Establishing the Minimal Clinically Important Difference for the PROMIS Upper Extremity Computer Adaptive Test Version 2.0 in a Nonshoulder Hand and Upper Extremity Population

Operative Versus Nonoperative Treatment of Displaced Proximal Humerus Fractures in Adolescents: Results of a Prospective Multicenter Study

BACKGROUND

Proximal humerus fractures (PHFx) constitute around 2% of all pediatric fractures. Although younger children with displaced fractures often undergo nonoperative treatments, optimal treatment for adolescents is not well defined. The study aimed to assess the outcomes of operative versus nonoperative treatment of displaced proximal humerus fractures in adolescents via a prospective multicenter study.

METHODS

This prospective study assessed adolescents aged 10 to 16 years with displaced PHFx from 2018 to 2022 at 6 level 1 trauma centers. Displacement criteria for inclusion were >50% shaft diameter or angulation >30 degrees on AP/lateral shoulder X-rays. Operative versus nonoperative treatment was decided by the treating physician. Radiographic and clinical data were collected at 6 weeks, 3, and 6 months. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) included: Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMIS), Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI), and QuickDASH questionnaires. Patients were further grouped into a severe displacement cohort, defined as angulation >40° or displacement >75%. Clinical and radiographic data were compared between the 2 treatment cohorts.

RESULTS

Out of 78 enrolled patients, 36 (46%) underwent operative treatment. Patients treated operatively were significantly older (13.5 vs. 12.2 y, P <0.001) and exhibited greater mean angulation on AP shoulder view at presentation (31.1° vs. 23.5°, P <0.05). All PROs improved over time. At 6 weeks, operative patients demonstrated superior PROMIS upper extremity scores based on the minimally clinically important difference (MCID) (46.4 vs. 34.3, P =0.027); however, this distinction disappeared by 3 months. In a subanalysis of 35 patients with severe displacement, 21 (60.1%) underwent surgical intervention. No metrics showed significant differences between treatment modalities, with all PROs achieving population norm values by 3 months. Range of motion showed no difference between operative and nonoperative treatments, irrespective of fracture displacement.

CONCLUSION

We found no differences in PROs and ROM between operative and nonoperative treatments of PHFx. If not contraindicated, nonoperative treatment may reduce healthcare costs and risks associated with surgery and should be considered for displaced adolescent proximal humerus fractures, irrespective of fracture displacement.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II.

A Prospective Randomized Pilot Study: One-Year Outcomes of Ligament Reconstruction Tendon Interposition Versus Suture Tape Suspensionplasty for Thumb Carpometacarpal Joint Arthritis

PURPOSE

We performed a randomized controlled trial assessing patient-reported outcome measures following trapeziectomy with ligament reconstruction and tendon interposition (LRTI) or suture tape suspensionplasty (STS) for treatment of thumb carpometacarpal joint osteoarthritis.

METHODS

Patients undergoing surgery for thumb carpometacarpal joint osteoarthritis were prospectively randomized to LRTI or STS. Outcome measures were collected at 2 weeks, 4 weeks, 3 months, and 1 year and included visual analog scale pain, Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Upper Extremity, return to work/activity, range of motion, grip/pinch strength, and complications.

RESULTS

Thirty-one patients (32 thumbs) were randomized from 51 patients offered participation over two years. One-year follow-up was 97%. Both groups had a decrease in visual analog scale pain scores at all postoperative time points. The trajectory of postoperative Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Upper Extremity scores was similar, and both groups achieved the meaningful clinically important difference for improvement in PROMIS Upper Extremity by three months. Grip strength was substantially increased in both groups at one year. Return to work/activity and surgical complications favored the LRTI group.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study did not suggest any clinically relevant differences in the postoperative patient-reported outcome measures or objective clinical measurements between LRTI and STS, although LRTI patients had a faster return to work/activity and lower complication rates.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic IIB.

Medial Femoral Trochlea Osteochondral Flap Reconstruction of the Previously Unsalvageable Kienbock-Associated Lunate With a Coronal Split

PURPOSE

Patients with Kienbock disease can present with coronal fracture and collapse of the proximal lunate (Unified B2/Bain grade 1, 2B). Traditionally, this was considered unsalvageable. However, medial femoral trochlea (MFT) osteochondral reconstruction, used to recreate the proximal lunate surface, can be paired with reduction and repair of the coronal plane fracture, thus restoring midcarpal congruity. The purpose of this study was to report radiographic and clinical outcomes following lunate coronal fracture fixation at the time of MFT osteochondral reconstruction.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study performed at a single institution. We identified patients with Kienbock disease who underwent MFT osteochondral reconstruction from 2014 to 2023. Patients were included if they had a coronal fracture of the lunate distal articular surface fixed at the time of surgery. Radiographic and clinical parameters were evaluated, including carpal height ratio, union rate, presence of heterotopic ossification, need for revision surgery, and patient-reported outcome measures.

RESULTS

Thirty-three patients were included, with a mean age of 27.5 years (range: 15-41); 19 (58%) were women. Mean radiographic follow-up time was 5.8 months, and mean clinical follow-up time was 22.6 months. Union was achieved in 30/33 patients (91%). Carpal height ratio improved from 1.32 to 1.4. Two patients (6%) required reoperation, one for removal of heterotopic ossification and another for conversion to proximal row carpectomy. Patients demonstrated meaningful improvement in brief Michigan Hand Questionnaire and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information Upper Extremity scores. Range of motion before and after surgery was similar.

CONCLUSIONS

Lunate coronal fracture fixation with MFT osteochondral reconstruction represents an additional management option in select patients with Kienbock disease. This technique restores the midcarpal joint during lunate reconstruction and may allow patients to avoid salvage procedures. Early radiographic and clinical outcomes are promising.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic IV.

Provision of a Home-Based Video-Assisted Therapy Program Is Noninferior to In-Person Hand Therapy After Thumb Carpometacarpal Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

In-person hand therapy is commonly prescribed for rehabilitation after thumb carpometacarpal (CMC) arthroplasty but may be burdensome to patients because of the need to travel to appointments. Asynchronous, video-assisted home therapy is a method of care in which videos containing instructions and exercises are provided to the patient, without the need for in-person or telemedicine visits. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the effectiveness of providing video-only therapy (VOT) as compared with scheduled in-person therapy (IPT) after thumb CMC arthroplasty.

METHODS

We performed a single-site, prospective, randomized controlled trial of patients undergoing primary thumb CMC arthroplasty without an implant. The study included 50 women and 8 men, with a mean age of 61 years (range, 41 to 83 years). Of these, 96.6% were White, 3.4% were Black, and 13.8% were of Hispanic ethnicity. The primary outcome measure was the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Upper Extremity (UE) score. Subjects in the VOT group were provided with 3 videos of home exercises to perform. Subjects in the control group received standardized IPT with a hand therapist. Improvements in the PROMIS UE score from preoperatively to 12 weeks and 1 year postoperatively were compared.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight subjects (29 control, 29 experimental) were included in the analysis at the 12-week time point, and 54 (27 control, 27 experimental) were included in the analysis at the 1-year time point. VOT was noninferior to IPT for the PROMIS UE score at 12 weeks and 1 year postoperatively, with a difference of mean improvement (VOT - IPT) of 1.5 (95% confidence interval [CI], -3.6 to 6.6) and 2.2 (95% CI, -3.0 to 7.3), respectively, both of which were below the minimal clinically important difference (4.1). Patients in the VOT group potentially saved on average 201.3 miles in travel.

CONCLUSIONS

VOT was noninferior to IPT for upper extremity function after thumb CMC arthroplasty. Time saved in commutes was considerable for those who did not attend IPT.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level I . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Is There a Role for Isolated Closed Reduction in the Emergency Department Without Fixation for Displaced Proximal Humerus Fractures in Adolescents?

OBJECTIVE

Pediatric proximal humerus fractures (PHFx) are uncommon and makeup ~2% of all pediatric fractures. Traditionally, most cases are treated nonoperatively with closed reduction (CR) or immobilization with no reduction (INR) with excellent outcomes. Indications for CR without fixation remain unclear as immobilization in the position of reduction (shoulder abduction and external rotation) is not practical. We aim to determine the need for CR among adolescents with displaced PHFx treated nonoperatively.

METHODS

We conducted an IRB-approved prospective multicenter study involving 42 adolescents aged 10 to 16 years, treated for displaced PHFx across 6 institutions between 2018 and 2022. CR was performed under conscious sedation in the emergency department, with data collected during follow-up visits at 6 weeks and 3 months. Radiographic measurements, range of motion, and patient-reported outcomes, including the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Upper Extremity and Physical Function, Shoulder Pain and Disability Index, and QuickDash scores, were compared between the INR and CR groups.

RESULTS

Among 42 fractures, 23 (55%) were treated with INR and 19 (45%) with CR, followed by placement in a hanging arm cast or sling. Of the cases, 62% were high-energy injuries. Radiographic alignment and range of motion were similar between groups at preoperative, 6 weeks, and 3 months with no significant differences noted.Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Upper Extremity, Physical Function, QuickDash, and Shoulder Pain and Disability Index scores at 6 weeks and 3 months showed no significant differences between cohorts. Significant improvement was observed between 6 weeks and 3 months for every patient-reported outcome in both cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

For displaced PHFx treated nonoperatively, our data suggests INR has a similar radiographic and clinical outcome when compared with CR. Our results question the necessity of performing CR in this group of patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II-therapeutic studies: prospective cohort study.

An Evaluation of Patient-reported Outcome Measures and Minimal Clinically Important Difference Usage in Hand Surgery

Background

This study was designed to examine the current use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) calculations in the hand surgery literature in an effort to standardize their use for research purposes.

Methods

A systematic review of the hand surgery literature was conducted. All nonshoulder upper extremity articles utilizing PROMs were compared between different journals, different surgical indications, and differing usage. MCID values were reported, and calculation methods assessed.

Results

In total, 4677 articles were reviewed, and 410 met the inclusion criteria of containing at least one PROM. Of the 410 articles reporting PROMs, 148 also mentioned an associated MCID. Of the articles that mentioned MCIDs, 14 calculated MCID values based on their specific clinical populations, whereas the remainder referenced prior studies. An estimated 35 different PROMs were reported in the study period; 95 different MCID values were referenced from 65 unique articles.

Conclusions

There are many different PROMs currently being used in hand surgery clinical reports. The reported MCIDs from their related PROMs are from multiple different sources and calculated by different methods. The lack of standardization in the hand surgery literature makes interpretation of studies utilizing PROMs difficult. There is a need for a standardized method of calculating MCID values and applying these values to established PROMs for nonshoulder upper extremity conditions.

Pearls and pitfalls of PROMIS clinically significant outcomes in orthopaedic surgery

INTRODUCTION

Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) was developed as a uniform and generalizable PROM system using item response theory and computer adaptive testing. We aimed to assess the utilization of PROMIS for clinically significant outcomes (CSOs) measurements and provide insights into its use in orthopaedic research.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We reviewed PROMIS CSO reports for orthopaedic procedures via PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science from inception to 2022, excluding abstracts and missing measurements. Bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and questionnaire compliance. PROMIS domains, CSO measures, and study populations were described. A meta-analysis compared distribution and anchor-based MCIDs in low-bias (NOS ≥ 7) studies.

RESULTS

Overall, 54 publications from 2016 to 2022 were reviewed. PROMIS CSO studies were observational with increasing publication rates. Evidence-level was II in 10/54, bias low in 51/54, and compliance ≥ 86% in 46/54. Most (28/54) analysed lower extremity procedures. PROMIS domains examined Pain Function (PF) in 44/54, Pain Interference (PI) in 36/54, and Depression (D) in 18/54. Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was reported in 51/54 and calculated based on distribution in 39/51 and anchor in 29/51. Patient acceptable symptom state (PASS), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and minimal detectable change (MDC) were reported in ≤ 10/54. MCIDs were not significantly greater than MDCs. Anchor-based MCIDs were greater than distribution based MCIDs (standardized mean difference = 0.44, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

PROMIS CSOs are increasingly utilized, especially for lower extremity procedures assessing the PF, PI, and D domains using distribution-based MCID. Using more conservative anchor-based MCIDs and reporting MDCs may strengthen results. Researchers should consider unique pearls and pitfalls when assessing PROMIS CSOs.

Responsiveness of PROMIS Instruments for Trigger Digit After Corticosteroid Injection or A1 Pulley Release

PURPOSE

The purpose of the study was to determine if the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) is sufficiently sensitive to detect improvement after 2 common treatments of trigger finger: corticosteroid injection or A1 pulley release.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included 72 patients in the injection group and 51 in the A1 pulley release group. PROMIS physical function (PF), pain interference (PI), and upper extremity (UE) scores were collected at baseline and 6 weeks after injection for the injection group and at baseline, and 1 week, 6 weeks, and 3 months after surgery for A1 pulley release patients. Descriptive statistics and paired t tests were used to compare PROMIS scores within each cohort. Standardized response means (SRMs) were calculated for each PROMIS domain to gauge instrument responsiveness.

RESULTS

Average age was 62 years, 65% were female patients, and 86% were White for the steroid injection cohort, compared to 60 years, 71%, and 88%, respectively, for the A1 pulley release cohort. For the steroid injection group, mean PROMIS PI scores (-4.0 points; SRM = -0.6) and PROMIS UE scores (+3.3 points; SRM = 0.5) improved significantly at 6 weeks after injection compared to baseline. Meanwhile, A1 pulley release patients improved significantly in mean PI scores (-3.7 points; SRM = -0.5) and in UE scores (+4.9 points; SRM = 0.7) at 3 months after surgery compared to baseline.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical improvements after trigger digit treatments are reflected in improved PROMIS PI and UE scores that reach previously accepted minimum clinically important difference values for hand patients. PROMIS PI and UE also are more responsive than PROMIS PF in capturing improvement for trigger digit treatments.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

As health care payers continue to emphasize patient-reported outcomes to determine treatment value and set reimbursement rates, this study helps establish that clinical improvement after trigger digit treatments are reflected in PROMIS PI and UE domains by reaching previously established minimum clinically important difference values for hand patients.

From numbers to meaningful change: Minimal important change by using PROMIS in a cohort of fracture patients

INTRODUCTION

use of the Patient-Reported Outcomes measurement Information System (PROMIS®) is slowly increasing in patients with a fracture. Yet, minimal important change of PROMIS in patients with fractures has been addressed in a very limited number of studies. As the minimal important change (MIC) is important to interpret PROMIS-scores, the goal is to estimate the MIC for PROMIS physical function (PF), PROMIS pain interference (PI) and PROMIS ability to participate in social roles and activities (APSRA) in patients with a fracture. Secondly, the smallest detectable change was determined.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A longitudinal cohort study on patients ≥ 18 years receiving surgical or non-surgical care for fractures was conducted. Patients completed PROMIS PF V1.1, PROMIS PI V1.1 and PROMIS APSRA V2.0. For follow-up, patients completed three additional anchor questions evaluating patient-reported improvement on a seven point rating scale. The predictive modeling method was used to estimate the MIC value of all three PROMIS questionnaires.

RESULTS

Hundred patients with a mean age of 55.4 ± 12.6 years were included of which sixty (60%) were female. Seventy-two (72%) patients were recovering from a surgical procedure. PROMIS-CAT T-scores of all PROMIS measures showed significant correlations with their anchor questions. The predictive modeling method showed a MIC value of +2.4 (n = 98) for PROMIS PF, -2.9 (n = 96) for PROMIS PI and +3.2 (n = 91) for PROMIS APSRA.

CONCLUSION

By using the anchor based predictive modeling method, PROMIS MIC-values for improvement of respectively +2.4 points on a T-score metric for PROMIS-PF, -2.9 for PROMIS-PI and +3.2 for PROMIS APSRA give the impression of being meaningful to patients. These values can be used in clinical practice for managing patient expectations; to inform on treatment results; and to assess if patients experience significant change. This in order to encourage patient centered care.

Bringing Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) Into Practice: A Review of the Latest Developments in PROM Use in the Evaluation and Treatment of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome

As health care systems globally shift toward optimizing value, defined as health outcomes achieved per dollar spent across a full cycle of care, there has been increasing focus on using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to gauge success. Patient-reported outcome measures are validated questionnaires that allow patients to share their health status across several domains (eg, pain or physical function). This trend has been particularly notable in hand surgery, with PROM use investigated for many common hand conditions, including carpal tunnel syndrome, Dupuytren contracture, trigger finger, osteoarthritis, and wrist ganglion. The purpose of this article is to review recent developments in the use of PROM instruments, including the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire; Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire; Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand; and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System, for the evaluation and treatment of patients with carpal tunnel syndrome. The considerable progress in establishing PROMs for use in carpal tunnel syndrome is reviewed, and future improvements are proposed to standardize PROM use and bring PROMs into day-to-day clinical practice for individualized patient treatment decision-making and counseling.

Establishing the Minimal Clinically Important Difference and Substantial Clinical Benefit for the Pain Visual Analog Scale in a Postoperative Hand Surgery Population

PURPOSE

Although the pain visual analog scale (VAS-pain) is a ubiquitous patient-reported outcome instrument, it remains unclear how to interpret changes or differences in scores. Therefore, our purpose was to calculate the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) for the VAS-pain instrument in a nonshoulder hand and upper extremity postoperative population.

METHODS

Adult postoperative patients treated by 1 of 5 fellowship-trained orthopedic hand surgeons at a single tertiary academic medical center were identified. Inclusion required VAS-pain scores at baseline (up to 3 months before surgery) and follow-up (up to 4 months after surgery), in addition to a response to a pain-specific anchor question at follow-up. The MCID estimates were calculated with (1) the 1/2 standard deviation method; and (2) an anchor-based approach. The SCB estimates were calculated with (1) an anchor-based approach; and (2) a receiver operator curve method that maximized the sensitivity and specificity for detecting a "much improved" pain status.

RESULTS

There were 667 and 148 total patients included in the MCID and SCB analyses, respectively. The 1/2 standard deviation MCID estimate was 1.6, and the anchor-based estimate was 1.9. The anchor-based SCB estimate was 2.2. The receiver operator curve analysis yielded an SCB estimate of 2.6, with an area under the curve of 0.72, consistent with acceptable discrimination.

CONCLUSIONS

We propose MCID values in the range of 1.6 to 1.9 and SCB values in the range of 2.2 to 2.6 for the VAS-pain instrument in a nonshoulder hand and upper extremity postoperative population.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

These MCID and SCB estimates may be useful for powering clinical studies and when interpreting VAS-pain score changes or differences reported in the hand surgery literature. These values are to be applied at a population level, and should not be applied to assess the improvement, or lack thereof, for individual patients.

Minimal Clinically Important Differences of PROMIS PF in Ankle Fracture Patients

BACKGROUND

Evaluating the minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) in patient-reported outcome scores is essential for use of clinical outcomes data. The purpose of the current study was to calculate MCID of Patient Reported Outcome Information System Physical Function (PROMIS PF) scores for ankle fracture patients.

METHODS

All patients who underwent operative fixation for ankle fractures at a single level 1 trauma center were identified by Current Procedural Terminology code. PROMIS PF scores were collected. Patients had to complete an anchor question at 2 time points postoperatively to be included in this study. Anchor-based and distribution-based MCIDs were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 331 patients were included in the distribution-based analysis, and 195 patients were included in the anchor-based analysis. Mean age was 45.3 years (SD 17.5), and 59.4% of participants were female. MCID for PROMIS PF scores was 5.05 in the distribution-based method and 5.43 in the anchor-based method.

CONCLUSION

This study identified MCID values based on 2 time points postoperatively for PROMIS PF scores in the ankle fracture population. Both methods of MCID calculation resulted in equivalent MCIDs. This can be used to identify patients outside the normal preoperative and postoperative norms and may help to make clinically relevant practice decisions.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level I, diagnostic study, testing of previously developed diagnostic measure on consecutive patients with reference standard applied.

The minimal clinically important difference of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) physical function and upper extremity computer adaptive tests and QuickDASH in the setting of elbow trauma

Background

Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) estimates are useful for gauging clinical relevance when interpreting changes or differences in patient-reported outcomes scores. These values are lacking in the setting of elbow trauma. Our primary purpose was to estimate the MCID of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) physical function (PF) computer adaptive test (CAT), the PROMIS upper extremity (UE) CAT, and the QuickDASH using an anchor-based approach for patients recovering from elbow trauma and related surgeries. Secondarily, we aimed to estimate the MCID using the 1/2 standard deviation method.

Materials & methods

Adult patients undergoing treatment for isolated elbow injuries between July 2014 and April 2020 were identified at a single tertiary academic medical center. Outcomes, including the PROMIS PF CAT v1.2/2.0, PROMIS UE CAT v1.2, and QuickDASH, were collected via a tablet computer. For inclusion, baseline (6 months before injury up to 11 days postoperatively or after injury) and follow-up (11 to 150 days postoperative or after injury) PF or UE CAT scores were required, as well as a response to an anchor question querying improvement in physical function. The MCID was calculated using (1) an anchor-based approach using the difference in mean score change between anchor groups reporting “No change” and “Slightly Improved/Improved” and (2) the 1/2 standard deviation method.

Results

Of the 146 included patients, the mean age was 46 ± 18 years and 67 (46%) were women. Most patients (129 of 146 or 88%) were recovering from surgery, and the remaining 12% were recovering from nonoperatively managed fractures and/or dislocations. The mean follow-up was 157 ± 192 days. Scores for each instrument improved significantly between baseline and follow-up. Anchor-based MCID values were calculated as follows: 5.7, 4.6, and 5.3 for the PROMIS PF CAT, PROMIS UE CAT, and QuickDASH, respectively. MCID values estimated using the 1/2 standard deviation method were 4.3, 4.8, and 11.7 for the PROMIS PF CAT, PROMIS UE CAT, and QuickDASH, respectively.

Conclusions

In the setting of elbow trauma, we propose MCID ranges of 4.3 to 5.7 for the PROMIS PF CAT, 4.6 to 4.8 for the PROMIS UE CAT, and 5.3 to 11.7 for the QuickDASH. These values will provide a framework for clinical relevance when interpreting clinical outcomes studies, or powering clinical trials, for populations recovering from trauma.