Outcomes after anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in patients with long-term disability claims

BackgroundStudies have shown that patients with workers' compensation claims have worse clinical outcomes after various orthopedic procedures. This study aimed to determine the influence of disability status on 2-year clinical outcomes after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) and anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (ATSA).MethodsReview of an institutional database identified patients on disability with a minimum of 2-year follow-up and compared them to a comorbidity-matched cohort of patients without disability claims. Assessments between patients included preoperative and postoperative Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain scores, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores, strength, range of motion (ROM), and postoperative complications.ResultsForty-eight shoulders (45 patients) were in the ATSA cohort (24 with disability, 24 without disability) and 46 shoulders (45 patients) in the RTSA cohort (23 with disability, 23 without disability). Patients in the ATSA cohort with disability claims had higher 3-month and 2-year VAS scores (4 vs. 1, P = .003; 4 vs. 1, P = .02, respectively), lower 2-year ASES scores (58 vs. 87, P = .015), and decreased forward elevation ROM and internal rotation ROM (150 vs. 170, P = .017; 60 vs. 62.5, P = .024, respectively) compared to the cohort without disability. Significant differences in baseline values also were noted between cohorts (lower preoperative ASES: 31.7 vs. 40.5, P = .033; higher VAS: 7 vs. 6, P = .03; decreased forward elevation ROM: 90 vs. 110, P = .02). Patients in the RTSA cohort with disability claims had higher 3-month and 2-year VAS (5 vs. 1, P = .02; 3 vs. 0.5, P = .04, respectively) scores than those without claims. The baseline values for the disability cohort with RTSA demonstrated lower ASES (22.1 vs. 43.6, P = .005) and higher VAS (8 vs. 4, P = .004) scores. No significant differences were noted in improvement for the ATSA or RTSA cohorts in any parameter. The ATSA with disability cohort had a higher complication rate (45% vs. 16.6%, P = .0299). No differences were noted in complication rates in the RTSA group.ConclusionPatients who have reported disability status demonstrated worse outcomes after ATSA and RTSA compared to patients without disability claims. However, there was no significant difference in the amount of change in outcomes between groups, indicating that patients on disability can still realize significant improvements after shoulder arthroplasty.     

The use of shoulder scoring systems and outcome measures in the UK

IntroductionIn future, outcomes following shoulder surgery may be subject to public survey. Many outcome measures exist but we do not know whether there is a consensus between shoulder surgeons in the UK. The aim of this study was to survey the preferred outcome measures used by National Health Service (NHS) shoulder surgeons operating in the UK.MethodsA total of 350 shoulder surgeons working in NHS hospitals were asked to complete a short written questionnaire regarding their use of scoring systems and outcome measures. Questionnaires were sent and responses were received by post.ResultsOverall, 217 responses were received (62%). Of the respondents, 171 (79%) use an outcome measure in their shoulder practice while 46 (21%) do not. There were 118 surgeons (69%) who use more than one outcome measure. The Oxford shoulder score was most commonly used by 150 surgeons (69%), followed by the Constant score with 106 (49%), the Oxford shoulder instability score with 82 (38%), and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score with 54 (25%). The less commonly used outcome measures were the SF-36® and SF-12® health questionnaires with 19 (9%), the University of California at Los Angeles activity score with 8 (4%), the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons shoulder assessment form with 8 (4%) and the EQ-5D™ with 10 (3%).ConclusionsValidated outcome measures should be adopted by all practising surgeons in all specialties. This will allow better assessment of treatments in addition to assessment of surgical performance in a transparent way.     

Correlation of patient-reported outcome measurement information system-upper extremity with American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores in shoulder arthroplasty

BackgroundMultiple outcome measure surveys are available to assess preoperative and postoperative outcomes for a variety of orthopedic procedures such as shoulder arthroplasty. Although legacy instruments such as American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) remain popular, there remains no singular gold standard survey instrument for shoulder arthroplasty patients, and alternative instruments have been developed to better capture clinical outcomes. The goal of this study is to compare the efficacy of Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System-Upper Extremity (PROMIS-UE) using computer adaptive technology with ASES scores both preoperatively and postoperatively in shoulder arthroplasty patients. Our hypothesis is that there would be a strong correlation between PROMIS-UE and ASES scores both preoperatively and postoperatively in total shoulder arthroplasty patients.MethodsPatients who underwent total shoulder arthroplasty and agreed to complete baseline and 1-year follow-up of ASES and PROMIS-UE scores were included. Patients also completed PROMIS-Physical Function (PROMIS-PF) as a third point comparison. Responses to these instruments were statistically analyzed and compared using Pearson correlation coefficients. Floor and ceiling effects were then calculated.ResultsNinety patients were included in this study, all of whom completed the PROMIS-UE, PROMIS-PF, and ASES surveys both preoperatively and 12 months postoperatively. The mean age in this cohort was 68.9 years (standard deviation [SD] 8.4 years, range 39-89). The mean preoperative and postoperative PROMIS-UE scores were 26.6 (SD 6.7, range 14.7-44.6) and 41.8 (SD 10.3, range 20.2-56.4) respectively. Mean preoperative and postoperative PROMIS-PF computer adaptive technology scores were 35.7 (SD 9.54, range 34.2-64) and 44.3 (SD 9.22, range 23.5-73.3) respectively. The mean ASES score was 37.5 preoperatively (SD 18.0, range 5-99.5) and 77.5 postoperatively (SD 20.5, range 25.0-100.0). PROMIS-UE demonstrated a moderate correlation with ASES preoperatively and a strong correlation postoperatively (r = 0.52, confidence interval 0.27-0.60; r = 0.70, confidence interval 0.55-0.78, respectively). PROMIS-UE demonstrated a minor floor effect preoperatively (7.8%) but significant ceiling effect postoperatively (24.4%) and ASES demonstrated a mild ceiling effect at final follow-up (8.9%). There were otherwise no other floor or ceiling effects at all other time points across each survey.ConclusionPROMIS-UE correlates well with ASES at both baseline and 1-year postoperation for patients undergoing total shoulder replacement. In addition, the change seen between both baseline and 1 year outcome scores for both scoring systems also correlates strongly, suggesting that PROMIS-UE may be a suitable alternative to ASES for this patient population.