Variable reporting of functional outcomes and return to play in superior labrum anterior and posterior tear

Biceps Tenodesis Versus Superior Labral Anterior and Posterior (SLAP) Lesion Repair for the Treatment of SLAP Lesion in Overhead Athletes: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Superior labral anterior and posterior (SLAP) lesions are common injuries in overhead athletes. As a surgical treatment for SLAP lesions, SLAP repair has been traditionally performed. Recently, biceps tenodesis has been performed as an alternative treatment option; however, there is no review for outcome comparisons between these 2 procedures in overhead athletes.

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of SLAP repair versus biceps tenodesis, especially in overhead athletes with SLAP lesions.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

An electronic literature search was performed in Medline, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library. The studies were appraised using the Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies (MINORS) tool. Studies that had a minimum follow-up of 2 years, included only patients with SLAP lesions without other major shoulder pathologies, and included only patients who engaged in overhead sports were included. The functional outcomes of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, rate of return to sport, rate of return to preinjury level of sport, and complication rate were subjected to meta-analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 332 articles were identified, and 13 were included in the systematic review. Even though the postoperative ASES scores were slightly higher in the biceps tenodesis group than in the SLAP repair group, no statistically significant differences were found between the groups (biceps tenodesis, 95% CI = 91.71-96.75, I² = 0.00; SLAP repair, 95% CI = 85.47-94.46, I² = 16.3; P = .085) The rate of return to sport and the return to preinjury level of sport were slightly higher in the biceps tenodesis group than in the SLAP repair group; however, in meta-analysis these factors did not reach statistical significance (return to sport: biceps tenodesis, 95% CI = 0.66-0.91, I² = 0.00; SLAP repair, 95% CI = 0.68-0.93, I² = 70.23; P = .94) (return to preinjury level of sport: biceps tenodesis, 95% CI = 0.61-0.89, I² = 17.78; SLAP repair, 95% CI = 0.53-0.82, I² = 58.07; P = .37). The biceps tenodesis group showed a lower complication rate compared with the SLAP repair group without statistical significance (biceps tenodesis, 95% CI = 0.013-0.145, I² = 0.00; SLAP repair, 95% CI = 0.049-0.143, I² = 0.00; P = .25).

CONCLUSION

The results of biceps tenodesis, compared with SLAP repair, were not inferior in the surgical treatment of overhead athletes with SLAP lesions with regard to the ASES score, rate of return to sport, rate of return to preinjury level of sport, and complication rate. Further high-level, randomized controlled studies are needed to confirm this result.

Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System physical function instruments compare favorably to legacy patient-reported outcome measures in spine patients: a systematic review of the literature

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Preliminary evidence has suggested favorable correlation between National Institutes of Health (NIH) Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) assessments and traditional ("legacy") patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in spine surgery. There has been a significant increase in PROMIS research with regards to spinal conditions.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review is to provide an assessment of PROMIS Physical Function (PF) measures in this patient population.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

Systematic review.

METHODS

A systematic search of the PubMed/MEDLINE and Embase databases was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to identify published articles that referenced the various PROMIS PF measures. Two authors independently reviewed selected studies. The search returned 1,060 studies, 124 of which were selected for independent review by two authors. Of these, 37 were selected for inclusion. Mixed linear models were performed to assess for differences between legacy PROMs and PROMIS measures.

RESULTS

The combined sample size of all included studies yielded 10,296 total patients. Overall, PROMIS Physical Function (PF) measures demonstrated strong correlations with legacy PROMs when evaluating spine patients (weighted Pearson correlation, 0.589, standard error [SE]=0.023; weighted Spearman correlation, 0.702, SE=0.028). PROMIS questionnaires had significantly fewer questions than did legacy PROMs (4.2±0.30 vs. 9.53±0.82, p=.015). In spine studies, the PROMIS PF forms were completed in significantly less time than legacy PROMs (48.1±2.9 vs. 174.7±12.6 seconds, p<.001). The differences for the reliability measures and the floor and ceiling effects were not significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System PF forms compare favorably with legacy PROMs with regard to correlations, ease of use, and quality criteria in the field of spine surgery. PROMIS PF scores correlate strongly with commonly used legacy PROMs, particularly in spine patients. Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System PF forms can be administered efficiently and to a broad patient population while remaining highly reliable.

Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function Instruments Compare Favorably With Legacy Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Upper- and Lower-Extremity Orthopaedic Patients: A Systematic Review of the Literature

PURPOSE

To compare Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function (PF) with traditional ("legacy") patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in regard to correlations, ease of use, and quality criteria for upper (UE) and lower extremity (LE) orthopaedic conditions.

METHODS

A systematic search of the PubMed/MEDLINE database was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to identify published articles that referenced the various PROMIS PF measures. Two authors independently reviewed selected studies. The search returned 857 studies, 85 of which were selected for independent review by 2 authors. Of these, 54 were selected for inclusion. Mixed linear models were performed to assess for differences between legacy PROMs and PROMIS measures.

RESULTS

The combined sample size of all included studies yielded 6,074 UE and 9,366 LE patients. Overall, PROMIS PF measures demonstrated strong correlations with legacy PROMs among UE (weighted Pearson correlation, 0.624, standard error [SE] = 0.042; weighted Spearman correlation, 0.566, SE = 0.042) and LE patients (weighted Pearson correlation, 0.645, SE = 0.062; weighted Spearman correlation, 0.631, SE = 0.041). PROMIS PF questionnaires completed by UE patients had fewer questions than legacy PROMs (5.9 vs 17.7, P = .0093) and were completed in less time (90.5 vs 223.8 seconds, P = .084). PROMIS PF questionnaires completed by LE patients had fewer questions than legacy PROMs (4.81 vs 15.33, P < .001) and were completed in less time (63.6 vs 203.2 seconds, P = .0063). The differences for the reliability measures were not significant.

CONCLUSIONS

PROMIS PF scores correlate strongly with commonly used legacy PROMs in orthopaedics, particularly in UE and LE patients. PROMIS PF forms can be administered efficiently and to a broad patient population while remaining highly reliable. Therefore, they can be justified for standardized use among orthopaedic patients with UE and LE conditions, improving the ability to aggregate and compare outcomes in orthopaedic research.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, systematic review of Level I-IV evidence.

Variability in Rehabilitation Protocols after Superior Labrum Anterior Posterior Surgical Repair

Introduction

Rehabilitation after a superior labral anterior posterior (SLAP) repair is an important aspect of patient outcomes; however, no standardized rehabilitation protocol has been defined. The purpose of this paper is to assess the variability of rehabilitation after a SLAP repair to understand the need for standardization to improve patient outcomes.

Methods

Protocols for SLAP repairs were collected through a search for Academic Orthopedic Programs and a general Google search using the terms “[Program Name (if applicable)] SLAP Repair Rehab Protocol”. Protocols were compared by sling, range of motion (ROM), physical therapy, return to sport (RTS), return to throwing, and biceps engagement and tenodesis recommendations. Protocols for non-operative or generalized shoulders were excluded.

Results

Sixty protocols were included. A total of 61.7% (37/60) recommended a sling for four to six weeks and 90% (54/60) included a full ROM recommendation, but time was variable. There were different exercises recommended, but pendulum swings were recommended by 53% (32/60), submaximal isometrics by 55% (33/60), and scapular strengthening by 65% (39/60). Of the sixty protocols, 33% (20/60) recommended return to sports in 24 weeks and 38.3% (23/60) recommended allowing throwing in 16 weeks.

Conclusions

There was variability in protocols for SLAP repair, especially time until full ROM, RTS, and biceps strengthening. Time in sling and scapular strengthening were the least variable. A lack of specificity within protocols in what return to throwing meant for functional ability made it difficult to compare protocols. Considering the large number of orthopedic programs, a relatively small number had published protocols. Further studies are needed to evaluate a standardized post-operative rehabilitation for SLAP repairs to improve outcomes.

Biomechanical upper-extremity performance tests and isokinetic shoulder strength in collision and contact athletes

The aim of this study was threefold (1) to assess the reliability of three upper-extremity performance tests: a countermovement push up, press jump and drop box land, performed on a set of dual-force plates (2) to examine whether there was an association between isokinetic dynamometry and the performance tests in a non-injured cohort of collision/contact athletes and (3) to establish a normal descriptive profile of the vertical ground reaction forces from the performance tests, in a cohort of contact/collision athletes. The study was split into two sub-sections; the inter-day reliability of three upper-extremity performance tests (n = 21) and a descriptive, correlation study investigating the relationship between isokinetic dynamometry and performance tests metrics (n = 39). We used intraclass correlation coefficients (absolute agreement, 2-way mixed-effects model) with 95% confidence intervals to quantify inter-day reliability of all variables. We used Pearson correlation coefficients to investigate associations between isokinetic strength and vertical ground reaction force asymmetry variables. Inter-day reliability was moderate-to-excellent for the upper-extremity performance tests (ICC 0.67-0.97). There was no statistically significant correlation between external and internal rotational peak torque and the variables of CPMU, PJ and BDL (r range = .02-.24).These upper-extremity tests are reliable for use with male contact/collision athletes.

Outcome measures reported for the management of proximal humeral fractures: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons multicenter taskforce studying proximal humerus fractures reached no consensus on which outcome measures to include in future studies, and currently no gold standard exists. Knowledge of commonly used outcome measures will allow standardization, enabling more consistent proximal humerus fracture treatment comparison. This study identifies the most commonly reported outcome measures for proximal humerus fracture management in recent literature.

METHODS

A systematic review identified all English-language articles assessing proximal humerus fractures from 2008 to 2018 using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Review articles, meta-analyses, revision surgery, chronic injuries, studies with <15 patients, studies with <12 month follow-up, anatomic/biomechanical studies, and technique articles were excluded. Included studies were assessed for patient demographics and outcome scores, patient satisfaction, complications, range of motion, and strength.

RESULTS

Of 655 articles, 74 met inclusion criteria. The number of proximal humerus fractures averaged 74.2 per study (mean patient age, 65.6 years). Mean follow-up was 30.7 months. Neer type 1, 2, 3, and 4 fractures were included in 8%, 51%, 81%, and 88% of studies, respectively. Twenty-two patient-reported outcome instruments were used including the Constant-Murley score (65%), Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score (31%), visual analog scale pain (27%), and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (18%). An average of 2.2 measures per study were reported.

CONCLUSION

Considerable variability exists in the use of outcome measures across the proximal humerus fracture literature, making treatment comparison challenging. We recommend that future literature on proximal humerus fractures use at least 3 outcomes measures and 1 general health score until the optimal scores are determined.

Outcome Measures After Shoulder Stabilization in the Athletic Population: A Systematic Review of Clinical and Patient-Reported Metrics

Background:

Athletic endeavor can require the “athletic shoulder” to tolerate significant load through supraphysiological range and often under considerable repetition. Outcome measures are valuable when determining an athlete’s safe return to sport. Few data are available to guide a clinician’s choice from the variety of measures available.

Purpose:

To describe the use of quantifiable objective outcome measures and patient-reported outcome tools after glenohumeral joint stabilization, specifically in an athletic population. The secondary aim of our study was to assess whether the method of measurement used was clearly described and standardized to aid clinical interpretation.

Study Design:

Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods:

A systematic search of MEDLINE, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science databases was performed in December 2018 based on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. After the application of selection criteria, a full review of identified papers, and screening of reference lists, a total of 62 studies were included in the review. All studies were independently appraised for quality, predefined data fields were populated and cross-checked for accuracy, and results were then summarized from these data fields.

Results:

Of the 62 included studies, 94% used a quantifiable objective clinical outcome. A majority (85%) of the studies measured range of motion, 21% recorded muscle strength, 5% measured electromyographic activity, 5% examined shoulder kinematics, and 3% assessed joint proprioception after surgery. However, only 18% of the studies clearly described a standardized method of measuring the outcome. Nearly all (95%) of the studies used at least 1 patient-reported outcome measure. The Rowe score was most commonly used (35%).

Conclusion:

We must standardize and clearly describe the use of quantifiable objective outcome measures to aid clinical interpretation. A concerted effort should also be made to standardize the use of patient-reported outcome tools after shoulder stabilization in the athletic population.

Outcome Measure Utilization Demonstrates No Relation to Journal Rank or Level of Evidence for Superior Labral Tears of the Shoulder

Introduction Superior labrum anterior to posterior (SLAP) tears are injuries of the shoulder's glenoid labrum involving biceps tendon insertion. We describe the scope of outcome measures used in the SLAP tear literature over the last decade and evaluate whether objective study metrics relate to level of evidence (LOE) and journal rank. Methods A comprehensive review of the literature was performed to identify all articles on the outcomes of the treatment of patients with SLAP tears published over the period of a decade (2007-2016). Studies were reviewed for LOE, SCImago Scientific Journal Ranking (SJR), study characteristics, and patient demographics. The utilization frequencies of outcome measures were recorded. Outcome measures were categorized as clinician-measured outcomes (CMOs), outcome scores/patient-reported outcomes (PROs), or other reported outcomes (OROs). Univariate analyses compared demographics and outcome-measure utilization among studies grouped by LOE (high: I/II vs. low: III/IV) and SJR (high: >2 vs. low: <2). Results The literature review identified 86 studies meeting inclusion criteria from an initial search of 582 articles. The mean study SJR was 2.02 and 0.85 +/- 0.79 CMOs were included. Twenty different outcome scores were utilized in the reviewed literature with a mean of 2.66 +/- 1.61 PROs/study. The most common outcome scores were ASES score, pain Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and constant score. High SJR studies had longer follow-up (p=0.036). High LOE studies utilized more CMOs (p=0.008) and more commonly included physical exam findings (p=0.0015). Revision surgery rate was less commonly reported in high LOE studies (p=0.036). None of the other outcome measures studied were associated with high study LOE or SJR. Conclusions Considerable variability exists in outcome-measure utilization within the recent SLAP tear literature. ASES score, pain VAS, and constant score are the most commonly reported PROs. CMOs and OROs are infrequently reported. There is little objectivity distinguishing higher and lower quality studies based on the proxy metrics used. Future SLAP tear research should focus on improving the consistency of outcome-measure reporting to enable more meaningful cross-study comparisons.

Arthroscopic Versus Open Bankart Repairs in Recurrent Anterior Shoulder Instability: A Systematic Review of the Association Between Publication Date and Postoperative Recurrent Instability in Systematic Reviews

PURPOSE

To systematically review the results of systematic studies regarding open versus arthroscopic Bankart repairs for recurrent anterior shoulder instability and quantitatively analyze the effect of primary-literature publication dates on reported outcomes in these systematic studies.

METHODS

A systematic search was conducted to identify systematic studies reporting outcomes of both arthroscopic and open Bankart repairs for recurrent anterior shoulder instability. Patient-reported outcome measures, recurrent instability rates, definitions of instability, and procedure types reported by included study characteristics were qualitatively analyzed. Correlation coefficient analyses were performed to investigate if a systematic study's proportion of included primary literature published after 1999, 2000, 2001, or 2002 affected that study's reported mean difference in instability recurrence between open and arthroscopic procedures. The Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews criteria were used to assess the risk of bias of the included studies.

RESULTS

Of 130 identified articles, 6 met the inclusion criteria. Patient-reported outcome measures were poorly reported. Among mean differences in instability recurrence rates, the results were indeterminate: Although 5 studies reported arthroscopic surgical procedures as having a higher recurrence rate, only 1 reported a statistically significant difference. Within the 5 included systematic reviews reporting the number of included studies, 37 of 56 observations were published after 2000. The proportion of studies published after 2000 (Pearson r = 0.88, P = .052) was positively associated with differences in instability recurrence rates between open and arthroscopic procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Systematic studies that included newer studies (published after 2000) were associated with more favorable arthroscopic outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, systematic review of Level III and IV studies.

What Outcome Measures Are Reported in the Management of Acromioclavicular Joint Injuries?

Background

Lack of uniformity in reported outcomes makes comparisons between acromioclavicular joint (ACJ) injury studies challenging. Knowledge of common outcome measures and standardization will help orthopaedic surgeons report and compare outcomes more consistently.

Purpose

To identify the most commonly reported outcome measures for ACJ injuries.

Study Design

Systematic review.

Methods

A systematic review was performed to identify all English-language original articles assessing any type of management of ACJ injuries (acute and chronic) in PubMed and Scopus from 2007 to 2017. Review articles, meta-analyses, studies with less than 5 patients, pediatric studies, technique articles, and biomechanical studies were excluded. The 100 top orthopaedic journals in the English literature were selected for review. Included studies were assessed for patient characteristics and the use of outcome variables, including range of motion (ROM), strength, patient-reported outcomes (PROs), satisfaction, return to work, return to sport, and complications.

Results

A total of 605 unique articles were identified; 92 met the inclusion criteria. The average number of ACJ injuries per study was 37, with a mean weighted patient age of 36 years (range, 20.1-57.3 years). The mean follow-up was 36 months (range, 5-290 months). Acute injuries were reported in 59% of studies. ROM and strength measurements were reported in 22.8% and 5.4% of studies. Sixteen different PRO instruments were used. The most commonly reported measures were Constant score (75%), visual analog scale for pain (VAS-pain; 33%) score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score (21%), Simple Shoulder Test (SST) score (19%), and University of California Los Angeles (UCLA; 17%) shoulder score. An average of 2.5 outcome measures per study were reported. The use of 4 or more outcome scores was associated with publication in higher-impact factor journals.

Conclusion

Inconsistent reporting of multiple outcome measures is present in the ACJ injury literature. The best scoring system for assessing ACJ injury and treatment has not yet been agreed upon. Until improved scoring systems come into general use, we recommend that future literature on ACJ injuries use at least 4 outcome scores and include the commonly used outcome measures (Constant, VAS-pain, ASES, and SST scores) to enable future comparison of patient outcomes across publications.

The Responsiveness of Patient- Reported Outcome Tools in Shoulder Surgery Is Dependent on the Underlying Pathological Condition

BACKGROUND

Given the high number of available patient-reported outcome (PRO) tools for patients undergoing shoulder surgery, comparative information is necessary to determine the most relevant forms to incorporate into clinical practice.

PURPOSE

To determine the utilization and responsiveness of common PRO tools in studies involving patients undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair or operative management of glenohumeral instability.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

METHODS

A systematic review of rotator cuff and instability studies from multiple databases was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. Means and SDs of each PRO tool utilized, study sample sizes, and follow-up durations were collected. The responsiveness of each PRO tool compared with other PRO tools was determined by calculating the effect size and relative efficiency (RE).

RESULTS

After a full-text review of 238 rotator cuff articles and 110 instability articles, 81 studies and 29 studies met the criteria for final inclusion, respectively. In the rotator cuff studies, 25 different PRO tools were utilized. The most commonly utilized PRO tools were the Constant (50 studies), visual analog scale (VAS) for pain (44 studies), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES; 39 studies), University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA; 20 studies), and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH; 13 studies) scores. The ASES score was found to be more responsive than all scores including the Constant (RE, 1.94), VAS for pain (RE, 1.54), UCLA (RE, 1.46), and DASH (RE, 1.35) scores. In the instability studies, 16 different PRO tools were utilized. The most commonly used PRO tools were the ASES (13 studies), Rowe (10 studies), Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI; 8 studies), VAS for pain (7 studies), UCLA (7 studies), and Constant (6 studies) scores. The Rowe score was much more responsive than both the ASES (RE, 22.84) and the Constant (RE, 33.17) scores; however, the ASES score remained more responsive than the Constant (RE, 1.93), VAS for pain (RE, 1.75), and WOSI (RE, 0.97) scores.

CONCLUSION

Despite being frequently used in the research community, the Constant score may be less clinically useful as it was less responsive. Additionally, it is a greater burden on the provider because it requires objective strength and range of motion data to be gathered by the clinician. In contrast, the ASES score was highly responsive after rotator cuff repair and requires only subjective patient input. Furthermore, separate PRO scoring methods appear to be necessary for patients undergoing rotator cuff repair and surgery for instability as the instability-specific Rowe score was much more responsive than the ASES score.

Outcomes of distal humerus fractures: What are we measuring?

INTRODUCTION

We evaluate the most common outcome measures used in distal humerus fracture studies in order to suggest standardization for future research.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic review identified articles assessing the outcomes of acute distal humerus fractures from 2006 to 2016 from PubMed and Web of Science databases. The inclusion criterion was studies reporting on the outcomes of treatment of acute distal humerus fractures. Review articles, meta-analyses, studies with<5 patients, technique articles, biomechanical studies, and those focusing on one complication/outcome were excluded. Patient demographics and all outcome measures were reviewed. Journal and demographic factors were then compared.

RESULTS

One-hundred-nine of 2158 articles met inclusion criteria. The median number of fractures per study was 35. Mean patient age was 55.0 years. Average follow-up was 35 months. Range-of-motion and strength measurements were reported in 90% and 17% of studies, respectively. Twenty patient-reported outcome instruments were used. The most commonly reported measures were MEPS, DASH, VAS pain, and Quick DASH scores. An average of 1.9 outcome measures were reported per study. A journal impact factor of≥1.5 was associated with more reported outcome measures. Articles including elbow arthroplasty were associated with higher impact factor journals, more outcome measures, and longer follow-up. Level of evidence was not associated with the number of reported outcome measures.

DISCUSSION

The current distal humerus fracture literature inconsistently reports outcome measures. More outcome measures were reported in higher impact journals. Future distal humerus fracture studies should include MEPS, DASH or Quick DASH, and VAS Pain scores to allow for appropriate cross-study comparison.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, Systematic review.

The Correlation Between PROMIS Pain Interference and VAS Pain in Ambulatory Orthopedic Patients

The purpose of this study was to investigate the correlation of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Pain Interference (PI) score with traditionally collected visual analog scale (VAS) scores and to determine the influence of patient demographics on PROMIS PI and VAS scores. Patient demographics were collected, and PROMIS PI, PROMIS Physical Function (PF), and VAS questionnaires were distributed to 215 patients in orthopedic ambulatory clinics. The primary outcome was correlation between PROMIS PI and VAS questionnaires. The statistical method of seemingly unrelated regressions was used to identify significant predictors and strengths of correlation between PROMIS PI and conventional forms. The PROMIS PI score was highly correlated to conventional pain and functional scores, with each standard deviation increase in PROMIS PI score predicting a 16-point increase for pain-related VAS scores (current pain, pain at rest, pain during activity, pain at night), an 18-point decrease in satisfaction of function score, and a 6-point decrease in general health score. Each standard deviation increase in PROMIS PF score for black patients predicted a reduction of 11 points for current pain, 10 points for pain at rest, 10 points for pain during activity, and 12 points for pain at night scores. The PROMIS PI score consistently predicts changes in VAS pain scores and can be considered a useful, standardized tool for measuring pain for clinical and research purposes. [Orthopedics. 2018; 41(6):e813-e819.].

Glenohumeral internal rotation deficit in throwing athletes: current perspectives

Glenohumeral internal rotation deficit (GIRD) is an adaptive process in which the throwing shoulder experiences a loss of internal rotation (IR). GIRD has most commonly been defined by a loss of >20° of IR compared to the contralateral shoulder. Total rotational motion of the shoulder is the sum of internal and external rotation and may be more important than the absolute value of IR loss. Pathologic GIRD has been defined as a loss of IR combined with a loss of total rotational motion. The leading pathologic process in GIRD is posterior capsular and rotator-cuff tightness, due to the repetitive cocking that occurs with the overhead throwing motion. GIRD has been associated with numerous pathologic conditions, including posterior superior labral tears, partial articular-sided rotator-cuff tears, and superior labral anterior-to-posterior tears. The mainstay of treatment for patients with GIRD is posterior capsular stretching and strengthening to improve scapular mechanics. In patients who fail nonoperative therapy, shoulder arthroscopy can be performed. Arthroscopic surgery in the high-level throwing athlete should be to restore them to their functional baseline with the minimum amount of intervention possible.

Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System and Legacy Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in the Field of Orthopaedics: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

To compare Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) physical function (PF) with legacy patient-reported outcome measures with regard to correlations, ease of use, and quality criteria for orthopaedic conditions.

METHODS

A systematic search of the PubMed/MEDLINE database was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines to identify published articles that referenced the various PROMIS PF measures. Three authors independently reviewed selected studies. The search returned 130 studies, 44 of which underwent review. Of these, 18 were selected for inclusion. A general linear model and paired t-tests were used to assess for differences between legacy patient-reported outcome measures and PROMIS.

RESULTS

The combined sample size of all articles yielded 3,047 total patients. Overall, PROMIS PF measures and legacy scores showed strong correlations (range: 0.59-0.83) when evaluating upper extremity, lower extremity, and spine patients. PROMIS questionnaires (6.04, standard error [SE] = 0.7) have significantly fewer questions than legacy forms (24.27, SE = 4.36). In lower extremity studies, the PROMIS PF (100.14 seconds, SE = 28.41) forms were completed in significantly less time (P = .03) than legacy forms (243.70 seconds, SE = 45.8). No significant difference was found between the reliabilities of the 2 types of measures.

CONCLUSIONS

PROMIS PF scores correlate strongly, particularly in lower extremity patients, with some of the most commonly used legacy measures in orthopaedics. PROMIS can be administered quicker and applied to a broader patient population while remaining highly reliable.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, systematic review of Level I-IV evidence.

Editorial Commentary: Are We Comparing Apples to Oranges? The Need for Standardized Outcomes Reporting in Orthopaedic Surgery

The ability to precisely and accurately measure clinical outcomes is the cornerstone of determining the value of the care we provide. However, we are witnessing significant variability in clinical outcome reporting in high-impact orthopedic research. Such variability clouds our ability to perform meta-analytical and aggregate comparisons of existing clinical research, thereby hindering our attempts at measuring value.