The Patient Acceptable Symptom State as a Predictor of the Sports Activity Available State After Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair

Variability of MCID, SCB, and PASS Thresholds in Studies Assessing Patient-Reported Outcomes After Rotator Cuff Repair: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

An increasing reliance on patient-reported outcomes has led to greater emphasis on minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) thresholds in assessing rotator cuff repairs.

PURPOSE

To review the MCID, SCB, and PASS thresholds reported for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) after rotator cuff repair.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, Ovid, Cochrane, and Google Scholar databases were queried for full-text journal articles in English published between January 1, 2000, and May 31, 2022. Studies with MCID, SCB, and PASS thresholds reported for patients with rotator cuff repair and a minimum of 12 months of follow-up were included. Reported MCID, SCB, and PASS thresholds and associated calculation methods were extracted.

RESULTS

There were 41 unique studies (6331 shoulders) that met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 37 (90%) reported MCID; 16 (39%), PASS; and 11 (27%), SCB values. The most common PROMs were the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score and the Constant-Murley score. In total, 71% (29/41) of these studies referenced values in the literature, usually studies of patients undergoing rotator cuff repair (21/29). Twelve studies calculated MCID, SCB, or PASS thresholds using anchor-based approaches, whereas 6 studies also calculated thresholds using distribution-based methods. The use of MCID, SCB, and PASS in the rotator cuff repair literature is increasing, with half of the included studies published within the final 17 months of the studied period.

CONCLUSION

Significant variability was seen in the reporting of MCID, SCB, and PASS threshold values after rotator cuff repair. Researchers should prioritize studies that report clinical outcome thresholds calculated using anchor-based methods and should critically review both the anchor question and its response choices. Standardization of MCID, SCB, and PASS values and calculation methods will allow for a more reliable assessment of PROMs in rotator cuff repair moving forward.

Effect of Retear After Arthroscopic Rotator Cuff Repair on Return to Work and Sports in Nonathletes: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Background

The impact of retear after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR) on clinical outcomes of patients remains controversial.

Purpose/Hypothesis

The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of retear on strength recovery, return to previous levels of work, and return to sports participation. It was hypothesized that retears (1) would not have a significant effect on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and (2) would significantly inhibit strength recovery and return to previous work and sports.

Study Design

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods

The authors collected data from patients who underwent ARCR between January 2015 and December 2019. All included patients had undergone magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and strength measurements 1 year postoperatively. Minimum 2-year postoperative PROMs (Constant score, pain visual analog scale, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, and Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation) and status on work and sports participation were collected, and PROM scores, strength recovery (percentage compared with the contralateral shoulder), return to work, and return to sports were compared between patients with versus without retear on 1-year postoperative MRI. Additionally, factors related to return to work and sports were identified through multivariable regression analysis.

Results

A total of 159 patients were included, of whom 19 (11.9%) had evidence of retear. Return-to-work and return-to-sports status was evaluated in 134 (84.3%) and 93 (58.5%) patients, respectively. There were no significant differences in PROM scores between patients with and without retears; however, patients with retears exhibited significantly worse supraspinatus strength recovery (73% vs 86%; P = .018) and external rotation strength recovery (78% vs 88%; P = .030) compared with patients with intact shoulders. There were no between-group differences in return to work or sports. Active workload was associated with unsuccessful return to work, whereas preoperative participation in shoulder sports was associated with successful return to work.

Conclusion

Patients with postoperative retears had significantly worse postoperative strength recovery than patients with intact shoulders. Active workload and preoperative shoulder sports participation were factors associated with ability to return to work.

Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder Index (WOOS) - a validation for use in proximal humerus fractures treated with arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

The Swedish shoulder and Arthroplasty Registry (SSAR) use the Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder Index (WOOS) as their shoulder-specific score in the follow-up. WOOS is not yet validated for use as the Patient Reported Outcome Measurement (PROM) for proximal humerus fractures (PHF) treated with shoulder hemiarthroplasty (SHA) in the Swedish registry. The aim of this study was to examine the validity, the reliability and the responsiveness of WOOS as a PROM for proximal humerus fractures treated with shoulder arthroplasty.

METHODS

Data was collected from the SSAR from the 1^st of January 2008 to the 31^st of June 2011. A total of 72 subjects were identified with at least 1 year of follow-up. Of these 43 completed all the shoulder-specific PROM together with a clinical examination, including a WOOS retest and general health scores. A group of 29 did not undergo any clinical examination, but they completed all the questionnaires not requiring a clinical examination. The validity was assessed with WOOS compared to satisfaction level, and the Spearman rank coefficient was used for the correlation between WOOS and the shoulder-specific scores (Constant-Murley Score, Oxford Shoulder Score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form and EQ-5D. For reliability, Intra Class Correlation (ICC) was used for the test-retest assessment and Cronbach´s alpha for the construct reliability.

RESULTS

The validity for WOOS had an excellent correlation (> 0.75) with all the shoulder-specific scores and a good correlation (> 0.6) with EQ-5D. The reliability with the test-retest of the total WOOS score and the subgroups had an excellent correlation. Cronbach´s alpha also supports the construct of WOOS. There were no floor or ceiling effects.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that WOOS is a reliable tool for evaluating patients with SHA after PHF. Based on our study, we recommend the continued use of WOOS in shoulder arthroplasty registries and observational studies.

Rotator cuff tear reaching the superior half portion of the humeral head causes shoulder abduction malfunction

PURPOSE

To examine the biomechanical properties governing posterosuperior rotator cuff (RC) tear progression and dynamic shoulder abduction function, in the absence of excess loading.

METHODS

Twelve freshly frozen cadaveric shoulders were evaluated via an established dynamic shoulder abduction stimulator. The shoulder abduction functions were primarily evaluated using subacromial contact pressure (SACP) during an abduction procedure, and subsequent middle deltoid force (MDF) under 5 conditions: (1) intact, (2) anterior 1/3 posterosuperior rotator cuff (PSRC) tear, (3) anterior 2/3 PSRC tear, (4) entire PSRC tear, and (5) global RC tear (tear involving the entire superior RC).

RESULTS

No obvious differences were observed in the peak MDF required for abduction, and in the peak SACP among the four PSRC tear statuses (49.8 ± 9.2 N, 0.39 ± 0.05 mPa [1/3 PSRC tear]; 49.3 ± 6.8 N, 0.40 ± 0.06 mPa [2/3 PSRC tear]; 51.6 ± 7.0 N, 0.44 ± 0.08 mPa [entire PSRC tear]), as well as intact statuses (48.3 ± 9.8 N, 0.40 ± 0.05 mPa). However, significant elevations in the peak MDF and peak SACP levels were observed among the four PSRC tear statuses and global RC tear (68.1 ± 9.3 N; 4.12 ± 1.50 mPa, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

In the absence of excess loading, the biomechanical function of the shoulder was not impaired by a simple PSRC tear. However, once the tear size reached the half superior portion of the humeral head, the humeral head migrated to the surface of the subacromion, and this action markedly decreased shoulder abduction function.