Establishing minimal clinically important difference, substantial clinical benefit, and patient acceptable symptomatic state after biceps tenodesis

Puzzitiello, Richard N.; Gowd, Anirudh K.; Liu, Joseph N.; Agarwalla, Avinesh; Verma, Nikhil N.; Forsythe, Brian

doi:10.1016/j.jse.2018.09.025

Cited by 69 publications

(70 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The weighted mean ASES score for arthroscopic biceps tenodesis was 90.0, while the weighted mean ASES score for open biceps tenodesis was 91.1. Taking into consideration a previously reported minimal clinically important difference of 11 points for the ASES score, 48 the scores were comparable between both methods of tenodesis, as there was a 1.1-point difference. The mean Constant score for the arthroscopic group was 88.7, while the mean Constant score for the open group was 84.7, which is similar between the 2 groups.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 69%

Outcomes and Complications After Primary Arthroscopic Suprapectoral Versus Open Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis for Superior Labral Anterior-Posterior Tears or Biceps Abnormalities: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Deng

Yin

Cusano

et al. 2020

Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Biceps tenodesis is a surgical treatment for both superior labral anterior-posterior (SLAP) tears and long head of the biceps tendon (LHBT) abnormalities. Biceps tenodesis can be performed either above or below the pectoralis major tendon with arthroscopic or open techniques. Purpose: To analyze the outcomes and complications comparing primary arthroscopic suprapectoral versus open subpectoral biceps tenodesis for either SLAP tears or LHBT disorders. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A search strategy based on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Meta-Analyses) protocol was used to include 18 articles (471 patients) from a total of 974 articles identified. Overall exclusion criteria included the following: non–English language, non–full text, biceps tenodesis with concomitant rotator cuff repair, review articles, meta-analyses, and case reports. Data were extracted and analyzed according to procedure type and tenodesis location: arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis (295 patients) versus open subpectoral bicepts tenodesis (176 patients). Results: For arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis, the weighted mean American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score was 90.0 (97 patients) and the weighted mean Constant score was 88.7 (108 patients); for open subpectoral biceps tenodesis, the mean ASES score was 91.1 (199 patients) and mean Constant score was 84.7 (65 patients). Among the 176 patients who underwent arthroscopic biceps tenodesis, there was an overall complication rate of 9.1%. Among the 295 patients who underwent open biceps tenodesis, there was an overall complication rate of 13.5%. Both residual pain (5.7% vs 4.7%, respectively) and Popeye deformity (1.7% vs 1.0%, respectively) rates were similar between the groups. Open subpectoral biceps tenodesis had higher reoperation (3.0% vs 0.0%, respectively), wound complication (1.0% vs 0.0%, respectively), and nerve injury (0.7% vs 0.0%, respectively) rates postoperatively. A meta-analysis of 3 studies demonstrated that both methods had similar ASES scores ( P = .36) as well as all-cause complication rates (odds ratio, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.13-4.48]; P = .26). Conclusion: Patients undergoing arthroscopic suprapectoral biceps tenodesis for either SLAP tears or LHBT abnormalities had similar outcome scores and complication rates compared with those undergoing open subpectoral biceps tenodesis. Additionally, both residual pain and Popeye deformity rates were similar between the 2 groups.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 69%

Outcomes and Complications After Primary Arthroscopic Suprapectoral Versus Open Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis for Superior Labral Anterior-Posterior Tears or Biceps Abnormalities: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Deng

Yin

Cusano

et al. 2020

Orthopaedic Journal of Sports Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the past 5 years, numerous articles have been published on the clinical relevance of shoulder outcome scores. 11 , 16 , 17 , 21 , 30 Recent reviews have discussed that the MCID often varies widely. 9 , 14 , 34 The range of reported MCID values was broad: 3 to 36 (median estimate, 8.3) for the CMS and –4.5 to 25.4 (median estimate, 10.2) for the DASH score.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantifying the minimal and substantial clinical benefit of the Constant-Murley score and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score in patients with calcific tendinitis of the rotator cuff

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background To aid the interpretation of clinical outcome scores, it is important to determine the measurement properties. The aim of this study was to establish the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) for the Constant-Murley score and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score in patients with long-lasting rotator cuff calcific tendinitis treated with high-energy extracorporeal shockwave therapy and ultrasound guided needling. The secondary purpose was to assess the responsiveness of both questionnaires and to identify variables associated with achieving the MCID and SCB. Methods A prospective cohort of 80 patients with rotator cuff calcific tendinitis was analyzed. Two anchor-based methods were used to calculate the MCID and SCB. Effect sizes and standardized response means were calculated to assess the responsiveness. Additional univariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with the achievement of the MCID and SCB. Results For the Constant-Murley score, we found an MCID and SCB of 9.8 and 19.9, respectively, based on the mean change method and 5.5 and 10.5, respectively, based on receiver operating characteristic analysis. For the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score, we found an MCID and SCB of –8.2 and –19.6, respectively, with the former and –11.7 and –12.5, respectively, with the latter. The responsiveness of both outcome measures was good, with large effect sizes and standardized response means. The radiographic resorption after 6 weeks and after 6 months appeared to be the most important positive predictor for achieving the MCID and SCB after 6 months. Conclusion This study established the MCID, SCB, and responsiveness for patients with long-lasting rotator cuff calcific tendinitis who were treated with minimally invasive treatment options. With this information, physicians can distinguish between a statistically significant difference and a clinically relevant benefit. Successful radiographic resorption after 6 weeks and after 6 months was associated with achieving clinically significant improvement after treatment.

show abstract

“…The ROC model reliability was acceptable if AUC was >0.7 and excellent if the AUC was >0.8, in line with the cutoffs used in previous investigations. 13,28,30 Cutoff analysis to define significant outcomes and threshold outcome scores in achieving clinically significant outcomes was performed through application of the Youden index, balancing maximum sensitivity and specificity of threshold values.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Establishing the Minimal Clinically Important Difference, Patient Acceptable Symptomatic State, and Substantial Clinical Benefit of the PROMIS Upper Extremity Questionnaire After Rotator Cuff Repair

Haunschild

Gilat

et al. 2020

Am J Sports Med

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System Upper Extremity (PROMIS UE) questionnaire has been validated as an effective and efficient outcome measure after rotator cuff repair (RCR). However, definitions of clinically significant outcomes used in interpreting this outcome measure have yet to be defined. Purpose: To define clinically significant outcomes of the PROMIS UE questionnaire in patients undergoing arthroscopic RCR. Study Design: Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 3. Methods: We reviewed charts of consecutive patients undergoing RCR in our institution between 2017 and 2018 and included patients who were administered the PROMIS UE before surgery and 12 months after surgery. At 12 months postoperatively, patients were asked domain-specific anchor questions regarding their function and satisfaction after surgery, which were then used to determine the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), Patient Acceptable Symptomatic State (PASS), and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) using receiver operating characteristic and area under the curve (AUC) analysis. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis was utilized to identify patient factors associated with clinically significant outcomes. Results: A total of 105 patients with RCR and minimum 12-month postoperative PROMIS UE were included in the analysis. The defined clinically significant outcomes were 4.87 for the MCID using a distribution-based method, 7.95 for the SCB (sensitivity, 0.708; specificity, 0.833; AUC, 0.760), and 39.00 for the PASS (sensitivity, 0.789; specificity, 0.720; AUC, 0.815). Among respondents, 79.0%, 62.9%, and 64.8% achieved the MCID, SCB, and PASS score thresholds, respectively. Workers’ compensation was negatively associated with achievement of the PASS. Lower preoperative PROMIS UE scores were associated with obtaining the MCID (odds ratio [OR], 0.871; P = .001) and the SCB (OR, 0.900; P = .040), whereas higher preoperative scores were predictive of achieving the PASS (OR, 1.111; P = .020). Conclusion: This study defines the clinically significant outcomes for the PROMIS UE after RCR, of which the majority of patients achieved the MCID, PASS, and SCB at 12 months after surgery. These thresholds should be considered in future study design and interpretation of PROMIS UE in patients with RCR.

show abstract

Establishing minimal clinically important difference, substantial clinical benefit, and patient acceptable symptomatic state after biceps tenodesis

Cited by 69 publications

References 51 publications

Outcomes and Complications After Primary Arthroscopic Suprapectoral Versus Open Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis for Superior Labral Anterior-Posterior Tears or Biceps Abnormalities: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Outcomes and Complications After Primary Arthroscopic Suprapectoral Versus Open Subpectoral Biceps Tenodesis for Superior Labral Anterior-Posterior Tears or Biceps Abnormalities: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Quantifying the minimal and substantial clinical benefit of the Constant-Murley score and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score in patients with calcific tendinitis of the rotator cuff

Establishing the Minimal Clinically Important Difference, Patient Acceptable Symptomatic State, and Substantial Clinical Benefit of the PROMIS Upper Extremity Questionnaire After Rotator Cuff Repair

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About