Is there a threshold of preoperative function that predicts failure to achieve clinically significant outcomes after total and reverse shoulder arthroplasty?

BackgroundThe purpose of this study was to determine if there is a threshold of preoperative function that is predictive of postoperative outcomes and the likelihood of achieving clinically significant outcomes following shoulder arthroplasty (SA).MethodsWe retrospectively identified patients who underwent a primary SA at our institution. Patients with preoperative and postoperative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores (ASES) were included in our analysis. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was utilized to reach a preoperative ASES threshold correlated with achievement of the following clinically significant outcomes: minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and patient acceptable symptom state. This analysis was performed for our entire SA cohort and subanalyzed for total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) and reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA). Fischer exact tests were used to analyze categorical data while continuous data were analyzed using t-tests. For the ROC, area under the curve (AUC) was calculated, along with bootstrap 95% confidence intervals and P values, with <0.05 as significant.ResultsA total of 516 patients were included (164 TSA and 352 RSA). ROC analysis yielded a preoperative ASES above 54 as predictive of failure to achieve MCID for all SAs (AUC, 0.77; P < .001), above 49 for TSA (AUC 0.74, P < .001), and above 56 for RSA (AUC 0.79, P < .001). Patients with preoperative ASES scores above 54 were significantly less likely to achieve MCID (odds ratio 5.1, P < .001) and SCB (odds ratio 7.2, P < .001); however, they had higher postoperative ASES scores (84 vs. 78, P < .001). A preoperative ASES score of 73 corresponded to a 50% chance of achieving MCID. ROC analysis also yielded a preoperative ASES score above 51 as predictive of failure to achieve SCB for all SA, TSA, and RSA (AUC: 0.79, 0.78, and 0.80, respectively, all P < .001). A preop ASES score of 52 corresponded to a 50% chance of achieving SCB.ConclusionPreoperative ASES scores above 49-56 are predictive of failure to achieve MCID and SCB following TSA and RSA. Although patients above these preoperative thresholds achieve higher absolute ASES scores at the final follow-up, they experienced less relative improvement from baseline. This will help surgeons counsel individual patients about appropriate expectations after arthroplasty.     

Are Oxford Hip Score and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index Useful Predictors of Clinical Meaningful Improvement and Satisfaction After Total Hip Arthroplasty?

BackgroundUp to 15% of patients express dissatisfaction after total hip arthroplasty (THA). Preoperative patient-report outcome measures (PROMs) scores can potentially mitigate this by predicting postoperative satisfaction, identifying patients that will benefit most from surgery. The aim of this study was to (1) calculate the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) thresholds for Oxford Hip Score (OHS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and the Short Form-36 (SF-36) mental component summary (MCS) and physical component summary (PCS) scores and (2) identify the threshold values of these PROMs that could be used to predict patient satisfaction and expectation fulfilment.MethodsProspectively collected registry data of 1334 primary THA patients who returned for 2-year follow-up from 1998 to 2016 were reviewed. All patients were assessed preoperatively and postoperatively at 2 years using the OHS, WOMAC, and SF-36 PCS/MCS scores. The MCID for each PROMs was calculated, and the proportion of patients that attained MCID was recorded. The relationship between satisfaction, expectation fulfilment, and MCID attainment was analyzed using Spearman rank correlation. Optimal threshold scores for each PROM that predicted MCID attainment and satisfaction/expectation fulfilment at 2 years were calculated using receiver operating curve analysis.ResultsThe calculated MCID for OHS, WOMAC, SF-36 PCS, and SF-36 MCS were 5.2, 10.8, 6.7, and 6.2, respectively. A threshold value of 24.5 for the preoperative OHS was predictive of achieving WOMAC MCID at 2 years after THA (area under the curve 0.80, P < .001). 93.1% of patients were satisfied, and 95.5% had expectations fulfilled at 2 years. None of the PROMs were able to predict satisfaction.ConclusionOHS and WOMAC scores can be used to determine clinical meaningful improvement but are limited in their ability to predict patient satisfaction after THA.     

A Weighted Scoring System Based on Preoperative and Long-Term Patient-Reported Outcome Measures to Guide Timing of Knee Arthroplasty

BackgroundThere is currently no existing consensus regarding timing of knee arthroplasty. This study aimed to develop a weighted scoring system from patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to guide timing of knee arthroplasty based on preoperative severity and long-term effectiveness.MethodsProspectively collected data of 766 total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) and 382 unicompartmental knee arthroplasties (UKAs) at a single institution were analyzed. PROMs were assessed preoperatively and at 10 years using the Knee Society Score (KSS), Oxford Knee Score (OKS), and Short Form-36 physical component score (SF-36 PCS). Receiver operating characteristic analysis identified thresholds where preoperative PROMs predicted 10-year clinically meaningful improvements (minimal clinically important difference [MCID]). Threshold weights were assigned to PROMs based on their ability to predict MCID in isolation or in combination.ResultsPoorer baseline PROMs predicted 10-year MCID attainments. The threshold of 49.5 points for the KSS, 30.5 points for the OKS, and 40.7 points for the SF-36 PCS and 55.5 points for the KSS, 33.5 points for the OKS, and 40.5 points for the SF-36 PCS was weighted 1 point for predicting MCID in 1 PROM for TKA and UKA, respectively. The threshold of 33.4 and 33.9 points for the SF-36 PCS was weighted 2 points for predicting MCID in 2 PROMs, whereas 29.3 and 31.3 points for the SF-36 PCS were weighted 3 points for predicting MCID in 3 PROMs for TKA and UKA, respectively. The sum of weighted components from 0 (lowest) to 5 (highest) represented likelihood for long-term benefits at 10 years.ConclusionThis scoring system is a useful clinical adjunct for deciding timing of knee arthroplasty and prioritizing patients in institutions with long waitlists.Level of EvidenceII.     

Impact of age within younger populations on outcomes following cervical surgery in the ambulatory setting

ObjectiveTo determine the effect of age within the younger population seen at ambulatory surgical centers on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) after cervical spine surgery.MethodsPatients of age <65 years undergoing single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) or cervical disc replacement (CDR) were included. Patients were divided by mean age of initial population (46 years). PROMs included Patient-reported Outcome Measurement Information System Physical Function (PROMIS-PF), 12-Item Short-Form Physical Component Survey (SF-12 PCS), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) neck, VAS arm, Neck Disability Index (NDI) collected preoperatively and at postoperative time points up to 2 years.Results138 patients were included, with 66 patients <46 years. Both cohorts demonstrated improvement from preoperative baseline with regard to all studied PROMs at multiple time points postoperatively (p ≤ 0.042, all). Between groups, the older cohort demonstrated greater mean PROMIS-PF scores preoperatively and at 6 weeks (p ≤ 0.011, both), while VAS arm scores were lower in the older group at 1 year (p = 0.002), and NDI scores were lower in the older group at 6 weeks and 1 year (p < 0.027, both). Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) achievement rates were greater in the younger group in PROMIS PF at 2 years (p = 0.002), and in the older group in VAS arm score at 1 year (p = 0.007).ConclusionBoth cohorts showed significant improvement at multiple postoperative time points for all PROMs. Between groups, the older group reported more favorable physical function, VAS arm, and NDI scores at several time points. However, MCID achievement rates only significantly differed in two PROMs at singular time points. Difference in age in patients <65 years likely does not significantly affect long-term outcomes after cervical spine surgery.     

Validating the VR-12 Physical Function Instrument After Anterior Cervical Discectomy and Fusion with SF-12, PROMIS,and NDI

Background

Development and validation of Veterans RAND 12-item (VR-12) physical component survey (PCS) has been established among civilian and veteran populations but it has not been examined among anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) patients.

Purposes/Questions

We sought to validate legacy patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) with VR-12 PCS among patients undergoing ACDF procedures.

Methods

A prospectively collected surgical registry was retrospectively evaluated for elective single or multi-level ACDFs performed for degenerative spinal pathologies from January 2014 to August 2019. Exclusion criteria included missing pre-operative surveys and surgery for trauma, metastasis, or infection. Demographic variables, baseline pathologies, and peri-operative variables were collected. A paired t test evaluated the change from the pre-operative score to each post-operative timepoint for VR-12 PCS, the 12-item Short-Form Survey (SF-12) PCS, Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System physical function (PROMIS-PF), and Neck Disability Index (NDI). Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) achievement was calculated at each timepoint. Correlation was evaluated with a Pearson’s correlation coefficient and time-independent partial correlation.

Results

Of the 202 patients who underwent ACDF, 41.1% were female and the average age was 49.5 years. All PROMs had statistically significantly increased from baseline when compared with post-operative timepoints (12 weeks, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years). MCID achievement rates increased through 2 years. All timepoints revealed strong VR-12 PCS correlations with SF-12 PCS, PROMIS-PF, and NDI scores.

Conclusion

VR-12 PCS was strongly correlated with the well-validated SF-12 PCS and NDI metrics as well as with the more recent PROMIS-PF. All PROMs demonstrated statistically significant improvement in patients post-operatively. VR-12 PCS is a valid measure of physical function among patients undergoing ACDF.

     

Role of preoperative PROMIS scores in predicting postoperative outcomes and likelihood of achieving MCID following reverse shoulder arthroplasty

BackgroundThe patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) has emerged as an efficient and valid outcome measure in various shoulder surgeries. The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of preoperative PROMIS scores in predicting postoperative PROMIS scores and the likelihood of achieving a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) following primary reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for cuff tear arthropathy. We hypothesize that preoperative PROMIS scores will influence both postoperative PROMIS scores and the probability of achieving MCID.Methods73 patients undergoing reverse shoulder arthroplasty by a board-certified shoulder and elbow surgeon were given three PROMIS CAT forms: PROMIS Upper Extremity Physical Function CAT v2.0 (“PROMIS-UE”), PROMIS Pain Interference v1.1 (“PROMIS-PI”), and PROMIS Depression v1.0 (“PROMIS-D”).). PROMIS CAT domain t scores were assessed for significance between both time points using a Paired Samples t test. Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was calculated using the distribution method and each PROMIS domain was subsequently assessed for its discriminatory ability in predicting postoperative improvement equal to or greater than the MCID through receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis.ResultsOur cohort consisted of 73 patients (49.3% male) and an average age of 69.7 years (standard deviation, 11.9). Mean follow-up time point was 9.6 months (standard deviation, 5.0) after surgery. Preoperative PROMIS-UE, PROMIS-PI, and PROMIS-D were 29.5 ± 6.2, 63.3 ± 5.4, and 50.1 ± 9.2, respectively. Each domain significantly improved at 10-months, on average, to 40.9 ± 7.8, 51.4 ± 8.5, 42.6 ± 8.1, respectively. Following the distribution-based method for MCID calculation, we found the following MCID values for PROMIS-UE, PROMIS-PI, and PROMIS-D: 3.1, 2.7, and 4.6, respectively. ROC analysis revealed strong predictive ability for PROMIS-UE (AUC = 0.717, p < 0.05), moderative predictive ability for PROMIS-PI (AUC = 0.634, p < 0.05), and excellent predictive ability for PROMIS-D (AUC = 0.864, p < 0.05). Specifically, preoperative cutoff values of <26.0, >70.0, and >52.5 for PROMIS-UE, PROMIS-PI, and PROMIS-D are especially predictive of achieving MCID.ConclusionsPreoperative baseline scores can serve as strong predictors of success in patients undergoing primary reverse shoulder arthroplasty and can be used to both counsel patients on surgery and to tailor postoperative protocols.Level of evidenceLevel II.     

Multimodal analgesic protocol for cervical disc replacement in the ambulatory setting: Clinical case series

BackgroundEffective pain management is paramount for outpatient surgical success. This study aims to report a case series of patients undergoing cervical disc replacement (CDR) in an ambulatory surgery center (ASC) with the use of an enhanced multimodal analgesic (MMA) protocol.MethodsPrimary, single-/2-level CDR procedures at an ASC with an enhanced MMA protocol were included. ASC patients were discharged day of surgery. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were administered at preoperative/6-week/12-week/6-month/1-year/2-year timepoints and included Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) neck, VAS arm, Neck Disability Index (NDI), Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-Physical Function (PROMIS-PF), and 12-Item Short-Form Physical and Mental Composite Score (SF-12 PCS/SF-12 MCS). A t-test assessed postoperative PROM improvement from baseline. MCID achievement was determined by comparing ΔPROM scores to previously established thresholds.Results106 patients were included, 76 single-level and 30 2-level. Most single-levels occurred at C5–C6, most 2-levels at C5–C7. One 2-level patient developed a hematoma 5 days postoperatively and underwent revision for evacuation. Five patients reported postoperative dysphagia; all were quickly resolved. One patient had an episode of seizure secondary to serotonin syndrome from concealed drug use. Patient was reintubated, transferred, and treated for serotonin syndrome. Two patients experienced postoperative nausea/vomiting. Cohort significantly improved from baseline for all PROMS at all timepoints except SF-12 MCS at 1-year/2-years and SF-12 PCS at 2 years (p < 0.047, all). Overall MCID achievement rates were: VAS arm (48.7%), VAS neck (69.1%), NDI (98.9%), SF-12 MCS (50.0%), SF-12 PCS (54.6%), and PROMIS-PF (73.4%).ConclusionOutpatient CDR, incorporating an enhanced MMA protocol, can be safely and effectively performed with proper patient selection and surgical technique. Patients saw timely discharge, well-controlled postoperative pain, and favorable long-term outcomes.     

Association between muscle health and patient-reported outcomes after lumbar microdiscectomy: early results

BACKGROUND CONTEXTPoor muscle health has been implicated as a source of back pain among patients with lumbar spine pathology. Recently, a novel magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)-based lumbar muscle health grade was shown to correlate with health-related quality of life scores. However, the impact of muscle health on postoperative functional outcomes following spine surgery remains to be investigated.PURPOSETo determine whether muscle health grade measured by preoperative psoas and paralumbar muscle cross-sectional areas impact the achievement of minimal clinically important difference (MCID) following lumbar microdiscectomy.STUDY DESIGN/SETTINGRetrospective cohort study.PATIENT SAMPLEConsecutive patients who underwent 1-level lumbar microdiscectomy in a single institution between 2017 and 2021.OUTCOME MEASURESRate of MCID achievement, time to MCID achievement, PROMs including Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), visual analog scale for back pain (VAS back), VAS leg, Short Form 12 Physical Component Summary (SF-12 PCS), SF-12 Mental Component Summary (SF-12 MCS), and Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function (PROMIS PF).METHODSTwo previously validated methods for muscle health grading were applied. Axial T2 MRI were analyzed for muscle measurements. The psoas-based method utilized the normalized total psoas area (NTPA), which is the psoas cross-sectional area divided by the square of patient height (mm²/m²). Patients were divided into low and high NTPA groups based on sex-specific lowest quartile NTPA thresholds. The paralumbar-based method incorporated the paralumbar cross-sectional area normalized by body mass index (PL-CSA/BMI) and Goutallier classification. Score of 1 was added for either PL-CSA/BMI >130 or Goutallier class of ≤2. “Good” muscle health was defined as score of 2, and “poor” muscle health was defined as score of 0 to 1. Prospectively collected PROMs were analyzed at 2-week, 6-week, 3-month, 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year postoperative timepoints. The rate of and time to MCID achievement were compared among the cohorts. Bivariate analyses were performed to assess for correlations between psoas/paralumbar cross-sectional areas and change in PROM scores from baseline.RESULTSThe total cohort included 163 patients with minimum follow-up of 6 months and mean follow-up of 16.5 months. 40 patients (24.5%) were categorized into the low NTPA group, and 55 patients (33.7%) were categorized into the poor paralumbar muscle group. Low NTPA was associated with older age, lower BMI, and greater frequencies of Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) ≥1. Poor paralumbar muscle health was associated with older age, female sex, higher BMI, and CCI ≥1. There were no differences in rates of MCID achievement for any PROMs between low versus high NTPA groups or between poor versus good paralumbar groups. Low NTPA was associated with longer time to MCID achievement for ODI, VAS back, VAS leg, and SF-12 MCS. Poor paralumbar muscle health was associated with longer time to MCID achievement for VAS back, VAS leg, and SF-12 PCS. NTPA negatively correlated with change in VAS back (6-week, 12-week) and VAS leg (6-month). PL-CSA/BMI positively correlated with change in PROMIS-PF at 3 months follow-up.CONCLUSIONSAmong patients undergoing lumbar microdiscectomy, patients with worse muscle health grades achieved MCID at similar rates but required longer time to achieve MCID. Lower NTPA was weakly correlated with larger improvements in pain scores. PL-CSA/BMI positively correlated with change in PROMIS-PF. Our findings suggest that with regards to functional outcomes, patients with worse muscle health may take longer to recuperate postoperatively compared to those with better muscle health.     

MRI-Based Shoulder Osteoarthritis Severity score (SOAS) is predictive of functional improvement following total shoulder arthroplasty

BackgroundTotal shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) is an increasingly common treatment for end-stage glenohumeral osteoarthritis. Current established radiographic measures and classification systems do not predict patient-reported outcomes from TSA. We hypothesized that the MRI-based Shoulder Osteoarthritis Severity (SOAS) Score would correlate with subjective improvement following TSA.MethodsPatients undergoing TSA with preoperative shoulder MRIs and pre- and postoperative ASES scores with minimum 2-year follow-up were included from a prospectively collected institutional shoulder arthroplasty database. SOAS scores, which is measured from 0 to 100 with an increasing score reflecting greater global degenerative changes, were assessed by two independent reviewers, and Samilson-Prieto grade and Walch classification were scored by one reviewer. Average SOAS scores were correlated with demographic factors and pre-, post-, and change (Δ) in ASES scores. Statistical analysis was performed with STATA with Pearson's correlation, one-way ANOVA, and ROC analysis, with significance defined by p <.05.Results30 patients (age 63 ± 10 years, 14 females, 16 males) who underwent primary anatomic TSA were included. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for total SOAS scores calculated by reviewers was 0.91. SOAS score correlated significantly with ΔASES (r = 0.61, p = .0003) and preoperative ASES (r = -0.37, p = .042), with greater MRI-based degenerative change associated with greater improvement after TSA and lower preoperative ASES score. No significant relationship was found between either Samilson-Prieto or Walch classification and SOAS or ASES scores. No significant relationship was found between SOAS scores and age, sex, or BMI. Using an MCID of 21 as previously reported, an ROC curve was generated and found to have an AUC of 0.96. A SOAS score cut-point of 36.25 was found to maximize sensitivity and specificity in predicting reaching MCID.ConclusionWe observed a significant positive correlation between the MRI-based SOAS score and functional improvement following TSA measured using change in ASES scores, indicating that patients with more advanced degenerative changes on MRI had greater improvement after shoulder replacement surgery. We found that the correlation strength was highest when comparing total SOAS score to ΔASES as opposed to any individual sub-component of the SOAS score. The MRI-based SOAS score for shoulder osteoarthritis may be a valuable tool for predicting patient outcomes following TSA.Level of evidenceLevel III; Retrospective Cohort Comparison; Prognosis Study     

Predictors of patient satisfaction and outcomes following reverse total shoulder arthroplasty

BackgroundObjective clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction via patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) can vary following reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA). The purpose of this study was to analyze patient specific preoperative factors that may predict postoperative PROMs and satisfaction following rTSA.MethodProspective data was collected on 144 consecutive patients who underwent primary rTSA at our institution between 2012 and 2018, all with minimum 2 year follow-up. Age, gender, race, BMI, previous surgery on the index shoulder, and comorbidity burden were analyzed as potential predictors. Shoulder specific clinical measures were collected both pre- and postoperatively via range of motion testing with active abduction, internal, and external rotation. PROMs included global shoulder function, Simple Shoulder Test (SST) and the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scoring systems, and cumulative patient satisfaction. Statistical analysis included comparison of pre- and postoperative outcome measures across the cohort as a whole and between each of the potential predictors in question. The relationship between predictors and postoperative cumulative satisfaction was investigated, with specific attention to identify the strongest predictors and account for confounding variables. Statistical significance was determined at P < .05.ResultsAll range of motion scores and PROMs were significantly improved from preoperative to postoperative assessment. Patient satisfaction was excellent with 92% rating their shoulder as “much better” or “better.” Women and minority patients displayed significantly worse preoperative active abduction, SST, and ASES, but were found to have no significant difference in these measures postoperatively. Younger age was associated with a significantly worse postoperative ASES score. Female sex was associated with significantly higher postoperative satisfaction, while minority status was associated with significantly lower cumulative satisfaction. Postoperative global shoulder function, SST, and ASES were not significantly influenced by sex, race, previous surgery, BMI, or comorbidity burden. Postoperative ASES and global shoulder function demonstrated to be independent predictors of “much better” satisfaction rating.ConclusionPostoperative PROMs and cumulative satisfaction are not influenced by BMI, previous surgery, or comorbidity burden in our cohort. Relative to their respective counterparts, older patients, females, and white patients are more likely to demonstrate higher satisfaction with their outcome following rTSA as measured by PROMs or cumulative satisfaction. Improvements in the ASES and global shoulder function scores most consistently predict higher postoperative satisfaction.Level of evidenceLevel IV; Case Series; Treatment Study     

Should We Aim to Help Patients “Feel Better” or “Feel Good” After Total Hip Arthroplasty? Determining Factors Affecting the Achievement of the Minimal Clinically Important Difference and Patient Acceptable Symptom State

BackgroundRecent attempts have been made to use preoperative patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) thresholds as prior authorization criteria based on the assumption that patients who have higher baseline scores are less likely to achieve the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). This study aimed to identify factors affecting the achievement of MCID and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) after total hip arthroplasty (THA), and to determine the overlap between the two outcomes.MethodsWe identified 3,581 primary, unilateral THAs performed at a single practice in 2015-2019. PROMs including Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement (HOOS-JR) and 12-item Short Form Health Survey were collected preoperatively and 1-year postoperatively. The likelihood of attaining PASS according to attainment of MCID was assessed. Multivariable regression was used to identify independent predictors of MCID and PASS.ResultsIn total, 79.8% achieved MCID and 73.6% achieved PASS for HOOS-JR. Approximately 1 in 7 patients who achieved MCID did not eventually achieve PASS. Worse preoperative HOOS-JR (odd ratio 0.933) was associated with MCID attainment. Better preoperative HOOS-JR (odd ratio 1.015) was associated with PASS attainment. Men, lower body mass index, better American Society of Anesthesiologists score, and better preoperative 12-item Short Form Health Survey mental score were predictors of MCID and PASS. Age, race, ethnicity, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and smoking status were not significant predictors.ConclusionPreoperative PROMs were associated with achieving MCID and PASS after THA, albeit in opposite directions. Clinicians should strive to help patients “feel better” and “feel good” after surgery. Preoperative PROMs should not solely be used to prioritize access to care.     

Workers compensation patients experiencing depression report meaningful improvement in mental health scores after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion

BackgroundMental health has been demonstrated to affect postoperative outcomes. No prior literature has reported the relationship between preoperative mental health on outcomes following anterior cervical discectomy and fusion (ACDF) in the Workers Compensation (WC) population.MethodsWC claimants who underwent primary ACDF were identified from a single-surgeon retrospective database. Patients were separated by SF-12 MCS score into Depressed (<45.6) or Not Depressed (ND) (≥45.6) cohorts. Patient-reported Outcome Measurement Information System Physical Function (PROMIS PF), SF-12 Physical Component Score (SF-12 PCS), SF-12 MCS, visual analog scale (VAS) neck/arm pain, and Neck Disability Index (NDI) were collected and compared within and between groups. Minimum clinically important difference (MCID) achievement rates were compared between groups.ResultsDepressed patients had greater length of stay (p = 0.007) and postoperative narcotic consumption (p = 0.026). Depressed patients improved at 12-week to 2-year PROMIS PF, 6-month SF-12 PCS, 6-week to 6-month SF-12 MCS, 6-week to 6-month and 2-year VAS neck, all VAS arm, and 6-month NDI (p ≤ 0.045, all). ND patients improved at 12-week to 1-year PROMIS PF, 6-month to 2-year SF-12 PCS, 12-week to 1-year VAS neck, 6-week to 1-year VAS arm, and 12-week to 1-year NDI (p ≤ 0.044, all). Between groups, ND patients reported superior PROMIS PF, SF-12 MCS, VAS neck, VAS arm, and NDI scores at two or more periods (p ≤ 0.045, all). MCID achievement rate regarding SF-12 MCS was greater in the Depressed cohort at all postoperative points up to 1 year (p ≤ 0.020, all).ConclusionDepressed patients tended to have a greater length of stay and postoperative narcotic consumption immediately after surgery. Not depressed patients reported more favorable physical and mental function, pain, and disability scores preoperatively and postoperatively. Depressed patients reported greater MCID achievement in mental function following surgery. Depressed patients with WC have a greater likelihood of reporting tangible improvement in mental health scores following ACDF.     

Minimum clinically important difference for the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score after revision shoulder arthroplasty

BackgroundPatients undergoing revision total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) typically achieve smaller improvements in outcome measurements than those undergoing primary TSA. The minimum clinically important difference (MCID) in the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) questionnaire for primary shoulder arthroplasty ranges from 13.6 to 20.9, but the MCID for revision shoulder arthroplasty remains unclear. This study aims to define the MCID in ASES score for revision TSA and ascertain patient factors that affect achieving the MCID threshold.MethodsPatients were identified from an institutional shoulder arthroplasty database. Prospective data collected included demographic variables, prior shoulder surgeries, primary and revision implants, indication for revision, and pre- and postoperative ASES scores. All patients provided informed consent to participate. An anchor-based method was used with a binary answer choice. The MCID was calculated using the receiver-operator curve (ROC) method, and the sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve were obtained from the ROC. MCID values were compared between groups using Student's t-test. Multivariate logistic regression modeling was used to determine significant predictors for reaching MCID. Significance was defined as P< .05.ResultsA total of 46 patients underwent revision TSA with minimum 2-year follow-up. The MCID using ROC method was 16.7 with 71% sensitivity and 62% specificity. There was a trend toward males being more likely to reach MCID after revision arthroplasty (P= .058). There were also trends toward increased forward flexion and abduction range of motion in patients who met MCID (P= .08, P= .07). Multivariate logistic regression modeling demonstrated male sex to be associated with achieving MCID (P= .03), while younger age and fewer prior shoulder surgeries demonstrated a trend to association with achieving MCID (P= .06, P= .10).ConclusionThe MCID for ASES score in patients undergoing revision shoulder arthroplasty is similar to previously reported MCID values for patients undergoing primary shoulder arthroplasty. Younger, male patients with fewer prior shoulder surgeries were more likely to achieve MCID after revision TSA.Level of EvidenceLevel III; Retrospective Comparative Treatment Study     

Development of a predictive model for a machine learning–derived shoulder arthroplasty clinical outcome score

BackgroundWe use machine learning to create predictive models from preoperative data to predict the Shoulder Arthroplasty Smart (SAS) score, the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, and the Constant score at multiple postoperative time points and compare the accuracy of each algorithm for anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA) and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (rTSA).MethodsClinical data from 2270 patients who underwent aTSA and 4198 patients who underwent rTSA were analyzed using 3 supervised machine learning techniques to create predictive models for the SAS, ASES, and Constant scores at 6 different postoperative time points using a full input feature set and the 2 different minimal feature sets. Mean absolute errors (MAEs) quantified the difference between actual and predicted outcome scores for each model at each postoperative time point. The performance of each model was also quantified by its ability to predict improvement greater than the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and the substantial clinical benefit (SCB) patient satisfaction thresholds for each outcome measure at 2-3 years after surgery.ResultsAll 3 machine learning techniques were more accurate at predicting aTSA and rTSA outcomes using the SAS score (aTSA: ±7.41 MAE; rTSA: ±7.79 MAE), followed by the Constant score (aTSA: ±8.32 MAE; rTSA: ±8.30 MAE) and finally the ASES score (aTSA: ±10.86 MAE; rTSA: ±10.60 MAE). These prediction accuracy trends were maintained across the 3 different model input categories for each of the SAS, ASES, and Constant models at each postoperative time point. For patients who underwent aTSA, the XGBoost predictive models achieved 94%-97% accuracy in MCID with an area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) between 0.90-0.97 and 89%-94% accuracy in SCB with an AUROC between 0.89-0.92 for the 3 clinical scores using the full feature set of inputs. For patients who underwent rTSA, the XGBoost predictive models achieved 95%-99% accuracy in MCID with an AUROC between 0.88-0.96 and 88%-92% accuracy in SCB with an AUROC between 0.81-0.89 for the 3 clinical scores using the full feature set of inputs.DiscussionOur study demonstrated that the SAS score predictions are more accurate than the ASES and Constant predictions for multiple supervised machine learning techniques, despite requiring fewer input data for the SAS model. In addition, we predicted which patients will and will not achieve clinical improvement that exceeds the MCID and SCB thresholds for each score; this highly accurate predictive capability effectively risk-stratifies patients for a variety of outcome measures using only preoperative data.Level of evidenceLevel III; Retrospective Comparative Study     

Comparison of Expectations and Outcomes in Rheumatoid Arthritis Versus Osteoarthritis Patients Undergoing Total Knee Arthroplasty

BackgroundWe hypothesized that patients undergoing primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) would have different preoperative expectations compared to osteoarthritis (OA) patients, and that postoperative satisfaction would correlate with specific postoperative pain and functional domains.MethodsThis is a retrospective cohort study of RA patients matched based on age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, and Charlson Comorbidity Index score 1:2 with OA patients (76 RA, 152 OA) who underwent primary TKA. The Hospital for Special Surgery Knee Replacement Expectations Survey, Visual Analogue Scale for Pain (VAS), Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), and the Short Form-12 (SF-12) were compared at baseline and at 2 years postoperatively. Minimum clinically important differences (MCIDs) were calculated for KOOS and SF-12 subdomains.ResultsPreoperatively, RA patients had lower expectations, worse VAS Pain, and worse KOOS Pain, Symptoms, and Activities of Daily Living (P < .05). However, at 2 years, RA patients had significantly larger improvements in VAS (P = .01) and these 3 KOOS subdomains (P < .05), achieving comparable absolute scores to OA patients. Overall, 86.1% of RA and 87.1% of OA patients were either somewhat or very satisfied with their TKA. Patient satisfaction correlated with VAS Pain and KOOS outcome scores in both groups. RA and OA patients had high rates of achieving MCID in SF-12 physical component scores and all 5 KOOS subdomains. A higher proportion of RA patients achieved MCID in KOOS Symptoms (98.4% vs 77.2%, P < .001).ConclusionRA patients had lower baseline expectations compared to OA patients. However, RA patients had greater improvements in KOOS and SF-12 subdomains, and there was no difference in satisfaction compared to OA patients after TKA.     

The Paradox of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Should We Prioritize “Feeling Better” or “Feeling Good” After Total Knee Arthroplasty?

BackgroundThe use of preoperative patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) thresholds for patient selection in arthroplasty care has been questioned recently. This study aimed to identify factors affecting achievement of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and determine the overlap between the two outcomes.MethodsWe identified 1,239 primary, unilateral TKAs performed at a single institution in 2015-2019. PROMs including the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement (KOOS-JR) and 12-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12) were collected preoperatively and 1-year postoperatively. The likelihood of attaining PASS as per attainment of MCID was assessed. A multivariable regression was used to identify predictors of MCID and PASS.ResultsIn total, 71.3% achieved MCID and 75.5% achieved PASS for KOOS-JR. Only 7.7% achieved MCID but not PASS, whereas almost twice this number did not achieve MCID but did achieve PASS (11.9%). Poorer preoperative KOOS-JR (OR 0.925), better SF-12 physical (OR 1.025), and mental (OR 1.027) were associated with MCID attainment. In contrast, better preoperative KOOS-JR (OR 1.030) and SF-12 mental (OR 1.025) were associated with PASS attainment. Age, gender, race, ethnicity, body mass index, Charlson index, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, and smoking status were not significant predictors.ConclusionPreoperative PROMs were associated with achieving MCID and PASS after TKA, albeit some positively and some negatively. In the era of value-based care, clinicians should not only strive to help patients “feel better” but also ensure that patients “feel good” after surgery. This study does not support the use of PROMs in prioritizing access to care.     

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.     

Clinical and patient-reported outcomes of reverse shoulder arthroplasty in patients receiving Social Security Disability Insurance or workers’ compensation

BackgroundEvidence suggests that reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) patients receiving workers’ compensation (WC) have worse patient-reported outcomes (PROs) than those not receiving WC. It is unknown whether Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) recipients also have worse outcomes of RSA. Our goals were to (1) compare PROs and range of motion (ROM) after RSA according to whether patients were receiving SSDI, WC, or neither form of assistance, and (2) identify factors associated with poor PROs.MethodsFrom a US institutional database of 454 patients who underwent RSA from January 2009 through December 2016, we identified 19 SSDI recipients and 25 WC recipients. From the same database, we created a control group of 81 patients not receiving SSDI or WC, matched by demographic variables. Between groups, we compared age, sex, operative arm dominance, preoperative diagnosis, number of previous shoulder surgeries, primary or revision arthroplasty, and Charlson Comorbidity Index value. Patients were evaluated preoperatively and at a minimum of 2 years postoperatively by physical examination, including range of motion, visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, L'Insalata score, Simple Shoulder Test (SST), and Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder (WOOS) score. Significance was set at P< .05. Clinical relevance of improvements in forward flexion and abduction, VAS for pain, ASES, and SST were evaluated using established minimal clinically important difference (MCID) values.ResultsBoth the SSDI and WC groups experienced statistically significant improvements from preoperatively to postoperatively; these improvements exceeded MCID thresholds for forward flexion and abduction, VAS for pain, ASES (except in WC group), and SST score (all, P< .05). These outcomes were not significantly different between the SSDI and WC groups. Compared with the control group, both the SSDI and WC groups had statistically significantly worse outcomes for these same measures. The only factor associated with poor clinical outcomes was having undergone ≥2 previous surgical procedures on the same shoulder for which RSA was performed in both SSDI (odds ratio = 2.4, 95% confidence interval: 1.0-5.4) and WC (odds ratio = 1.6, 95% confidence interval: 1.1-4.5) groups.ConclusionAmong RSA patients, SSDI recipients did not have worse clinical outcomes than WC recipients. Having undergone ≥2 previous procedures on the same shoulder was associated with poor outcomes in both groups. These findings should be considered when determining the appropriateness of RSA for SSDI and WC recipients.Level of evidenceLevel III; Retrospective Cohort Comparison; Treatment Study     

Effect of Smoking on Postoperative Function and Quality of Life After Full Thickness Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair: A Retrospective Analysis

PurposeThe effect of smoking on preoperative and postoperative outcome scores as well as quality of life measurements after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR) has not been fully understood, and studies regarding this are lacking in the literature. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of smoking on function and quality of life after ARCR.MethodsTwo-hundred patients who underwent full-thickness ARCR with a minimum 1-year follow-up period were included and evaluated retrospectively. The patients were divided into two groups: smokers (Group 1, 59 patients) and nonsmokers (Group 2, 141 patients). Pre- and postoperative Constant Murley (CM) scores, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores, visual analogue scale scores (VASs), and Short-Form 36 health survey (SF-36) scores were used to evaluate functional and quality of life outcomes. The correlation between the smoking amount (pack-years) and outcomes was evaluated.ResultsA total of 200 patients included into study (90 male and 110 female) with mean age of 62.68 ± 3.98. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups regarding preoperative scores, except in the ASES score (P = 0.021) Additionally, there was a statistically significant difference between the groups regarding postoperative CM score, ASES score, and VAS, and in physical functioning and role limitations due to physical health domains of the SF-36 (P = 0.029, P = 0.038, P = 0.021 and P = 0.020, respectively). There were small to moderate negative correlations between amount of smoking and preoperative physical functioning, role limitations from emotional problems, energy/fatigue, emotional well-being, and pain domains of the SF-36. However, there were moderate to strong negative correlations between amount of smoking and postoperative SF-36 domains.ConclusionPreoperative and postoperative functional outcome scores, and quality of life measurements are negatively affected from smoking. As the amount of smoking increases, postoperative results are negatively affected.Level of evidence3.     

Patient-reported outcome measures used for shoulder disorders: An overview of systematic reviews

BackgroundThe aim of this study was to synthesize the psychometric evidence on different patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) for shoulder disorders.MethodsThis overview conducted a search of six databases. Included systematic reviews must address at least one psychometric property from a PROM for shoulder disorders. Risk of bias was assessed by A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR).ResultsThirteen systematic reviews were identified that assessed measurement properties of 15 different PROMs. Based on AMSTAR, 1 review had a high risk of bias and 7 reviews had a moderate risk of bias. Excellent test-reliability scores of intraclass correlation coefficients (0.85-0.99) were reported by the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand, Shoulder Pain and Dsiability Index, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeon score and Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index. Construct validity was supported (r = 0.5-0.8) for the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand, Shoulder Pain and Dsiability Index, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeon score and Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index. Limited evidence of responsiveness was reported across various PROMs.ConclusionStrong reliability and convergent validity properties have been reported across multiple reviews for the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand, Shoulder Pain and Dsiability Index, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeon score, Simple Shoulder Test and Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index, which could be considered for a core clinical outcome set.