Preoperative psychometric properties of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Upper Extremity, Pain Interference, and Depression in Bankart repair and rotator cuff repair

Evaluating the Use of PROMs in Paediatric Orthopaedic Registries

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) provide structured information on the patient's health experience and facilitate shared clinical decision-making. Registries that collect PROMs generate essential information about the clinical course and efficacy of interventions. Whilst PROMs are increasingly being used in adult orthopaedic registries, their use in paediatric orthopaedic registries is not well known. The purpose of this systematic review was to identify the frequency and scope of registries that collect PROMs in paediatric orthopaedic patient groups. In July 2023, six databases were systematically searched to identify studies that collected PROMs using a registry amongst patients aged under 18 years with orthopaedic diagnoses. Of 3190 identified articles, 128 unique registries were identified. Three were exclusively paediatric, 27 were majority paediatric, and the remainder included a minority of paediatric patients. One hundred and twenty-eight registries collected 72 different PROMs, and 58% of these PROMs were not validated for a paediatric population. The largest group of orthopaedic registries collected PROMs on knee ligament injuries (21%). There are few reported dedicated orthopaedic registries collecting PROMs in paediatric populations. The majority of PROMs collected amongst paediatric populations by orthopaedic registries are not validated for patients under the age of 18 years. The use of non-validated PROMs by registries greatly impedes their utility and impact. Dedicated orthopaedic registries collecting paediatric-validated PROMs are needed to increase health knowledge, improve decision-making between patients and healthcare providers, and optimise orthopaedic management.

Determining the Time Required to Achieve Clinically Significant Outcomes on the PROMIS Upper Extremity Questionnaire After Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair

Background

Clinically significant outcome (CSO) thresholds for the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System-Upper Extremity (PROMIS-UE) score have been previously defined after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (RCR). However, the time required to achieve CSOs for the PROMIS-UE score is unknown.

Purpose

To (1) determine the time required to achieve the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) score thresholds after RCR for the PROMIS-UE questionnaire and (2) identify patient factors associated with earlier or delayed achievement of these clinical benchmarks.

Study Design

Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods

A prospectively maintained institutional database was retrospectively reviewed for consecutive patients who underwent RCR between January 2018 and January 2019. Patients were included if they completed the PROMIS-UE questionnaire both preoperatively and at standardized postoperative time intervals: 5 to 7 months (6-month time point), 11 to 13 months (1-year time point), and ≥23 months (2-year time point). Kaplan-Meier survival curves with interval censoring were used to define the cumulative percentage of patients who achieved the MCID, SCB, and PASS. Patient variables associated with earlier or delayed achievement of the MCID, SCB, and PASS were determined using Weibull parametric survival regression analysis.

Results

Included were 105 patients undergoing RCR (age, 57.3 ± 10.3 years; body mass index, 31.5 ± 6.1 kg/m²). By 2-year follow-up, the cumulative percentage of patients achieving the MCID, SCB, and PASS was 86.7%, 76.2%, and 74.3%, respectively. The mean time required to reach the MCID, SCB, and PASS score thresholds was 9.5 ± 3.8, 10.3 ± 4.4, and 9.8 ± 4.6 months, respectively. Factors associated with delayed achievement of CSOs included greater baseline PROMIS-UE score (MCID and SCB) and workers' compensation insurance (PASS). Greater baseline PROMIS-UE scores were associated with earlier achievement of the PASS.

Conclusion

Most patients achieved CSOs for the PROMIS-UE within 12 months of RCR. Patient-specific factors found to be associated with earlier or delayed achievement of CSOs can be used to inform patient discussions on the expected timeline for recovery after RCR.

Excellent Correlation of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Upper Extremity Score With Legacy Outcome Scores Preoperatively and at 1 Year After Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair

Purpose

To assess the preoperative and postoperative performance of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Upper Extremity (PROMIS-UE, version 2.0) outcome score in comparison to the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) and Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC) instruments in patients undergoing rotator cuff repair.

Methods

This prospective longitudinal study included 91 patients undergoing rotator cuff repair. Patients completed the PROMIS-UE, ASES, and WORC instruments preoperatively and postoperatively at 2 weeks, 6 weeks, 3 months, and 12 months. The Pearson correlation coefficient (r) between these tools was calculated at each time point. Correlations were graded as excellent (>0.7), excellent-good (0.61-0.7), good (0.4-0.6), or poor (<0.4). Responsiveness to change was assessed using the effect size and the standardized response mean. Floor and ceiling effects for each instrument were also assessed.

Results

The PROMIS-UE instrument showed good to excellent correlation with the legacy instruments at all time points. There were variations in the measured effect sizes of the various instruments, with the PROMIS-UE instrument showing responsiveness to change at 3 and 12 months but the ASES and WORC instruments showing responsiveness at 6 weeks, 3 months, and 12 months. Both PROMIS-UE and ASES scores displayed ceiling effects at 12 months.

Conclusions

The PROMIS-UE instrument shows excellent correlation with the ASES instrument and a rotator cuff-specific outcome instrument-the WORC instrument-preoperatively and at 1 year after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. Variations in the measured effect sizes at different postoperative time points and high ceiling effects of the PROMIS-UE instrument at the 1-year time point may limit its utility in the early postoperative phase and at long-term follow-up after rotator cuff repair.

Clinical Relevance

The performance of the PROMIS-UE outcome measure after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair was investigated.

Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) of upper extremity PROMIS scores following arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs

PURPOSE

To calculate and determine what factors are associated with achieving the Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) and the Substantial Clinical Benefit (SCB) of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Upper Extremity Computer Adaptive Testing v2.0 (UE), Pain Interference (P-Interference), and Pain Intensity (P-Intensity) in patients undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (aRCR).

METHODS

The change in PROMIS scores representing the optimal cutoff for a ROC curve with an area under the curve analysis was used to calculate the anchor-based MCID and SCB. To assess the responsiveness of each PROM, effect sizes and standardized response means (SRM) were calculated. To identify factors associated with attaining the MCID and SCB, univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 323 patients with an average age of 59.9 ± 9.5 were enrolled in this study, of which, 187/323 [57.9%] were male and 136/323 [42.1%] were female. The anchor-based MCID for PROMIS UE, P-Interference, and P-Intensity was: 9.0, 7.5, and 11.2, respectively. The respective SCB was 10.9, 9.3, and 12.7. Effect size and SRM were: PROMIS UE (1.4, 1.3), P-Interference (1.8, 1.5), and P-Intensity (2.3, 2.0). Lower preoperative P-Intensity scores (p = 0.02), dominant arm involvement (p = 0.03), and concomitant biceps tenodesis (p = 0.03) were associated with patients achieving the SCB for PROMIS UE.

CONCLUSION

A large responsiveness for each of the PROMIS instruments due to the majority of patients reporting great improvement after aRCR and a small standard deviation across all outcome measures was shown in our study. Lower preoperative P-Intensity scores and concomitant biceps tenodesis were associated with higher odds of achieving the SCB for PROMIS UE. The knowledge of MCID and SCB values for PROMIS instruments will allow the surgeon to determine whether the improvements in the PROMIS scores after aRCR are clinically meaningful.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.