The development and validation of a questionnaire for rotator cuff disorders: The Functional Shoulder Score

Glenoid bone grafting in primary anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Primary anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty can be challenging in patients with complex glenoid wear patterns and bone loss. Severe retroversion (>15°) or significant bone loss may require bone grafting. This review summarizes the rate of revision and long-term outcomes of anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty with bone graft.

METHODS

A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and CENTRAL databases was conducted from the date of inception to 23 October 2018. Two reviewers independently screened articles for eligibility and extracted data for analysis. The primary outcome was rate of revision. The secondary outcomes were rate of component loosening, functional outcome, and range of motion.

RESULTS

Of the 1056 articles identified in the search, 26 underwent full-text screening and 7 articles were included in the analysis. All procedures were one-stage anatomic total shoulder arthroplasties. The rate of revision was 5.4% with component loosening and infection listed as indications over a weighted mean follow-up period of 6.3 years. Complications occurred in 12.6% of patients.

CONCLUSION

Glenoid bone grafting in anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty results in comparable revision rates and improvement in pain compared to augmented glenoid components and reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Due to the low quality of evidence, further prospective studies should be conducted.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

How to Assess Shoulder Functionality: A Systematic Review of Existing Validated Outcome Measures

The objective of this review was to compile validated functional shoulder assessment tools and analyse the methodological quality of their validations. Secondarily, we aimed to provide a comparison of the tools, including parameter descriptions, indications/applications, languages and operating instructions, to choose the most suitable for future clinical and research approaches. A systematic review (PRISMA) was conducted using: PubMed, WoS Scopus, CINHAL, Dialnet and reference lists until 2020. The main criteria for inclusion were that papers were original studies of validated tools or validation studies. Pre-established tables showed tools, validations, items/components, etc. The QUADAS-2 and COSMIN-RB were used to assess the methodological quality of validations. Ultimately, 85 studies were selected, 32 tools and 111 validations. Risk of bias scored lower than applicability, and patient selection got the best scores (QUADAS-2). Internal consistency had the highest quality and PROMs development the lowest (COSMIN-RB). Responsiveness was the most analysed metric property. Modified UCLA and SST obtained the highest quality in shoulder instability surgery, and SPADI in pain. The most approached topic was activities of daily living (81%). We compiled 32 validated functional shoulder assessment tools, and conducted an analysis of the methodological quality of 111 validations associated with them. Modified UCLA and SST showed the highest methodological quality in instability surgery and SPADI in pain.

Discriminating the precision of inertial sensors between healthy and damaged shoulders during scaption movement: A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Shoulder assessment in rehabilitation is focused on kinematic properties due to the variability of symptomatology and clinical expression of shoulder injuries.

AIM

To perform a receiver operating characteristic analysis of the kinematic variables involved in the functional mobility of the shoulder that allow the identification of discriminating variables between healthy and diseased shoulders during scaption motion.

METHOD

Analytical cross-sectional study of diagnostic effectiveness was performed in 27 subjects suffering from shoulder damage and 14 asymptomatic controls. Scaption kinematics were evaluated using four inertial sensors placed on the humerus, scapula, forearm and sternum. Three variables (mobility, velocity and acceleration) were obtained from each sensor and the norm of the resultant vector was calculated from each axis. A discriminatory receiver operating characteristic analysis was performed, obtaining the area under the curve, sensitivity and specificity.

FINDINGS

Significant differences from both the resultant vectors and the axis depended on the body segment analysed were observed. Greater movement velocity and acceleration were observed in the asymptomatic group. Receiver operating characteristic analysis, scapular protraction-retraction mobility distinguished with a diagnostic sensitivity of 83.3% and specificity of 90.9% between asymptomatic and shoulder-damaged patients. These diagnosis values were 83.3% and 72.7% for scapular anterior-posterior velocity. Scapular kinematics, in terms of mobility and velocity, are the key variables in shoulder assessment.

INTERPRETATION

This study discriminated between patients suffering from shoulder damage and asymptomatic subjects based on shoulder kinematics during scaption motion. Scapular mobility and velocity were found to be key variables in shoulder assessment, along with the humerus.

Minimal Clinically Important Difference, Substantial Clinical Benefit, and Patient Acceptable Symptom State of Outcome Measures Relating to Shoulder Pathology and Surgery: a Systematic Review

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW

To provide a comprehensive summary of available literature on the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for various shoulder conditions and outcomes and to identify factors that influence these metrics.

RECENT FINDINGS

Over the past 2 years, there has been an increasing interest in utilizing MCID, SCB, and PASS as a gauge to evaluate the success of an intervention for shoulder conditions. Efforts at calculating these thresholds have yielded multiple and inconsistent values and are further compounded by the proliferation of different PROMs in the shoulder literature. The MCID, SCB, and PASS values of shoulder PROMs vary widely with study-specific characteristics, including patient demographics, shoulder pathology, treatment, shoulder instrument, study methodology, and calculation method. The differences in these factors are not inconsequential and could lead to large discrepancies in threshold values. It is crucial that clinicians are mindful of these variables when designing future studies to calculate these metrics or when utilizing previously published values to determine the success of an intervention.

Minimal Clinically Important Difference of Shoulder Outcome Measures and Diagnoses: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

Patient-reported outcome scales determine response to treatment. The minimal clinically important difference of these scales is a measure of responsiveness: the smallest change in a score associated with a clinically important change to the patient. This study sought to summarize the literature on minimal clinically important difference for the most commonly reported shoulder outcome scales.

DESIGN

A literature search of PubMed and EMBASE databases identified 193 citations, 27 of which met the inclusion/exclusion criteria.

RESULTS

For rotator cuff tears, a minimal clinically important difference range of 9-26.9 was reported for American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, 8 or 10 for Constant, and 282.6-588.7 for the Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index. For patients who underwent arthroplasty, a minimal clinically important difference range of 6.3-20.9 was reported for American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons, 5.7-9.4 for Constant, and 14.1-20.6 for the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index. For proximal humeral fractures, a minimal clinically important difference range of 5.4-11.6 was reported for Constant and 8.1-13.0 for Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand.

CONCLUSIONS

A wide range of minimal clinically important difference values was reported for each patient population and instrument. In the future, a uniform outcome instrument and minimal clinically important difference will be useful to measure clinically meaningful change across practices and the spectrum of shoulder diagnoses.