Management of irreparable massive rotator cuff tears: a systematic review and meta-analysis of patient-reported outcomes, reoperation rates, and treatment response.

BACKGROUND: There is no consensus on the treatment of irreparable massive rotator cuff tears. The goal of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to (1) compare patient-reported outcome scores, (2) define failure and reoperation rates, and (3) quantify the magnitude of patient response across treatment strategies. METHODS: The MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), and Scopus databases were searched for studies including physical therapy and operative treatment of massive rotator cuff tears. The criteria of the Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies were used to assess study quality. Primary outcome measures were patient-reported outcome scores as well as failure, complication, and reoperation rates. To quantify patient response to treatment, we compared changes in the Constant-Murley score and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score with previously reported minimal clinically important difference (MCID) thresholds. RESULTS: No level I or II studies that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria were found. Physical therapy was associated with a 30% failure rate among the included patients, and another 30% went on to undergo surgery. Partial repair was associated with a 45% retear rate and 10% reoperation rate. Only graft interposition was associated with a weighted average change that exceeded the MCID for both the Constant-Murley score and ASES score. Latissimus tendon transfer techniques using humeral bone tunnel fixation were associated with a 77% failure rate. Superior capsular reconstruction with fascia lata autograft was associated with a weighted average change that exceeded the MCID for the ASES score. Reverse arthroplasty was associated with a 10% prosthesis failure rate and 8% reoperation rate. CONCLUSION: There is a lack of high-quality comparative studies to guide treatment recommendations. Compared with surgery, physical therapy is associated with less improvement in perceived functional outcomes and a higher clinical failure rate.

Development of a clinical risk calculator for prolonged opioid use after shoulder surgery.

BACKGROUND: Understanding risk factors associated with prolonged opioid use to help mitigate abuse and develop presurgical screening programs to identify at-risk patients is paramount. The purpose of this study was to develop and validate a clinical risk assessment tool to preoperatively predict prolonged opioid use after shoulder surgery. METHODS: A total of 561 patients who underwent shoulder surgery within a tertiary health care system were identified, and opioid prescription data were retrospectively collected from the Connecticut Prescription Monitoring and Reporting System. The inclusion criteria were patients aged 18 years or older, and the exclusion criteria were patients not registered in the Connecticut Prescription Monitoring and Reporting System. Quantities of opioids prescribed were documented. Demographic characteristics, surgery type, medications, and medical comorbidities were identified by chart abstraction. Logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios of patients using opioids longer than 6 weeks, and multivariate analysis was performed on 10 identified patient factors. A concordance index was used to calculate the discriminatory ability of a nomogram to predict prolonged opioid use. RESULTS: Multivariate analysis demonstrated that opioid use prior to surgery, insurance type, procedure type, body mass index, smoking status, and psychiatric disorders were responsible for prolonged opioid use. The prediction accuracy of this model was good, with a calculated concordance index of 0.766 (95% confidence interval, 0.736-0.820). CONCLUSIONS: We present a preoperative predictive calculator to help identify at-risk patients and quantify their risk of prolonged opioid use after shoulder surgery. This is a valuable clinical decision-making tool to identify patients benefitting from referral to pain management specialists and to possibly reduce the risk of opioid abuse and addiction.

Performance of PROMIS Global-10 to Legacy Instruments in Patients With Lateral Epicondylitis.

PURPOSE: To validate the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Global-10 for patients who have lateral epicondylitis requiring surgical treatment in comparison with other gold standard patient-reported outcomes. METHODS: Sixty-two patients with lateral epicondylitis of the elbow were prospectively enrolled before arthroscopic treatment. Inclusion criteria were patients 18 years of age or older with a diagnosis of lateral epicondylitis. Each patient completed the PROMIS Global-10, EuroQol 5 Dimension (EQ-5D), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) assessment form, Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS), and Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand Score (QuickDASH). Spearman correlations were calculated. Bland-Altman agreement tests were conducted between estimated EQ-5D scores from the PROMIS-10 and actual EQ-5D scores. RESULTS: Correlation between the PROMIS-10 and the EQ-5D was excellent (0.72, P < .0001). Bland-Altman 95% limits of agreement for estimated EQ-5D scores ranged from 0.33 below to 0.21 above actual EQ-5D scores. Correlation of the PROMIS-10 physical score was good to excellent with MEPS (0.61, P < .0001) and QuickDASH scores (0.64, P < .0001) and good with the ASES (0.58, P < .0001). Correlation of the PROMIS mental scores was good with QuickDASH (0.50, P < .0001) and poor with ASES (0.26, P = .0492) and MEPS (0.37, P = .0038). CONCLUSIONS: The PROMIS Global-10 physical scores showed good to excellent correlation with gold standard patient-reported outcome instruments, demonstrating it is a reliable tool for outcome assessment in populations with lateral epicondylitis. Despite the excellent correlation with the EQ-5D, the 95% limit of agreement and high variability among the estimated EQ-5D scores derived from the PROMIS-10 suggests that the PROMIS-10 cannot be used as a substitute for actual EQ-5D scores to derive quality-adjusted life years for economic evaluations and cost-effectiveness research. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, development of diagnostic criteria on the basis of consecutive patients.

Outcomes of Total Shoulder Arthroplasty With Posterior Capsular Plication.

BACKGROUND: Glenoid loosening and instability are among the most common complications after anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA), resulting in poor function. Posterior instability is one contributing factor. The purpose of this study is to report the clinical and radiographic outcomes of a series of patients treated with posterior capsule plication for intraoperative posterior instability during TSA. It is hypothesized that patients undergoing this procedure will have improvement in posterior stability intraoperatively while not limiting their ROM postoperatively. METHODS: Patients of the senior author were identified who had undergone TSA with posterior capsule plication from 2014 to 2015 based on Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes. Their records and preoperative radiographs were retrospectively reviewed for demographic data and preoperative range of motion (ROM) which was documented in the clinic notes. Patients were then evaluated postoperatively to determine the outcomes after TSA with posterior capsule plication. Final follow-up was conducted via telephone survey. RESULTS: Nineteen patients were identified for review; however, only 14 had all imaging available. The mean age at the time of surgery was 63 years. There were 2 A1, 6 B1, and 6 B2 Walch-type glenoids based on preoperative imaging. All but one had equivalent or better ROM for active forward elevation and external rotation postoperatively. One patient required return to operating room at 5 months after developing adhesive capsulitis. CONCLUSION: This study indicates that the use of posterior capsule plication during TSA is a safe method to address posterior subluxation, while still allowing for improved ROM postoperatively.

Performance of PROMIS Global-10 compared with legacy instruments in patients with shoulder arthritis.

BACKGROUND: The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Global-10 measures physical and mental health and provides an estimated EuroQol-5 Dimension (EQ-5D) score. The purpose of this study was to determine the correlation between the PROMIS Global-10 and several gold-standard legacy measures to validate its overall performance and usefulness in patients with shoulder arthritis. METHODS: The study prospectively enrolled 161 patients with shoulder arthritis before treatment. Each patient completed the PROMIS, EQ-5D, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) Assessment Form, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), and Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder (WOOS) Index. Spearman correlations were calculated, and Bland-Altman agreement tests were conducted between estimated EQ-5D scores from the PROMIS and actual EQ-5D scores. Ceiling and floor effects were determined. RESULTS: Correlation between the PROMIS and EQ-5D was excellent (0.72, P < .001). However, agreement for estimated EQ-5D ranged from 0.37 below to 0.36 above actual EQ-5D scores. Correlation of the PROMIS physical score was good with the ASES score (0.57, P < .001) and poor with the SANE score (0.23, P = .0045) and WOOS score (0.11, P = .3743). Correlation of the PROMIS mental score was poor when compared with all patient-reported outcome instruments investigated (ASES score, 0.26 [P = .0012]; SANE score, 0.13 [P = .1004]; and WOOS score, 0.09 [P = .4311]). No floor or ceiling effects were observed. CONCLUSION: PROMIS Global-10 physical scores show excellent correlation with the EQ-5D. However, the PROMIS Global-10 cannot replace actual EQ-5D scores for cost-effectiveness assessment in this population because of the large variance in agreement between actual and PROMIS Global-10-estimated EQ-5D scores. PROMIS Global-10 physical scores showed good correlation with the ASES score but poor correlation with other gold-standard patient-reported outcome instruments, suggesting that it is an inappropriate instrument for outcome measurement in populations with shoulder arthritis.