Patient-Reported Outcome Measures and Health-Related Quality-of-Life Scores of Patients Undergoing Anatomic Total Shoulder Arthroplasty

Cost-effectiveness of shoulder arthroplasty for osteoarthritis and rotator cuff tear arthropathy. An economic analysis using real-world data

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to assess cost-effectiveness of shoulder arthroplasty for osteoarthritis (OA) and rotator cuff tear arthropathy (CTA) from the perspective of a publicly funded health care system using patient data, health utilities and costs from a real-world situation.

HYPOTHESIS

Our hypothesis was that arthroplasty for OA is more cost-effective than for CTA.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We gathered a cohort of patients with 153 anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) for OA and 107 reverse shoulder arthroplasty (RSA) for CTA between years 2016-2020 at a university hospital. Short-term (mean 2.8years) shoulder function, health utilities and costs were obtained from prospectively collected data, and a Markov cohort simulation was carried out to assess lifetime cost-utility. The primary outcome measures were change in 15D score to calculate gain in quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and change in Western Ontario osteoarthritis score of the shoulder (WOOS).

RESULTS

Both TSA and RSA restored shoulder function well, WOOS improvement was 59.7 (95% CI: 56.2-63.2) and 55.8 (95% CI: 50.4-61.2), respectively. The cost/QALY gained was 20,846.82 € for TSA and 38,711.90 € for RSA. The cost-utility was not remarkable sensitive to costs, discounting of future costs or estimated revision rates. However, the cost-effectiveness was very sensitive to change in 15D health utility scores and thus QALY gain, especially for RSA patients.

DISCUSSION

Shoulder arthroplasty restores shoulder function well in both OA and CTA. In health economic terms, RSA is less cost-effective than TSA in an everyday setting, mainly due to inferior improvement of health-related quality-of-life and reduced life expectancy of CTA patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III; case series.

Trends in shoulder surgery patient-reported outcome measures

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are a vital part of the toolkit for the current practice of orthopedic surgery. We are witnessing the expansion of the use of PROMs in clinical practice and in research; the ultimate direction of this expansion is unclear. The purpose of this systematic review was to identify the trends in the use of PROMs in major upper limb publications over a 7-year period. We retrospectively reviewed all articles published in 6 of the most influential upper limb orthopedic journals based on impact factor from January 2013 to January 2020. PubMed, Medline, and Embase were used to access the abstracts for all articles published for this period. We included all articles related to shoulder arthroplasty, shoulder instability, rotator cuff surgery, and involving the use of PROMs. There were 4175 articles identified from the selected journals over the chosen time period, of which 607 were eligible for inclusion in the study. The number of articles reporting PROMs increased from 57 in 2013 to 115 in 2019, which was a 102% increase. The total number of PROM usages recorded was 1593 which was comprised of 63 different scoring systems, with each article using a median of 3 different PROMs. The most commonly used score in articles originating from North America was the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (216 uses in 273 articles; 78.1%), from Europe it was the Constant-Murley Score (129 uses in 183 articles; 70.4%), and from Asia it was the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (80 uses in 126 articles; 63.4%). The use of PROMs is evolving with an increasing prevalence of and diversity of PROMs being used in upper limb surgery. There is geographical variation in the use of PROMs, and a variety of systems used, with only 3 of the top 10 most used PROMs reporting on patient satisfaction or wellbeing. Given that a diverse range of PROMs study a diverse range of conditions and procedures, there may not be a need for a consensus on the best overall use of PROMs, but there may be ideal PROMs suited to answer specific questions.

Comparison of Humeral-Head Replacement with Glenoid-Reaming Arthroplasty (Ream and Run) Versus Anatomic Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Matched-Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Glenoid component failure is a major concern after anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (aTSA). Ream and run (RnR) is an alternative procedure that may avoid glenoid-related complications. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes of RnR versus aTSA in younger patients with advanced glenohumeral osteoarthritis.

METHODS

This was a retrospective matched-cohort study of 110 patients who underwent aTSA and 57 patients who underwent RnR; patients were <66 years of age and had a minimum of 2 years of follow-up. Propensity matching was performed using 21 preoperative variables. Pre- and postoperative patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) scores, satisfaction with outcome, and revision data were analyzed. Mixed-effects models examined the association of preoperative variables with outcomes.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine patient pairs were matched. All patients were male, with a mean age of 58.6 ± 7.3 years and a mean follow-up 4.4 ± 2.3 years. The aTSA cohort had better final Simple Shoulder Test (SST) and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores. However, in the mixed-effects model analysis, arthroplasty type was not associated with outcome. At 2 years postoperatively, a significantly greater percentage of aTSA patients achieved the substantial clinical benefit (SCB) for the ASES (100% versus 79.2%; p = 0.01) and the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) (89.7% versus 75%; p = 0.02) for the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain. At >5-year follow-up, there were no significant differences between the cohorts in the percentage who achieved the MCID, SCB, or patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) for the ASES, SST, and VAS for pain. Three patients underwent revision arthroplasty for pain after RnR, at a mean of 1.9 ± 1.7 years. Two patients underwent revision arthroplasty for glenoid loosening at 9.2 and 14 years after aTSA.

CONCLUSIONS

RnR and aTSA had comparable outcomes in most analyses. The greater early revision rate after RnR should focus attention on optimizing patient selection and postoperative management. Revision for glenoid loosening is a concern among younger and active patients. Longer-term study is needed to better understand the relative benefits and disadvantages of these procedures.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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

Assessing Appropriateness for Shoulder Arthroplasty Using a Shared Decision-Making Process

Purpose

The primary purpose of this study was to validate an appropriateness decision-aid tool as a part of engaging patients with glenohumeral arthritis in their surgical management. The associations between the final decision to have surgery and patient characteristics were examined.

Materials and Methods

This was an observational study. The demographics, overall health, patient-specific risk profile, expectations, and health-related quality of life were documented. Visual analog scale and the American Shoulder & Elbow Surgeon (ASES) measured pain and functional disability, respectively. Clinical and imaging examination documented clinical findings and extent of degenerative arthritis and cuff tear arthropathy. Appropriateness for arthroplasty surgery was documented by a 5-item Likert response survey and the final decision was documented as ready, not-ready, and would like to further discuss.

Results

Eighty patients, 38 women (47.5%), mean age: 72(8) participated in the study. The appropriateness decision aid showed excellent discriminate validity (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve value of 0.93) in differentiating between patients who were “ready” and those who were “not-ready” to have surgery. Gender ( P  =  0.037), overall health ( P  =  .024), strength in external rotation ( P  =  .002), pain severity ( P  =  .001), ASES score ( P < .0001), and expectations ( P  =  .024) were contributing factors to the decision to have surgery. Imaging findings did not play a significant role in the final decision to have surgery.

Conclusions

A 5-item tool showed excellent validity in differentiating patients who were ready to have surgery versus those who were not. Patient's gender, expectations, strength, and self-reported outcomes were important factors in reaching the final decision.

Predictors of Success following Microvascular Replantation Surgery of the Upper Extremity in Adult Patients

The purpose of this study is to ascertain which factors are associated with successful replantation in the upper extremity. Secondarily, the purpose was to determine patient factors that differentiate those patients who undergo initial replantation versus initial amputation.

Methods

Data gathered for this retrospective study were obtained from a custom subset of the 2015-2020 IBM Truven MarketScan Commercial and IBM Truven MarketScan Medicare Supplemental databases. Data were sorted using Current Procedural Terminology codes and International Classification of Disease, Ninth and Tenth Revision, diagnosis codes.

Results

Increasing age was significantly associated with undergoing initial amputation compared with replantation (P < 0.001; 95% CI, 47.146-50.654). Among comorbid conditions, patients with diabetes mellitus type II (2.4% versus 24.3%; P < 0.001), hypertension (11.9% versus 28.0%; P = 0.03), end-stage renal disease (0% versus 10.5%; P = 0.03), and hypertensive chronic kidney disease (0% versus 8.7%; P = 0.04) more commonly underwent an initial amputation procedure. When evaluating the need for secondary procedure after replantation, there was no statistical significance between groups when comparing age, gender, insurance type, general comorbidities, connective tissue disorders, mental health disorders, or geographic location.

Conclusions

In conclusion, this study demonstrates that age and the presence of comorbidities are important factors in the differentiation of which patients undergo initial reimplantation versus initial amputation. Additionally, no specific factors were identified that were associated with secondary procedures after replantation.

Evaluating the development, woman-centricity and psychometric properties of maternity patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs): A systematic review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Woman-centred care is the right of every woman receiving maternity care, irrespective of where care is being received and who is providing care. This protocol describes a planned systematic review that will identify, describe and critically appraise the psychometric properties of maternity patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs). The woman-centricity of PROM and PREM development and content validation (ie, the extent to which women were involved in these processes) will also be assessed. This information will be used to develop a maternity PROMs and PREMs database to support service and system performance measurement, and value-based maternity care initiatives.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This study will be guided by the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guideline for systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments. Studies identified via MEDLINE, CINAHL Plus, PsycINFO and EMBASE describing the development, content validation and/or psychometric evaluation of PROMs and PREMs specifically designed for maternity populations throughout pregnancy, childbirth and postnatal periods will be considered if published from 2010 onward, in English, and available in full text. The COSMIN risk of bias checklist will be used to evaluate the quality of studies reporting on the development, content validation and/or psychometric evaluation of PROMs and PREMs. COSMIN criteria for good content validity will be used to assess the woman-centricity of PROM and PREM development and content validation studies. COSMIN standards of good psychometric properties will be used to evaluate the validity and reliability of the identified instruments.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical permission for this research is not required. The findings of this research will be submitted for publication in an international, peer-reviewed journal. Abstracts for national and international conference presentations will also be submitted. The proposed maternity PROMs and PREMs database will be freely accessible online, and developed with consumer input to ensure its usefulness to a range of maternity care stakeholders.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021288854.

Shoulder conditions and health related quality of life and utility: a current concepts review

Study of the outcome of treatment of shoulder conditions has emphasized subjective evaluation of outcomes including a variety of disease, region, and joint-specific tools. In response to the rapidly rising cost of health care, further interest has been directed to cost-effectiveness and value. Comparison of the outcomes of different shoulder conditions with each other, other musculoskeletal, and nonorthopedic conditions requires more generalized outcome tools, especially when considering cost-effectiveness and utility analysis. The concept of quality of life (QoL) was developed to satisfy this goal, and there are a variety of general health and QoL assessments tools available. The purpose of this study is to review the concept of health-related QoL and discuss health-related QoL measures as they relate to shoulder conditions.

Responsiveness and minimal important change of the Oxford Shoulder Score, EQ-5D, and the Fear-Avoidance Belief Questionnaire Physical Activity subscale in patients undergoing arthroscopic subacromial decompression

Introduction

Adequate responsiveness and knowledge of the minimal important change (MIC) is essential when using patient-reported outcome measures to assess treatment efficacy.

Objective

The objective of this study was to evaluate the responsiveness and MIC of common outcomes in patients with subacromial impingement syndrome undergoing arthroscopic subacromial decompression.

Methods

At baseline and 6 months after surgery, patients completed the Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS), EQ-5D 5-level utility index, EQ visual analogue scale, Fear-Avoidance Belief Questionnaire Physical Activity subscale (FABQ-PA), assessed pain (pain visual analogue scale), and Subjective Shoulder Value. Furthermore, at the 6-month follow-up, patients assessed the overall change with a Global Rating of Change Scale. Responsiveness was examined by analyzing the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve and correlations between the change scores. MIC was assessed using the optimal cutoff point at the receiver operating characteristics curve.

Results

Area under the receiver operating characteristics curve estimates were 0.96 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.91,1.00) for OSS, 0.82 (95% CI 0.66,0.99) for EQ-5D 5-level utility index, 0.73 (95% CI 0.58,0.87) for EQ visual analogue scale, and 0.74 (95% CI 0.58,0.90) for FABQ-PA. MIC were 6.0 points for OSS, 0.024 points for EQ-5D 5-level utility index, 10.0 points for EQ visual analogue scale, and -5.0 points for FABQ-PA.

Conclusion

Responsiveness of the OSS, EQ-5D, and FABQ-PA was sufficient to measure improvement after arthroscopic decompression surgery.

Total Shoulder Arthroplasty Is Cost-Effective Compared with Hemiarthroplasty: A Real-World Economic Evaluation

BACKGROUND

Although outcome studies generally demonstrate the superiority of a total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) over a hemiarthroplasty (HA), comparative cost-effectiveness has not been well studied. From a publicly funded health-care system's perspective, this study compared the costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) in patients who underwent TSA with those in patients who underwent HA.

METHODS

We conducted a cost-utility analysis using a Markov model to simulate the costs and QALYs for patients undergoing either TSA or HA over a lifetime horizon to account for costs and medically important events over the patient lifetime. Subgroup analyses by age groups (≤50 or >50 years) were performed. A series of sensitivity analyses were performed to assess robustness of study findings. The results were presented in 2019 U.S. dollars.

RESULTS

TSA was dominant as it was less costly ($115,785 compared with $118,501) and more effective (10.21 compared with 8.47 QALYs) than HA over a lifetime horizon. Changes to health utility values after TSA and HA had the largest impact on the cost-effectiveness findings. At a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of $50,000 per QALY gained, HA was not found to be cost-effective. The probability that TSA was cost-effective was 100%.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on a WTP of $50,000 per QALY gained, from the perspective of Canada's publicly funded health-care system, TSA was found to be cost-effective in all patients, including those ≤50 years of age, compared with HA.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Economic and Decision Analysis Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Validity, responsiveness and minimal important change of the EQ-5D-5L in patients after rotator cuff repair, shoulder arthroplasty or thumb carpometacarpal arthroplasty

PURPOSE

The aim was to investigate the measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L utility index in patients after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (RCR), total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA) or thumb carpometacarpal (CMC I) arthroplasty.

METHODS

In this prospective study, all patients completed the EQ-5D-5L before surgery and 6 months and 1 year after surgery. In addition, RCR patients completed the Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS), TSA patients completed the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) and CMC I patients completed the brief Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire (brief MHQ) at each designated time point. Construct validity (Pearson's correlation coefficient, r), responsiveness (effect size), minimal important difference (MID), minimal important change (MIC), and floor and ceiling effects of the EQ-5D-5L were determined. To test discriminative ability, EQ-5D-5L utility indices of patients who were in a patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) or not at follow-up were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test.

RESULTS

We included 153 RCR, 150 TSA, and 151 CMC I patients. The EQ-5D-5L utility index correlated with the OSS (r = 0.73), SPADI (r = - 0.65) and brief MHQ (r = 0.61). The effect sizes were 1.3 (RCR and CMC I group) and 1.1 (TSA). The MID and MIC ranged from 0.027 to 0.209. Ceiling effects were found. The EQ-5D-5L utility index differed significantly between patients being in a PASS versus patients who were not in a PASS.

CONCLUSION

The EQ-5D-5L utility index shows good construct validity, responsiveness and discriminative ability in patients after arthroscopic RCR, TSA and CMC I arthroplasty and is suitable to quantify quality of life.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

This auxiliary analysis is part of a primary study that was originally registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01954433) on October 1, 2013.