Cargando…

WHAT ARE THE PREDICTORS OF POOR PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES FOLLOWING SHOULDER INSTABILITY SURGERY?

BACKGROUND: Prospectively-collected patient-reported outcomes (PROs) following shoulder instability surgery are limited. Attention has been drawn to standardizing these outcome measures in the adolescent literature. HYPOTHESIS/PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate which factors predict...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bayomy, Ahmad F., Briskin, Isaac, Grobaty, Lauren E., Sosic, Elizabeth, Strnad, Greg J., Farrow, Lutul D., Rosneck, James T., McCoy, Brett W., Schickendantz, Mark S., Miniaci, Anthony, Jones, Morgan H., Spindler, Kurt P., Saluan, Paul M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7238782/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2325967120S00177
_version_ 1783536596603109376
author Bayomy, Ahmad F.
Briskin, Isaac
Grobaty, Lauren E.
Sosic, Elizabeth
Strnad, Greg J.
Farrow, Lutul D.
Rosneck, James T.
McCoy, Brett W.
Schickendantz, Mark S.
Miniaci, Anthony
Jones, Morgan H.
Spindler, Kurt P.
Saluan, Paul M.
author_facet Bayomy, Ahmad F.
Briskin, Isaac
Grobaty, Lauren E.
Sosic, Elizabeth
Strnad, Greg J.
Farrow, Lutul D.
Rosneck, James T.
McCoy, Brett W.
Schickendantz, Mark S.
Miniaci, Anthony
Jones, Morgan H.
Spindler, Kurt P.
Saluan, Paul M.
author_sort Bayomy, Ahmad F.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Prospectively-collected patient-reported outcomes (PROs) following shoulder instability surgery are limited. Attention has been drawn to standardizing these outcome measures in the adolescent literature. HYPOTHESIS/PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate which factors predict unfavorable PROs following shoulder instability surgery, including a “No” response to the Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) question. We hypothesized that poor outcomes are associated with adolescent males, bone loss, larger labral tears, and articular cartilage injury. METHODS: A cohort of patients age 13 years and older undergoing shoulder instability surgery were prospectively enrolled in point-of-care data collection at a single institution across 12 surgeons from 2015-2017. Demographics, ASES and SANE responses, and surgical findings were obtained at baseline. ASES, SANE, and PASS responses as well as revision surgery were queried at least one year post-operatively. Patients with isolated posterior labral tears and prior ipsilateral shoulder surgery were excluded. Regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: A total 268 patients met inclusion criteria of which 201 completed follow-up responses (75%). Non-responders had a greater BMI, smaller proportion of glenoid bone loss, fewer Hill-Sachs lesions, and lower baseline ASES scores by 7.5 points (p < 0.05). Responders’ mean age was 25.5 years and 23% were female. Revision surgery occurred in 2.5% of these patients, and 81% responded “Yes” to PASS. A “Yes” response correlated to mean 31-point improvement in ASES and 34-point improvement in SANE scores. On univariate analysis, “No” responders were more likely to have a smoking history, a larger proportion of glenoid bone loss, and revision surgery (p < 0.05). However, on multivariate analysis, only combined labral tears (anterior/inferior plus superior or posterior tears) and injured capsules were associated with greater odds of responding “No” to PASS and with lower ASES and SANE scores (p ≤ 0.05) (Table 1). Age, sex, Hill-Sachs lesions, and grade III/IV articular cartilage injuries were not associated with variation in any PROs. CONCLUSION: In this prospective cohort, patients largely approve of their symptom state at one year or greater following shoulder instability surgery. A PASS “Yes” response occurred in 81% of patients and correlated to a clinically and statistically significant improvement in ASES and SANE scores. Combined labral tears and injured capsules were negative prognosticators across PROs, whereas age, sex, and Hill-Sachs lesions were not. Table:
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7238782
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-72387822020-06-01 WHAT ARE THE PREDICTORS OF POOR PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES FOLLOWING SHOULDER INSTABILITY SURGERY? Bayomy, Ahmad F. Briskin, Isaac Grobaty, Lauren E. Sosic, Elizabeth Strnad, Greg J. Farrow, Lutul D. Rosneck, James T. McCoy, Brett W. Schickendantz, Mark S. Miniaci, Anthony Jones, Morgan H. Spindler, Kurt P. Saluan, Paul M. Orthop J Sports Med Article BACKGROUND: Prospectively-collected patient-reported outcomes (PROs) following shoulder instability surgery are limited. Attention has been drawn to standardizing these outcome measures in the adolescent literature. HYPOTHESIS/PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate which factors predict unfavorable PROs following shoulder instability surgery, including a “No” response to the Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) question. We hypothesized that poor outcomes are associated with adolescent males, bone loss, larger labral tears, and articular cartilage injury. METHODS: A cohort of patients age 13 years and older undergoing shoulder instability surgery were prospectively enrolled in point-of-care data collection at a single institution across 12 surgeons from 2015-2017. Demographics, ASES and SANE responses, and surgical findings were obtained at baseline. ASES, SANE, and PASS responses as well as revision surgery were queried at least one year post-operatively. Patients with isolated posterior labral tears and prior ipsilateral shoulder surgery were excluded. Regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: A total 268 patients met inclusion criteria of which 201 completed follow-up responses (75%). Non-responders had a greater BMI, smaller proportion of glenoid bone loss, fewer Hill-Sachs lesions, and lower baseline ASES scores by 7.5 points (p < 0.05). Responders’ mean age was 25.5 years and 23% were female. Revision surgery occurred in 2.5% of these patients, and 81% responded “Yes” to PASS. A “Yes” response correlated to mean 31-point improvement in ASES and 34-point improvement in SANE scores. On univariate analysis, “No” responders were more likely to have a smoking history, a larger proportion of glenoid bone loss, and revision surgery (p < 0.05). However, on multivariate analysis, only combined labral tears (anterior/inferior plus superior or posterior tears) and injured capsules were associated with greater odds of responding “No” to PASS and with lower ASES and SANE scores (p ≤ 0.05) (Table 1). Age, sex, Hill-Sachs lesions, and grade III/IV articular cartilage injuries were not associated with variation in any PROs. CONCLUSION: In this prospective cohort, patients largely approve of their symptom state at one year or greater following shoulder instability surgery. A PASS “Yes” response occurred in 81% of patients and correlated to a clinically and statistically significant improvement in ASES and SANE scores. Combined labral tears and injured capsules were negative prognosticators across PROs, whereas age, sex, and Hill-Sachs lesions were not. Table: SAGE Publications 2020-04-30 /pmc/articles/PMC7238782/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2325967120S00177 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This open-access article is published and distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution - NonCommercial - No Derivatives License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits the noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction of the article in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. You may not alter, transform, or build upon this article without the permission of the Author(s). For article reuse guidelines, please visit SAGE’s website at http://www.sagepub.com/journals-permissions.
spellingShingle Article
Bayomy, Ahmad F.
Briskin, Isaac
Grobaty, Lauren E.
Sosic, Elizabeth
Strnad, Greg J.
Farrow, Lutul D.
Rosneck, James T.
McCoy, Brett W.
Schickendantz, Mark S.
Miniaci, Anthony
Jones, Morgan H.
Spindler, Kurt P.
Saluan, Paul M.
WHAT ARE THE PREDICTORS OF POOR PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES FOLLOWING SHOULDER INSTABILITY SURGERY?
title WHAT ARE THE PREDICTORS OF POOR PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES FOLLOWING SHOULDER INSTABILITY SURGERY?
title_full WHAT ARE THE PREDICTORS OF POOR PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES FOLLOWING SHOULDER INSTABILITY SURGERY?
title_fullStr WHAT ARE THE PREDICTORS OF POOR PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES FOLLOWING SHOULDER INSTABILITY SURGERY?
title_full_unstemmed WHAT ARE THE PREDICTORS OF POOR PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES FOLLOWING SHOULDER INSTABILITY SURGERY?
title_short WHAT ARE THE PREDICTORS OF POOR PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES FOLLOWING SHOULDER INSTABILITY SURGERY?
title_sort what are the predictors of poor patient-reported outcomes following shoulder instability surgery?
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7238782/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2325967120S00177
work_keys_str_mv AT bayomyahmadf whatarethepredictorsofpoorpatientreportedoutcomesfollowingshoulderinstabilitysurgery
AT briskinisaac whatarethepredictorsofpoorpatientreportedoutcomesfollowingshoulderinstabilitysurgery
AT grobatylaurene whatarethepredictorsofpoorpatientreportedoutcomesfollowingshoulderinstabilitysurgery
AT sosicelizabeth whatarethepredictorsofpoorpatientreportedoutcomesfollowingshoulderinstabilitysurgery
AT strnadgregj whatarethepredictorsofpoorpatientreportedoutcomesfollowingshoulderinstabilitysurgery
AT farrowlutuld whatarethepredictorsofpoorpatientreportedoutcomesfollowingshoulderinstabilitysurgery
AT rosneckjamest whatarethepredictorsofpoorpatientreportedoutcomesfollowingshoulderinstabilitysurgery
AT mccoybrettw whatarethepredictorsofpoorpatientreportedoutcomesfollowingshoulderinstabilitysurgery
AT schickendantzmarks whatarethepredictorsofpoorpatientreportedoutcomesfollowingshoulderinstabilitysurgery
AT miniacianthony whatarethepredictorsofpoorpatientreportedoutcomesfollowingshoulderinstabilitysurgery
AT jonesmorganh whatarethepredictorsofpoorpatientreportedoutcomesfollowingshoulderinstabilitysurgery
AT spindlerkurtp whatarethepredictorsofpoorpatientreportedoutcomesfollowingshoulderinstabilitysurgery
AT saluanpaulm whatarethepredictorsofpoorpatientreportedoutcomesfollowingshoulderinstabilitysurgery