: An anonymous 39-question survey was designed and approved by the leadership of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES). The survey was distributed via electronic mail to the fellowship directors and coordinators of the 31 ASES-recognized shoulder and elbow fellowship programs. The fellowship directors and coordinators then sent the survey to the shoulder and elbow fellowship graduates of the last 5 years (2016-2020). Following a total of 4 emails, the survey closed after 8 weeks, and descriptive statistical analysis was performed. RESULTS: Seventy-six of 171 (44.4%) fellows responded. In total, 89.5% were very or somewhat satisfied with their fellowship experience, and 90.8% would pursue a shoulder and elbow fellowship again. Notably, 100% of shoulder and elbow fellowship graduates surveyed in the past 5 years have secured employment. The average number of total orthopedic and shoulder and elbow cases performed annually was 296.7 (SD 141.3) and 173.9 (SD 120.2), respectively. In addition, 62.7% and 89% of respondents were very or somewhat satisfied with the volume and surgical complexity of shoulder and elbow cases, respectively. For the fellows that believed their case experience to be inadequate, the most common reasons were competition from other practices (66.0%) and inadequate patient volume (59.6%). CONCLUSION: Recent graduates of the ASES-recognized shoulder and elbow fellowship programs demonstrate a high level of satisfaction with the fellowship and their subspeciality selection. The majority of fellows believed that completing a shoulder and elbow fellowship enhanced their job opportunities. Altogether, there are ample job opportunities and high satisfaction with the volume and complexity of cases as an early career shoulder and elbow surgeon.

Can the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) be used as a stand-alone outcome instrument in patients undergoing total shoulder arthroplasty?

BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS: There is no consensus as to which patient-determined shoulder outcome scores should be considered when analyzing patient outcomes for either clinical or research purposes. Use of multiple patient-determined outcomes may be redundant and cause increased responder burden. To date, the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) has not been widely accepted as a stand-alone shoulder-specific outcome measure. The hypothesis of this study was that the SANE would correlate with and be equal or superior in responsiveness to other outcome measures that have been used in a stand-alone fashion in patients undergoing total shoulder arthroplasty (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons [ASES], Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder [WOOS], and Simple Shoulder Test [SST] scores). In addition, it was hypothesized that the SANE would be more relevant to each patient than the ASES assessment, further supporting the use of the SANE as a stand-alone shoulder-specific outcome measure. METHODS: A retrospective review of a database of patients undergoing total shoulder arthroplasty was performed, in which the SANE score was recorded simultaneously with the ASES, WOOS, and/or SST score. Correlations were determined using the Pearson coefficient. Subgroup analysis was performed to determine whether correlations differed in (1) preoperative outcome and (2) postoperative outcome determinations. Responsiveness was determined by calculating the standardized response mean and the effect size of all scores. The relevance of the SANE and ASES assessments was examined using the scores of 150 consecutive patients to determine the number of questions on each assessment that were not answered. RESULTS: Correlation was excellent for the SANE score and the ASES score (n = 1447, r = 0.82, P < .0001), WOOS score (n = 1514, r = 0.83, P < .0001), and SST score (n = 1095, r = 0.81, P < .0001). The correlation of preoperative scores was moderate and that of postoperative scores was strong-moderate when the SANE score was compared with all 3 other scores. All scores were highly responsive, with standardized response mean values of 2.2 for the SANE score, 2.3 for the ASES score, 1.4 for the WOOS score, and 1.6 for the SST score. The effect size of the SANE score was 2.9; ASES score, 2.9; WOOS score, 2.9; and SST score, 2.3. One hundred percent of the SANE questions were answered completely compared with 61% of the ASES questions (P < .0001). CONCLUSION: In patients undergoing total shoulder arthroplasty, the SANE score highly correlated with the WOOS, ASES, and SST scores, which have been used as stand-alone shoulder-specific outcome measures. The SANE score may provide the same information as the WOOS, ASES, and SST score regarding outcomes with a significant reduction in responder burden. It is logical that the SANE can be used as a stand-alone instrument for patients undergoing total shoulder arthroplasty.

Characterizing preoperative expectations for patients undergoing reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: There remains a paucity of information analyzing which factors most influence preoperative expectations for patients undergoing reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA). The purposes of our study were to characterize preoperative patient expectations for those scheduled to undergo RTSA and to determine the impact of demographic factors, shoulder function, and shoulder pain on these preoperative expectations. METHODS: Patients were prospectively recruited into the study if they were scheduled to undergo an elective unilateral primary RTSA for a diagnosis of glenohumeral arthritis. Preoperative patient expectations were evaluated using the Hospital for Special Surgery's Shoulder Surgery Expectation Survey. Patients also completed the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons shoulder score, the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function-Upper Extremity computer adaptive test (version 2.0), the PROMIS Pain Interference (PI) computer adaptive test (version 1.1), the PROMIS Depression computer adaptive test (version 1.0), visual analog scores, and an itemized satisfaction questionnaire, which paralleled the Hospital for Special Surgery's Shoulder Surgery Expectation Survey. Demographic data and preoperative shoulder range of motion (ROM) were also recorded. RESULTS: A total of 107 patients scheduled to undergo RTSA were included in the study. Relief of daytime pain (n = 91, 85%), improvement in self-care (n = 86, 80%), and improvement in shoulder ROM (n = 85, 79%) were most commonly cited as "very important" expectations. In the item-specific analysis, lower PROMIS Upper Extremity scores were correlated with greater expectations for the ability to reach sideways (P = .015) and the ability to perform daily activities (P = .018). Patients with lower shoulder ROM had greater expectations for improved shoulder ROM (internal rotation with arm at 90°, P = .004) and an improved ability to perform daily activities (forward elevation, P = .038; abduction, P = .009). In the cumulative analysis, a greater number of very important expectations was associated with African American race (P = .013), higher PROMIS PI score (r = 0.351, P = .004), and lower overall preoperative satisfaction (r = 0.334, P < .001). CONCLUSION: Patients scheduled to undergo RTSA have the greatest expectations for relief of daytime pain, improvement in self-care, and improvement in shoulder ROM. Patients with limited preoperative ROM have greater expectations for improvement in self-care and the ability to perform daily activities in addition to expectations for improvement in shoulder ROM. Greater overall expectations for surgery were not associated with preoperative physical function but were instead associated with lower preoperative satisfaction and higher PROMIS PI scores.

PROMIS Upper Extremity underperforms psychometrically relative to American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score in patients undergoing primary rotator cuff repair.

BACKGROUND: A number of patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) instruments are used to assess shoulder pain, function, and postoperative satisfaction. Computer adaptive tests (CATs) have been developed in an effort to tailor question delivery, decrease time to completion and floor/ceiling effects, and increase compliance. Previous investigations have demonstrated excellent correlation between Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Upper Extremity CAT (UE-CAT) and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) instruments, indicating that the PROMIS UE-CAT may be an acceptable alternative to the ASES. Prior to widespread adoption, however, rigorous psychometric validation must be performed. Thus, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of PROMIS UE-CAT relative to the ASES score in patients undergoing primary rotator cuff repair (RCR). METHODS: A retrospective study of an institutional RCR registry was performed from July 2018 through March 2019. Preoperative PROMIS UE-CAT and ASES scores were collected. Floor and ceiling effects were determined, and convergent validity was established through Pearson correlations. Rasch partial credit modeling was used for psychometric analysis of the validity of PROMIS UE-CAT and ASES question items, a previously established methodology for assessing shoulder PROMs. Person-item maps were generated to characterize the distribution of question responses along the latent dimension of shoulder disability. RESULTS: Responses from 107 patients (107 shoulders) were included. PROMIS UE-CAT had a strong correlation to ASES (r = 0.684; P < .001), with a 3.7% floor effect and no ceiling effect; ASES had no floor or ceiling effects. PROMIS UE-CAT person-item maps revealed excellent test item coverage between floor and ceiling effects; however, all PROMIS UE-CAT items except "Difficulty putting on a jacket" demonstrated nonsequentially ordered responses, indicating poor reliability of item responses corresponding to shoulder function. Although PROMIS UE-CAT initially demonstrated superior instrument efficiency with fewer test items for overall equivalent coverage of shoulder function assessment, final models after recursive item elimination revealed the ASES instrument to have more well-fitting items over a broader range of shoulder function. CONCLUSION: Despite its overall strong correlation with ASES and equivalent coverage between floor and ceiling effects, the psychometric properties of PROMIS UE-CAT indicate a need for optimization of individual test items to correspond to shoulder function. Until further refinements in the PROMIS UE-CAT instrument are made, it should not replace the ASES instrument in patients undergoing primary RCR.

Predictors of poor and excellent outcomes after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Favorable clinical and functional outcomes can be achieved with reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). Given the expanding utilization of RSA in the United States, understanding the factors that influence both excellent and poor outcomes is increasingly important. METHODS: A single-surgeon prospective registry was used to identify patients who underwent RSA from 2015 to 2018 with a minimum of 2 years' follow-up. An excellent postoperative clinical outcome was defined as a final American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score in the top quartile of ASES scores. A poor outcome was defined as an ASES score in the bottom quartile. Logistic regression was used to determine preoperative characteristics associated with both excellent and poor outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 338 patients with a mean age of 71.5 years (standard deviation [SD], 6.4 years) met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The average preoperative ASES score for the entire cohort was 35.3 (SD, 16.4), which improved to 82.4 (SD, 16.1) postoperatively (P < .001). Univariate analysis demonstrated that a diagnosis of primary osteoarthritis (OA), private insurance, and higher preoperative ASES scores were significantly associated with achieving excellent outcomes (P < .01 for all). Variables predictive of poor outcomes were workers' compensation status (P = .03), depression (P = .02), a preoperative diagnosis of rotator cuff tear arthropathy (P < .01), preoperative opioid use (P < .01), a higher number of allergies (P < .01), and prior ipsilateral shoulder surgery (P < .01). Multivariate regression analysis demonstrated that OA (odds ratio [OR], 5.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.2-26.5; P = .03) and private insurance (OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.12-6.5; P = .02) correlated with excellent outcomes whereas a higher number of reported allergies (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.71-0.97; P = .02), self-reported depression (OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.16-0.99; P =.04), a history of ipsilateral shoulder surgery (OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.15-0.87; P =.02), and preoperative opioid use (OR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.09-0.76; P = .01) were predictive of poor outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: A preoperative diagnosis of primary OA is the strongest predictor of excellent clinical outcomes following RSA. Patients with an increasing number of reported allergies, self-reported depression, a history of ipsilateral shoulder surgery, and preoperative opioid use are significantly more likely to achieve poor outcomes after RSA. Given the increasing utilization of RSA, this information is important to appropriately counsel patients regarding postoperative expectations.

Mental health status, not resilience, influences functional recovery after arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs.

BACKGROUND: Recent literature has shown the importance of patient psychosocial status in overcoming stressful events, such as surgery. Resilience, the ability to "bounce back" from adversity, has been recently correlated to outcomes following arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (RCR). Overall mental well-being has also been shown to be important because patients with clinical depression and anxiety may have worse outcomes. Substantial clinical benefit (SCB) is the threshold of outcome improvement that a patient perceives as considerable. The purpose of this study was to assess the influence of preoperative resilience, mental health status, and rotator cuff tear size on patient outcome recovery measured by the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score. METHODS: Patients undergoing arthroscopic RCR performed from 2016 through 2019 at a single tertiary institution by fellowship-trained sports surgeons with a high-volume shoulder practice were included. The Brief Resilience Scale (BRS) score and Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey (VR-12) Mental Component Score (MCS) were collected preoperatively. ASES scores were obtained preoperatively, as well as 6 and 12 months postoperatively. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on the SCB threshold of 87 for the ASES score based on validated, established literature. Rotator cuff tear size was classified as small (≤3 cm) or large (>3 cm). VR-12 MCS, BRS, and ASES scores were compared at baseline, 6 months, and 1 year using separate mixed-model analyses of variance between the tear size and SCB groups. For ASES score comparison, the VR-12 MCS was used as a covariate to account for differences in baseline mental status. RESULTS: RCR was performed in 119 patients, with an average age of 61 years (standard deviation, 10 years). There were 71 male and 48 female patients. At 6 months, 43% of patients met the SCB threshold. The VR-12 MCS was significantly different between RCR patients who met the SCB threshold for the ASES score and those who did not at 6 and 12 months for large rotator cuff tears (P = .001) but not small tears (P = .07). The BRS score was not different between the tear size and SCB groups at any time point (P = .12). CONCLUSION: Our results show that patients who met the SCB threshold at 6 months postoperatively after arthroscopic RCR demonstrated higher preoperative VR-12 MCS values; however, higher preoperative BRS scores were not seen in those meeting the SCB threshold. In fact, when baseline VR-12 MCS values were accounted for in patients with large rotator cuff tears, the differences in ASES scores normalized. This finding suggests that baseline mental health status, as measured by the VR-12 MCS, significantly influenced patients' functional recovery following RCR. Future research should focus on preoperative psychosocial well-being to optimize postoperative outcomes.

Outcomes of shoulder arthroplasty by year of index procedure: are we getting better?

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine whether postoperative patient-reported outcomes improved over time following anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA). METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of prospectively collected patient-reported outcomes from our institution's registry between 2008 and 2018 (N = 1899). American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores at a minimum of 2 years postoperatively were required. Univariable linear models were used to test the association between year of surgery and improvement in ASES scores at 2- and 5-year follow-up, as well as any association with age, sex, primary or revision surgery, hand dominance, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, rotator cuff status, primary diagnosis, and Walch classification. Multivariable models were created to analyze ASES score improvement by index year while controlling for significant factors. RESULTS: In the univariable analysis, 5-year ASES difference scores increased each year by a mean of 1.65 (P < .001; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75-2.55) for TSA, 2.50 (P = .014; 95% CI, 0.52-4.49) for RTSA, and 1.64 (P < .001; 95% CI, 0.81-2.47) for the overall population. Patient sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, rotator cuff status, primary diagnosis, Walch classification, and revision procedures were also significant factors affecting ASES scores. On multivariable analysis controlling for these factors, 5-year ASES difference scores were still significantly associated with year of surgery, increasing each year by a mean of 2.20 (P < .001; 95% CI, 0.91-3.50) for TSA, 4.83 (P < .001; 95% CI, 1.17-8.49) for RTSA, and 1.66 (P < .001; 95% CI, 0.81-2.51) for the entire population. CONCLUSION: Both anatomic TSA and RTSA patients reported increasing ASES difference scores at 5-year follow-up as time passed. These findings may indicate that advances in shoulder arthroplasty have resulted in better patient outcomes over time. Further research is needed to clarify which factors influence improvements in outcomes, particularly for revision procedures.

Side-to-side differences in postoperative function and patient satisfaction after bilateral total shoulder arthroplasties.

BACKGROUND: As the number of anatomic and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) procedures increase, there will be a natural increase in patients who undergo staged bilateral TSA procedures. Bilateral TSAs have been shown to improve patient outcomes; however, it is unknown whether these patients experience side-to-side differences in clinical outcomes and satisfaction between shoulders. Understanding these differences is imperative for accurate patient and provider expectations. METHODS: An international multicenter registry was used to identify patients who underwent staged bilateral TSAs from April 2007 to October 2019 with a minimum of 2-year follow-up. American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form (ASES) outcomes and satisfaction ratings were compared between dominant and nondominant shoulders, and first and second arthroplasties. Side-to-side differences in postoperative ASES and unequal satisfaction ratings were also explored by using regression analyses to identify potential factors influencing these differences. RESULTS: A total of 60 patients (22 bilateral anatomic TSAs, 38 bilateral reverse TSAs) were identified for inclusion. Group analyses revealed that bilateral TSA patients demonstrated similar functional outcomes and satisfaction regardless of dominance and surgery sequence. Type of TSA, specifically bilateral reverse TSAs, significantly predicted greater side-to-side differences in postoperative ASES scores (P = .025), indicating reverse TSA patients demonstrated greater between-sides differences in postoperative functional outcomes compared with those undergoing anatomic TSAs. Additionally, a larger proportion of bilateral reverse TSA patients reported unequal satisfaction between shoulders (31.6%) compared with anatomic TSA patients (9.1%). Logistic regression analysis revealed that greater side-to-side differences in postoperative ASES scores were found to increase the likelihood of reporting unequal satisfaction between shoulders (odds ratio 1.11, P < .001), which may explain this outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients who undergo bilateral TSAs can expect similar outcomes on both shoulders regardless of dominance and surgery sequence. However, we did find patients who had discordant results between shoulders. Those who underwent reverse TSAs more frequently reported unequal satisfaction with their TSA procedures, which is likely due to larger side-to-side differences in postoperative function. It is unclear why these differences occurred, but this information may be important for providers to remember when counseling these patients for accurate postoperative expectations.

The Chinese version of the American shoulder and elbow surgeons standardized shoulder assessment form questionnaire, patient self-report section: a cross-cultural adaptation and validation study.

BACKGROUND: The patient self-report section of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form (ASESp) is one of the most validated and reliable assessment tools. This study aimed to establish a validated Chinese version of ASESp (ASESp-CH). METHODS: A clinical prospective study was performed (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04755049; registered on 2021/02/11). Following the guidelines of forward-backward translation and cross-cultural adaptation, a Chinese version of ASESp was established. Patients older than 18 years with shoulder disorders were included. Patients who could not complete test-retest questionnaires within the interval of 7-30 days and patients who received interventions were excluded. Intraclass correlation (ICC) was calculated for test- retest reliability, whereas internal consistency was determined by Cronbach value. Construct validity was evaluated by comparing the corresponding domains between the ASESp-CH and a validated Chinese version of 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36). RESULTS: A total of 86 patients were included with a mean test-retest interval of 12 ± 5.4 days. Test-retest reliability was excellent with an ICC of 0.94. Good internal consistency was found, with a Cronbach alpha of 0.86. Construct validity of the ASESp-CH questionnaire was good. The major domains of the ASESp-CH were significantly correlated with the respective domains in the SF-36 (p <  0.01), except for the domain of stability of ASESp-CH. CONCLUSIONS: The Chinese version of ASESp questionnaire is a highly validated and reliable tool for shoulder disorder assessment.