A validated algorithm using current literature to judge the appropriateness of anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty utilizing the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method.

BACKGROUND: Currently, appropriateness criteria evaluating when to perform total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) is lacking. In the absence of society guidelines and limited quality evidence, the RAND/University California in Los Angeles (UCLA) method provides a suitable alternative to evaluate appropriateness and assist in clinical decision making. Given the rise in utilization, appropriateness criteria for TSA have the potential to be an extremely powerful tool for improving quality of care and controlling costs. Thus, the goal of this study was to test explicit criteria to assess the appropriateness of TSA decision making using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method. METHODS: A review of recent scientific literature to gather available evidence about the use, effectiveness, efficiency, and the risks involved in surgical intervention was performed by a shoulder/elbow fellowship trained physician. Based on pertinent variables including age, rotator cuff status, previous surgical management, mobility, symptomatology, and imaging classifications, 186 clinical scenarios were created. Appropriateness criteria for TSA were developed using a modified Delphi method with a panel consisting of American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) members. A second panel of ASES members rated the same scenarios, with reliability testing performed to compare groups. RESULTS: Panel members reached agreement in 40 (64%) indications. TSA was appropriate in 15 (24%) of indications. For patients with severe symptomatology, TSA was often appropriate for patients aged <75 years and inconclusive or inappropriate for patients aged >75 years. Among patients aged <65 years, TSA varied between appropriate and inconclusive, often dependent on Walch classification. For patients with moderate symptomatology, TSA was inappropriate or inconclusive for patients aged <65 or >75 years. When compared to the second panel's results, moderate agreement was obtained with a weighted kappa statistic of 0.56. CONCLUSIONS: Using the RAND/UCLA method, ASES members created an appropriateness decision tree for pertinent patient variables. This presents the data in a manner that streamlines the clinical decision-making process and allows for rapid and more reliable determination of appropriateness for practitioners. The decision tree is based on a combination of clinical experience from high-volume ASES-member surgeons and a comprehensive review of current evidence. This tool can be used as part of a broader set of factors, including individual patient characteristics, prior studies, and expert opinion, to inform clinical decision making, improve quality of care, and control costs.