Factors associated with success of ream-and-run arthroplasty at a minimum of 5 years.

BACKGROUND: Ream-and-run arthroplasty offers improvements in shoulder pain and function for patients with primary glenohumeral arthritis who wish to avoid limitations associated with a polyethylene glenoid component. Longer-term clinical outcome assessments of the ream-and-run procedure are sparse in the literature. This study aimed to present minimum 5-year functional outcomes in a large cohort following ream-and-run arthroplasty to determine factors associated with clinical success and reoperation. METHODS: Patients who underwent ream-and-run surgery with a minimum of 5 years of follow-up were identified through a retrospective review of a prospectively maintained database from a single academic institution. To assess clinical outcomes, the Simple Shoulder Test (SST) was administered and assessed to determine achievement of the minimal clinically important difference, as well as the necessity for open revision surgery. Factors associated with P < .1 on univariate analysis were included in multivariate analysis. RESULTS: Of 228 patients who consented to undergo long-term follow-up, 201 (88%) were included in our analysis (mean follow-up period, 7.6 ± 2.1 years). The average age was 59.4 ± 8.8 years, and 93% of patients were men. The majority of patients had a diagnosis of osteoarthritis (79%) or capsulorrhaphy arthropathy (10%). SST scores improved from a mean of 4.9 ± 2.5 preoperatively to a mean of 10.2 ± 2.6 at latest follow-up. The minimal clinically important difference in the SST score of 2.6 was reached by 165 patients (82%). Male sex (P = .020), nondiabetic status (P = .080), and lower preoperative SST score (P < .001) were included in a multivariate analysis. Male sex (P = .010) and lower preoperative SST score (P < .001) were associated with clinically important improvements in SST scores on multivariate analysis. Open revision surgery was required in 22 patients (11%). Younger age (P < .001), female sex (P = .055), and higher preoperative pain score (P = .023) were included in a multivariate analysis. Only younger age was predictive of open revision surgery (P = .003). CONCLUSIONS: Ream-and-run arthroplasty can provide significant and clinically important improvements in clinical outcomes at minimum 5-year follow-up. Successful clinical outcomes were significantly associated with male sex and lower preoperative SST scores. Reoperation was more common in younger patients.

Quantifying success after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: the minimal clinically important percentage of maximal possible improvement.

BACKGROUND: In high functioning patients, the ceiling effect associated with many patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) limits the ability to appropriately stratify success. The percentage maximal possible improvement (%MPI) was introduced as another evaluation tool, with a proposed threshold of success at 30%. It remains unclear if this threshold correlates with perceived patient success following shoulder arthroplasty. The purpose of this study was to compare the proportion of patients that achieved the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and %MPI for different outcome scores and to define the %MPI thresholds associated with patient satisfaction following primary reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA). METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of an international shoulder arthroplasty database between 2003 and 2020. All primary rTSAs performed using a single implant system with minimum 2-year follow-up were reviewed. Pre- and postoperative outcome scores were evaluated for all patients to determine the raw improvement and %MPI. The proportion of patients achieving the MCID and 30% MPI were determined for each outcome score. Thresholds for the minimal clinically important %MPI (MCI-%MPI) were calculated using an anchor-based method for each outcome score and stratified by age and sex. RESULTS: A total of 2573 shoulders with a mean follow-up of 47 months were included. Outcome scores with known ceiling effects (Simple Shoulder Test [SST], Shoulder Pain and Disability Index [SPADI], University of California-Los Angeles shoulder score [UCLA]) had higher rates of patients achieving the 30% MPI but not the previously reported MCID. Inversely, outcome scores without significant ceiling effects (Constant and Shoulder Arthroplasty Smart [SAS] scores) had higher rates of patients achieving the MCID, but not the 30% MPI. The MCI-%MPI differed among outcome scores and mean values were as follows: 33% for the SST, 27% for the Constant score, 35% for the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form (ASES) score, 43% for the UCLA score, 34% for the SPADI score, and 30% for the SAS score. The MCI-%MPI increased with greater age for SPADI (P < .04) and SAS (P < .01) scores, meaning that patients with higher thresholds required a greater fraction of the possible improvement for a given score to be satisfied but did not reach statistical significance for other scores. Females had a greater MCI-%MPI for the SAS and ASES scores and a lower MCI-MPI% for the SPADI score. CONCLUSION: The %MPI offers a simple method to quickly assess improvements across patient outcome scores. However, the %MPI that represents patient improvement after surgery is not uniformly the previously established 30% threshold. Surgeons should use score-specific estimates of the MCI-%MPI to gauge success when evaluating patients undergoing primary rTSA.

Quantifying success after anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty: the minimal clinically important percentage of maximal possible improvement.

INTRODUCTION: Changes in pre- to postoperative outcome scores are often used to quantify success after anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA). However, ceiling effects associated with many outcome scores limit the ability to differentiate success among high-functioning patients. The percentage maximal possible improvement (%MPI) was introduced to better stratify patient success; however, it is unclear if the 30% threshold first proposed correlates with perceived patient success across all outcome scores. The purpose of this study was to compare the proportion of patients that achieved the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and %MPI for different outcome scores and to define the %MPI thresholds associated with patient satisfaction following primary aTSA. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of an international shoulder arthroplasty database between 2003 and 2020. All primary aTSAs performed using a single implant system with minimum 2-year follow-up were reviewed. Pre- and postoperative outcome scores were evaluated for all patients to calculate improvement. The proportion of patients achieving the MCID and 30% MPI were determined for each outcome score. Thresholds for the minimal clinically important %MPI (MCI-%MPI) were calculated using an anchor-based method for each outcome score and stratified by age and sex. RESULTS: 1593 shoulders with a mean follow-up of 59.3 months were included. Outcome scores with known ceiling effects (Simple Shoulder Test [SST], American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form [ASES], University of California-Los Angeles shoulder score [UCLA]) had higher rates of patients achieving the 30% MPI but not the previously reported MCID. Inversely, outcome scores without significant ceiling effects (Constant and Shoulder Arthroplasty Smart [SAS] scores) had higher rates of patients achieving the MCID but not the 30% MPI. The MCI-%MPI differed among outcome scores, and mean values were as follows: 33% for the SST, 24% for the Constant score, 32% for the ASES score, 38% for the UCLA score, 30% for the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index score, and 33% for the SAS score. The MCI-%MPI increased with greater age (P < .003) and females had thresholds greater than or equal to males for all scores assessed, meaning that patients with higher thresholds required a greater fraction of the possible improvement for a given score to be satisfied. CONCLUSION: The %MPI offers a simple method to quickly assess improvements across patient outcome scores. However, the %MPI that represents patient improvement after surgery is not uniformly the previously established 30% threshold. Surgeons should use score-specific estimates of the MCI-%MPI to gauge success when evaluating patients undergoing primary aTSA.

Quantifying success after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: the substantial clinically important percentage of maximal possible improvement.

BACKGROUND: Changes in preoperative to postoperative outcome scores are often used to quantify success after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA). However, ceiling effects associated with many outcome scores limit the ability to differentiate success among high-functioning patients. The percentage of maximal possible improvement (%MPI) was introduced to simplify and better stratify patient success. The primary purpose of this study was to define the %MPI thresholds associated with substantial clinical improvement following primary rTSA and compare the rates of success as defined by those achieving the substantial clinical benefit (SCB) compared to the 30% MPI for different outcome scores. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of an international shoulder arthroplasty database between 2003 and 2020. All primary rTSAs performed using a single implant system with a minimum 2-year follow-up were reviewed. Preoperative and postoperative outcome scores were evaluated for all patients to calculate improvement. Six outcome scores were assessed: the Simple Shoulder Test (SST), Constant, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), University of California Los Angeles (UCLA), Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI), and Shoulder Arthroplasty Smart (SAS) scores. The proportion of patients achieving the SCB and 30% MPI was determined for each outcome score. Thresholds for the substantial clinically important %MPI (SCI-%MPI) were calculated using an anchor-based method for each outcome score and stratified by age and sex. RESULTS: Of total, 2573 shoulders with a mean follow-up of 47 months were included. Outcome scores with known ceiling effects (SST, ASES, UCLA, SPADI) had higher rates of patients achieving the 30% MPI compared to scores without ceiling effects (Constant, SAS). However, scores without ceiling effects had higher rates of patients achieving the SCB. The SCI-%MPI differed among outcome scores, and mean values were 47% for the SST, 35% for the Constant score, 50% for the ASES score, 52% for the UCLA score, 47% for the SPADI score, and 45% for the SAS score. The SCI-%MPI increased in patients older than 60 years (P < .001) except for the SAS and Constant scores. SCI-%MPI was greater in females for all scores assessed except the Constant and SPADI scores (P < .001 for all). The higher SCI-%MPI thresholds in these populations mean that these patients required a greater fraction of the MPI to have substantial improvement. CONCLUSION: The %MPI judged relative to patient-reported substantial clinical improvement offers an alternative method to quickly assess improvements across patient outcome scores. Given considerable variation in the %MPI corresponding to substantial clinical improvement, we recommend utilizing score-specific estimates of the SCI-%MPI to gauge success when evaluating patients undergoing primary rTSA.

Quantifying success after anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty: the substantial clinically important percentage of maximal possible improvement.

BACKGROUND: Percentage maximal possible improvement (%MPI) has been described as a threshold by which to evaluate patient improvement after anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) that has favorable psychometric properties. The primary purpose of this study was to define the percentage maximal possible improvement (%MPI) thresholds associated with substantial clinical improvement following primary anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) and compare the rates of success as defined by those achieving the substantial clinical benefit (SCB) compared with the 30% MPI for different outcome scores. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of an international shoulder arthroplasty database between 2003 and 2020. All primary aTSAs performed using a single implant system with minimum 2-year follow-up were reviewed. Pre- and postoperative outcome scores were evaluated for all patients to calculate improvement. Six outcome scores were assessed: the Simple Shoulder Test (SST), Constant, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form (ASES), University of California-Los Angeles shoulder score (UCLA), Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI), and Shoulder Arthroplasty Smart (SAS) scores. The proportion of patients achieving the SCB and 30% MPI were determined for each outcome score. Thresholds for the substantial clinically important %MPI (SCI-%MPI) were calculated using an anchor-based method for each outcome score and stratified by age and sex. RESULTS: A total of 1593 shoulders with a mean follow-up of 59.3 months were included. Outcome scores with known ceiling effects (SST, ASES, UCLA) had higher rates of patients achieving the 30% MPI but not the previously reported SCB compared to scores without ceiling effects (Constant, SAS). The SCI-%MPI differed among outcome scores, and mean values were as follows: 48% for the SST, 39% for the Constant score, 53% for the ASES score, 55% for the UCLA score, 50% for the SPADI score, and 42% for the SAS score. The SCI-%MPI increased in patients older than 60 years (P ≤ .006 for all) and was greater in females for all scores assessed except the Constant score (P < .001 for all), meaning that patients with higher thresholds required a greater fraction of the maximum possible improvement for a given score to have substantial improvement. CONCLUSION: The %MPI judged relative to patient-reported substantial clinical improvement offers a new method to assess improvements across patient outcome scores. Given considerable variation in the %MPI corresponding to substantial clinical improvement, we recommend utilizing score-specific estimates of the SCI-%MPI to gauge success when evaluating patients undergoing primary aTSA.

Drivers of inpatient hospitalization costs, joint-specific patient-reported outcomes, and health-related quality of life in shoulder arthroplasty for cuff tear arthropathy.

BACKGROUND: Cuff tear arthropathy (CTA) can be successfully treated with various types of shoulder arthroplasty. While reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) is commonly used to treat CTA, CTA hemiarthroplasty (CTA-H, hemiarthroplasty with an extended humeral articular surface) can also be effective in patients with preserved glenohumeral elevation and an intact coracoacromial (CA) arch. As the value of arthroplasty is being increasingly scrutinized, cost containment has become a priority. The objective of this study was to assess hospitalization costs and improvements in joint-specific measures and health-related quality of life for these two types of shoulder arthroplasty in the management of CTA. METHODS: Seventy-two patients (39 CTA-H and 33 RSA) were treated during the study time period using different selection criteria for each of the two procedures: CTA-H was selected in patients with retained active elevation, an intact CA arch, and an intact subscapularis, while RSA was selected in patients with pseudoparalysis or glenohumeral instability. The Simple Shoulder Test (SST) was used as a joint-specific patient-reported outcome measure. Improvement in quality-adjusted life years was measured using the Short Form 36. Costs associated with inpatient care were collected from hospital financial records. Univariate and multivariate analyses focused on determining predictors of hospitalization costs and improvements in patient-reported outcomes. RESULTS: Significant improvements in SST and Short Form 36 physical component scores were seen in both groups. Inpatient hospitalization costs were significantly higher in the RSA group than that in the CTA-H group ($15,074 ± $1614 vs. $10,389 ± $1948, P < .001), driven primarily by supplies including the cost of the prosthesis ($9005 ± $2521 vs. $4715 ± $2091, P < .001). The diagnosis of diabetes was an independent predictor of higher inpatient hospitalization costs for both groups. There were no independent predictors for quality-adjusted life year improvements. SST improvement in the CTA-H group was significantly higher in patients with lower preoperative SST scores. CONCLUSION: Using a standard algorithm of CTA-H for shoulders with retained active elevation and an intact CA arch and RSA for poor active elevation or glenohumeral instability, both procedures led to significant improvements in health-related quality of life and joint-specific measures. Costs were significantly lower for patients meeting the selection criteria for CTA-H. Further value analytics are needed to compare the relative cost effectiveness of RSA and CTA-H for patients with CTA having retained active elevation, intact CA arch, and intact subscapularis.

The minimal clinically important differences of the Simple Shoulder Test are different for different arthroplasty types.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative and postoperative patient self-reported measures are the key to understanding the benefit of shoulder arthroplasty for patients with different diagnoses and having different surgical approaches. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for patient-reported outcomes such as the Simple Shoulder Test (SST) is often used to document the amount of improvement that is of importance to the patient; however, the MCID may differ for different types of shoulder arthroplasty. The objective of this study was to report the MCID of the SST and the MCID of the percentage of maximal possible improvement (%MPI) for 5 different arthroplasty types. METHODS: Eight hundred eighty-seven patients undergoing shoulder arthroplasty with preoperative SST scores, 2-year postoperative SST scores, and patient satisfaction were included. The sample comprised 368 patients undergoing anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA), 330 patients undergoing ream-and-run arthroplasty (R&R), 80 patients undergoing reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA), 53 patients undergoing cuff tear arthropathy arthroplasty, and 56 patients undergoing hemiarthroplasty. For each type of arthroplasty, the anchor-based method was used for calculating the MCID for both absolute SST scores and %MPI. RESULTS: Significant improvements in SST values were seen for all arthroplasty types. The MCID for SST change was 2.3 overall but ranged from 1.6 for aTSA, to 2.6 for R&R, to 3.7 for rTSA. The MCID for %MPI was 32% overall but ranged from 22% for aTSA to 42% for hemiarthroplasty. The percentage of patients exceeding the MCID threshold was highest for aTSA at 96% and lowest for hemiarthroplasty at 61%. CONCLUSION: The same MCID value may not be appropriate for different types of shoulder arthroplasty. This study reports MCID thresholds that can be used when assessing the effectiveness for each of the common types of shoulder arthroplasty.

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).

Shoulder outcome scoring systems have substantial ceiling effects 2 years after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair.

PURPOSE: Previous studies show no difference in clinical outcomes between patients with healed and structurally failed rotator cuff repairs. The objective of this study was to assess ceiling effects when reporting surgical outcomes of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair using four of the currently most popular clinical shoulder outcome scoring systems. METHODS: Ninety-two patients who underwent arthroscopic rotator cuff repair were examined. The simple shoulder test (SST), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) shoulder rating scale, and Constant-Murley shoulder score were completed 2 years postoperatively. Demographic data of the subjects were analysed using descriptive statistics. The ceiling effects in the outcome data assessed for each scale were estimated based on two previously reported definitions. RESULTS: The number of patients with the maximum possible score was 31 (33.7%) with the SST, 26 (28.3%) with the ASES score, 28 (30.4%) with the UCLA scale, and 18 (19.6%) with the Constant-Murley score. The standardised distance of the outcome data assessed by the SST, ASES score, UCLA scale, and Constant-Murley scores were 0.92, 0.97, 0.96, and 1.18, respectively. CONCLUSION: The SST, ASES score, and UCLA scale evaluated at 2 years postoperatively have substantial ceiling effects showing that the proportion of patients with the maximum possible score is > 20%, and the standardised distance is < 1.0. Researchers should be aware of possible biases due to ceiling effects when interpreting the results of studies investigating the surgical outcomes of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. It could increase the likelihood of a type II error. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV.

Minimal clinically important differences in the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, Simple Shoulder Test, and visual analog scale pain scores after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair.

BACKGROUND: Minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) for different patient outcome scores have been reported for various shoulder diseases, including shoulder arthroplasty and the nonoperative treatment of rotator cuff disease. The purpose of this study was to assess the MCID for the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form (ASES) score, the Simple Shoulder Test (SST), and a visual analog scale (VAS) measuring pain, after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. METHODS: A total of 202 patients who underwent arthroscopic rotator cuff repair were retrospectively reviewed. ASES, SST, and VAS pain scores were collected preoperatively and at 1 year postoperatively. The MCID was then calculated via a 4-question anchor-based method. RESULTS: The MCID results for the ASES, SST, and VAS pain scores were 27.1, 4.3, and 2.4, respectively. Age at time of surgery, sex, anteroposterior tear size, and worker's compensation status were not associated with MCID values (P > .05). CONCLUSION: The MCID values determined in the current study are higher than those previously identified for the nonoperative treatment of rotator cuff disease using the same anchor questions. Use of these higher values should be considered when evaluating improvements of individual patients after rotator cuff repair, to determine comparative effectiveness of various rotator cuff repair techniques and to determine sample sizes for prospective comparative trials of rotator cuff repair methods.