Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® 12/2016

01-12-2016 | Clinical Research

What Change in American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Score Represents a Clinically Important Change After Shoulder Arthroplasty?

Authors: Brian C. Werner, MD, Brenda Chang, MS, MPH, Joseph T. Nguyen, MPH, David M. Dines, MD, Lawrence V. Gulotta, MD

Published in: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® | Issue 12/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) questionnaire was developed to provide a standardized method for evaluating shoulder function. Previous studies have determined the clinical responsiveness of this outcome measure for heterogenous populations or patients with nonoperatively treated rotator cuff disease. Currently, to our knowledge, no studies exist that establish the clinically relevant change in the ASES score after shoulder arthroplasty.

Questions/purposes

We asked: (1) What are the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) for the ASES score after primary and reverse shoulder arthroplasties? (2) Are the MCID and SCB for the ASES score different between primary and reverse shoulder arthroplasties? (3) What patient-related factors are associated with achieving the MCID and SCB after total shoulder arthroplasty and reverse shoulder arthroplasty?

Methods

A longitudinally maintained institutional shoulder arthroplasty registry was retrospectively queried for patients who underwent primary shoulder arthroplasty, including anatomic or reverse total shoulder arthroplasty from 2007 to 2013, with a minimum 2-year followup. Seven hundred ninety-four patients were identified and eligible; 304 of these patients did not have 2 years of followup or complete datasets, resulting in a study cohort of 490 patients (62% of the 794 potentially eligible). The MCID and SCB of the ASES score for these patients was calculated using an anchor-based method, using four different anchors measuring satisfaction with work, activities, overall, and activity from the SF-36. The MCID (anchored to somewhat satisfied) and SCB (very satisfied) of the ASES score were calculated for the entire cohort and stratified by arthroplasty type. Multivariate logistic regression of patient-related factors that influence the MCID and SCB achievement was performed.

Results

The MCID for all patients combined ranged from 6.3 to 13.5; for the overall satisfaction anchor, the MCID was 13.5 ± 4.5 (95% CI, 4.8–22.3). The SCB for the overall cohort ranged from 12.0 to 36.6; for the overall satisfaction anchor, the SCB was 36.6 ± 3.8 (95% CI, 29.1–44.1). There were no differences in the MCID of the ASES score between anatomic and reverse shoulder arthroplasty for any of the anchors (p = 0.159–0.992) or the SCB for any of the anchors (p = 0.467–0.977). Combining anatomic and reverse shoulder arthroplasty in one group, higher preoperative ASES score (odds ratio [OR], 0.96; 95% CI, 0.94–0.98; p < 0.001), having a reverse shoulder arthroplasty (OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.16–0.85; p = 0.016), and having rheumatoid arthritis were independent predictors of not achieving an MCID for the ASES 2 years after surgery. Higher preoperative ASES score (OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.89–0.92; p < 0.001), a diagnosis of rotator cuff tear arthropathy (OR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.07–0.30; p < 0.001), a diagnosis of back pain (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.24–0.71); p = 0.002), and living alone (OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.19–0.69; p = 0.002) were all independent predictors of not achieving SCB after shoulder arthroplasty.

Conclusions

Patients with glenohumeral arthritis or rotator cuff tear arthropathy who undergo primary conventional total or reverse shoulder arthroplasty and have at least a nine-point improvement in their ASES score experience a clinically important change, whereas those who have at least a 23-point improvement in their ASES score experience a substantial clinical benefit. High preoperative function was associated with a decreased likelihood of achieving clinically important change after total shoulder arthroplasty.

Level of Evidence

Level III, therapeutic study.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Angevine PD, Berven S. Health economic studies: an introduction to cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness, and cost-utility analyses. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014;39(22 suppl 1):S9–S15.CrossRef Angevine PD, Berven S. Health economic studies: an introduction to cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness, and cost-utility analyses. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014;39(22 suppl 1):S9–S15.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Cuff DJ, Pupello DR. Comparison of hemiarthroplasty and reverse shoulder arthroplasty for the treatment of proximal humeral fractures in elderly patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95:2050–2055.CrossRefPubMed Cuff DJ, Pupello DR. Comparison of hemiarthroplasty and reverse shoulder arthroplasty for the treatment of proximal humeral fractures in elderly patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95:2050–2055.CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Hartzler RU, Steen BM, Hussey MM, Cusick MC, Cottrell BJ, Clark RE, Frankle MA. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for massive rotator cuff tear: risk factors for poor functional improvement. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015;24:1698–1706CrossRefPubMed Hartzler RU, Steen BM, Hussey MM, Cusick MC, Cottrell BJ, Clark RE, Frankle MA. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty for massive rotator cuff tear: risk factors for poor functional improvement. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015;24:1698–1706CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status: ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials. 1989;10:407–415.CrossRefPubMed Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status: ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials. 1989;10:407–415.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Willan A, Griffith LE. Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific quality of life questionnaire. J Clin Epidemiol. 1994;47:81–87.CrossRefPubMed Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Willan A, Griffith LE. Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific quality of life questionnaire. J Clin Epidemiol. 1994;47:81–87.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Kocher MS, Horan MP, Briggs KK, Richardson TR, O’Holleran J, Hawkins RJ. Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons subjective shoulder scale in patients with shoulder instability, rotator cuff disease, and glenohumeral arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:2006–2011.CrossRefPubMed Kocher MS, Horan MP, Briggs KK, Richardson TR, O’Holleran J, Hawkins RJ. Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons subjective shoulder scale in patients with shoulder instability, rotator cuff disease, and glenohumeral arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:2006–2011.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Michener LA, McClure PW, Sennett BJ. American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons standardized shoulder assessment form, patient self-report section: reliability, validity, and responsiveness. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2002;11:587–594.CrossRefPubMed Michener LA, McClure PW, Sennett BJ. American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons standardized shoulder assessment form, patient self-report section: reliability, validity, and responsiveness. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2002;11:587–594.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Noyes MP, Meccia B, Spencer EE Jr. Five- to ten-year follow-up with a partially cemented all-polyethylene bone-ingrowth glenoid component. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015;24:1458–1462.CrossRefPubMed Noyes MP, Meccia B, Spencer EE Jr. Five- to ten-year follow-up with a partially cemented all-polyethylene bone-ingrowth glenoid component. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2015;24:1458–1462.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Parks DL, Casagrande DJ, Schrumpf MA, Harmsen SM, Norris TR, Kelly JD 2nd. Radiographic and clinical outcomes of total shoulder arthroplasty with an all-polyethylene pegged bone ingrowth glenoid component: prospective short- to medium-term follow-up. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016;25:246–255.CrossRefPubMed Parks DL, Casagrande DJ, Schrumpf MA, Harmsen SM, Norris TR, Kelly JD 2nd. Radiographic and clinical outcomes of total shoulder arthroplasty with an all-polyethylene pegged bone ingrowth glenoid component: prospective short- to medium-term follow-up. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016;25:246–255.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Paulsen A, Roos EM, Pedersen AB, Overgaard S. Minimal clinically important improvement (MCII) and patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) in total hip arthroplasty (THA) patients 1 year postoperatively. Acta Orthop. 2014;85:39–48.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Paulsen A, Roos EM, Pedersen AB, Overgaard S. Minimal clinically important improvement (MCII) and patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) in total hip arthroplasty (THA) patients 1 year postoperatively. Acta Orthop. 2014;85:39–48.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
go back to reference Razmjou H, Stratford P, Kennedy D, Holtby R. Pattern of recovery following total shoulder arthroplasty and humeral head replacement. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2014;15:306.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Razmjou H, Stratford P, Kennedy D, Holtby R. Pattern of recovery following total shoulder arthroplasty and humeral head replacement. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2014;15:306.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
go back to reference Richards RR, An KN, Bigliani LU, Friedman RJ, Gartsman GM, Gristina AG, Iannotti JP, Mow VC, Sidles JA, Zuckerman JD. A standardized method for the assessment of shoulder function. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1994;3:347–352.CrossRefPubMed Richards RR, An KN, Bigliani LU, Friedman RJ, Gartsman GM, Gristina AG, Iannotti JP, Mow VC, Sidles JA, Zuckerman JD. A standardized method for the assessment of shoulder function. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 1994;3:347–352.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Sallay PI, Reed L. The measurement of normative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2003;12:622–627.CrossRefPubMed Sallay PI, Reed L. The measurement of normative American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons scores. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2003;12:622–627.CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Sershon RA, Van Thiel GS, Lin EC, McGill KC, Cole BJ, Verma NN, Romeo AA, Nicholson GP. Clinical outcomes of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in patients aged younger than 60 years. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014;23:395–400.CrossRefPubMed Sershon RA, Van Thiel GS, Lin EC, McGill KC, Cole BJ, Verma NN, Romeo AA, Nicholson GP. Clinical outcomes of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in patients aged younger than 60 years. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2014;23:395–400.CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Shirley ED, Sanders JO. Patient satisfaction: implications and predictors of success. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95:e69.CrossRefPubMed Shirley ED, Sanders JO. Patient satisfaction: implications and predictors of success. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95:e69.CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Smith MV, Calfee RP, Baumgarten KM, Brophy RH, Wright RW. Upper extremity-specific measures of disability and outcomes in orthopaedic surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94:277–285.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Smith MV, Calfee RP, Baumgarten KM, Brophy RH, Wright RW. Upper extremity-specific measures of disability and outcomes in orthopaedic surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94:277–285.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
go back to reference Tashjian RZ, Deloach J, Green A, Porucznik CA, Powell AP. Minimal clinically important differences in ASES and simple shoulder test scores after nonoperative treatment of rotator cuff disease. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92:296–303.CrossRefPubMed Tashjian RZ, Deloach J, Green A, Porucznik CA, Powell AP. Minimal clinically important differences in ASES and simple shoulder test scores after nonoperative treatment of rotator cuff disease. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92:296–303.CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Torrens C, Guirro P, Santana F. The minimal clinically important difference for function and strength in patients undergoing reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016;25:262–268.CrossRefPubMed Torrens C, Guirro P, Santana F. The minimal clinically important difference for function and strength in patients undergoing reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2016;25:262–268.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
What Change in American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Score Represents a Clinically Important Change After Shoulder Arthroplasty?
Authors
Brian C. Werner, MD
Brenda Chang, MS, MPH
Joseph T. Nguyen, MPH
David M. Dines, MD
Lawrence V. Gulotta, MD
Publication date
01-12-2016
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® / Issue 12/2016
Print ISSN: 0009-921X
Electronic ISSN: 1528-1132
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-016-4968-z

Other articles of this Issue 12/2016

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® 12/2016 Go to the issue