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

Translation, cross-cultural adaptation, and validation of the Turkish version of the shoulder instability-return to sport (SI-RSI) after injury scale

To translate and culturally adapt the shoulder instability-return to sport after injury (SI-RSI) scale into Turkish (SI-RSI-Tr) and examine the psychometric properties of the Turkish version of athletes following a traumatic shoulder instability. The SI-RSI was translated into Turkish using Beaton guidelines. Sixty-nine patients with shoulder instability completed the translated SI-RSI, Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI), the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (TSK), and the Walch-Duplay Scores. We analysed the internal consistency, agreement, reliability, and validity of the SI-RSI-Tr. The SI-RSI-Tr demonstrated excellent internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.92), test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.95), and feasibility with no ceiling or floor effect. SI-RSI-Tr correlated with WOSI total score (r = -0.824, p < 0.001), its subscales: WOSI-physical (r = -0.683, p < 0.001), WOSI-sports (r = -0.832, p < 0.001), WOSI-lifestyle (r = -0.739, p < 0.001), and WOSI-emotions (r = -0.734, p < 0.001) respectively), Walch-Duplay (r = 0.840, p < 0.001) and TSK (r = -0.828, p < 0.001) scores. The Turkish SI-RSI is a reliable, internally consistent, and valid tool for athletes with shoulder instability. Researchers and clinicians could safely use the SIRSI-Tr to evaluate the shoulder-specific psychological factors on return to sports following an episode of shoulder instability.

The supine moving apprehension test-Reliability and validity among healthy individuals and patients with anterior shoulder instability

Background

Performance-based tests for patients with anterior shoulder dislocation are lacking. This study determined the reliability and validity of the supine moving apprehension test designed to assess the ability to control anterior instability loads.

Methods

Thirty-six participants were recruited (18 healthy individuals, and 18 patients following anterior shoulder dislocation). Healthy participants performed the supine moving apprehension test on 2 separate occasions to determine test-retest reliability. Patients completed the supine moving apprehension test and the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability index before and 6 months after surgical stabilization of their shoulder. The presence of anterior apprehension was also documented post-operatively.

Results

The supine moving apprehension test demonstrated good test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.74-0.84). Patients performed 18-30 repetitions less than healthy individuals during the supine moving apprehension test (P < 0.01). A strong correlation was found between supine moving apprehension test scores and Western Ontario Shoulder Instability post-operatively (r = -0.74, P ≤ 0.01). Supine moving apprehension test scores significantly improved among patients following surgery (P < 0.01). Patients with a negative apprehension test post-operatively performed the supine moving apprehension test significantly better than patients with a positive apprehension test (P < 0.01).

Conclusions

The supine moving apprehension test is reliable and valid among patients with anterior shoulder dislocation and may serve to assess patients' ability to control shoulder anterior instability loads.

A modified Delphi study to identify which items should be evaluated in shoulder instability research: a first step in developing a core outcome set

Background

The aim of this study was to identify items that healthcare providers and/or patients consider important to include in a questionnaire for clinical trials and cohort studies in shoulder instability research. This could serve as a basis to develop a core outcome set for shoulder instability research.

Methods

Healthcare providers and patients were included in a panel for a modified Delphi consensus study. The study consisted of three rounds, comprising (1) identifying items, (2) rating the importance of the items, and (3) rating the importance again after seeing a summary of the results of round two. Importance was rated on a 9-point Likert scale. Consensus was defined as ≥ 80% of the panel giving a score of 7 or higher.

Results

In total, 44 healthcare providers and 30 patients completed all three rounds. Round one identified 54 items. After round three, the panel reached a consensus on 11 items that should be included in a questionnaire, comprising re-dislocation (99%), instable feeling of the shoulder (96%), limitations during sport (93%), patient satisfaction with the shoulder (93%), fear/anxiety for re-dislocation (91%), range of motion (88%), return to old level of functioning (85%), performing daily activities (85%), return to sport (82%), return to work (82%), and trusting the shoulder (81%).

Conclusion

Healthcare providers and patients reached a consensus on 11 items that should be included in a questionnaire for shoulder instability research. These items can facilitate design and development of future clinical trials and form the basis for the development of a core outcome set.

Challenges and Opportunities for the Use of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Orthopaedic Pediatric and Sports Medicine Surgery

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are essential tools in assessing treatment response, informing clinical decision making, driving healthcare policy, and providing important prognostic data regarding patient health status change. These tools become essential in orthopaedic disciplines, such as pediatrics and sports medicine, given the diversity of patient populations and procedures. However, the creation and routine administration of standard PROMs alone do not suffice to appropriately facilitate the aforementioned functions. Indeed, both the interpretation and optimal application of PROMs are essential to provide to achieve greatest clinical benefit. Contemporary developments and technologies surrounding PROMs may help augment this benefit, including the application of artificial intelligence, novel PROM structure with improved interpretability and validity, and PROM delivery methods that provide increased access to patients resulting in greater compliance and data acquisition yields. Despite these exciting innovations, several challenges remain in this realm that must be addressed to continue to advance the clinical usefulness and subsequent benefit of PROMs. This review will highlight the opportunities and challenges surrounding contemporary PROM use in the orthopaedic subspecialties of pediatrics and sports medicine.

A new self-assessment tool following shoulder stabilization surgery, the auto-Walch and auto-Rowe questionnaires

PURPOSE

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS) are increasingly used for patient evaluation, as well as for scientific research. Few are used for practical purposes in the clinical setting, and few are reliable enough to allow proper feedback to physicians. Two of the most commonly used assessment tools in shoulder instability are the Walch-Duplay and the Rowe scores. The aim of this study was to evaluate the validity of self-administered versions of the Walch-Duplay and Rowe scores following shoulder stabilization procedure.

METHODS

Between the months of May and December 2021, all patients who were followed in one of six institutions for shoulder instability were included. Patients were required to anonymously fill a self-administered version of Walch-Duplay and Rowe score. The classic scores were measured by the surgeon. Correlations between self-assessment and physician-assessment were then recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 106 patients were evaluated during the study period. Using the Spearman coefficient for correlation, a strong correlation (r > 0.5) was found between the results of the self-administered questionnaire and the surgeon-measured score. The difference between surgeon- and patient-administered questionnaires was non-significant.

CONCLUSION

The self-administered version of the Walch-Duplay and Rowe questionnaires can reliably be used in the clinical setting for post-operative follow-up of patients undergoing shoulder stabilization procedures.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II.

Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Kerlan-Jobe Orthopaedic Clinic shoulder and elbow score in Finnish-speaking overhead athletes

Background

The Kerlan-Jobe Orthopaedic Clinic Shoulder and Elbow score (KJOC) is developed to evaluate the shoulder and elbow function in overhead athletes. To date, the score has not been adapted into Finnish language. The aim of this study was to perform a cross-cultural adaptation of the Kerlan-Jobe Orthopaedic Clinic Shoulder and Elbow score (KJOC) into Finnish language and evaluate its validity, reliability, and responsiveness in overhead athletes.

Methods

Forward–backward translation method was followed in the cross-cultural adaptation process. Subsequently, 114 overhead athletes (52 males, 62 females, mean age 18.1 ± 2.8 years) completed the Finnish version of KJOC score, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Standardized Shoulder Assessment Form (ASES) and RAND-36 to assess validity of the KJOC score. To evaluate reliability and responsiveness, the participants filled in the KJOC score 16 days and eight months after the first data collection. Validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the Finnish KJOC score were statistically tested.

Results

Minor modifications were made during the cross-cultural translation and adaptation process, which were related to culture specific terminology in sports and agreed by an expert committee. Construct validity of the KJOC score was moderate to high, based on the correlations with DASH (r = − 0.757); DASH sports module (r = − 0.667); ASES (r = 0.559); and RAND-36 (r = 0.397) questionnaires. Finnish KJOC score showed excellent internal consistency (α = 0.92) and good test–retest reliability (2-way mixed-effects model ICC = 0.77) with acceptable measurement error level (SEM 5.5; MDC 15.1). Ceiling effect was detected for asymptomatic athletes in each item (23.2–61.1%), and for symptomatic athletes in item 5 (47.4%). Responsiveness of the Finnish KJOC score could not be confirmed due to conflicting follow-up results.

Conclusion

The Finnish KJOC score was found to be a valid and reliable questionnaire measuring the self-reported upper arm status in Finnish-speaking overhead athletes.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13102-022-00581-4.

Bony reconstruction after failed labral repair is associated with higher recurrence rates compared to primary bony reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 1319 shoulders in studies with a minimum of 2-year follow-up

BACKGROUND

There is uncertainty with regard to the optimal revision procedure after failed labral repair for anterior shoulder instability. An overview of outcomes of these procedures with quantitative analysis is not available in literature. The aim of this review is (1) to compare recurrence rates after revision labral repair (RLR) and revision bony reconstruction (RBR), both following failed labral repair. In addition, (2) recurrence rates after RBR following failed labral repair and primary bony reconstruction (PBR) are compared to determine if a previous failed labral repair influences the outcomes of the bony reconstruction.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials and cohort studies with a minimum follow-up of 2 years and reporting recurrence rates of (1) RBR following failed labral repair and PBR and/or (2) RLR following failed labral repair and RBR following failed labral repair were identified by searching PubMed, Embase/Ovid, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews/Wiley, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials/Wiley, and Web of Science/Clarivate Analytics.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria and comprised 1319 shoulders. Meta-analyses showed that RBR has a significantly higher recurrence rate than PBR (risk ratio [RR] 0.51, P < .008) but found no significant difference in the recurrence rates for RLR and RBR (RR 1.40, P < .49). Also, no significant differences were found between PBR and RBR in return to sport (RR 1.07, P < .41), revision surgery (RR 0.8, P < .44), and complications (RR 0.84, P < .53). Lastly, no significant differences between RLR and RBR for revision surgery (RR 3.33, P < .19) were found.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this meta-analyses show that (1) RBR does not demonstrate a significant difference in recurrence rates compared with RLR and that (2) RBR has a significantly higher recurrence rate than PBR.

High Rate of Return to Work by 3 Months Following Latarjet for Anterior Shoulder Instability

PURPOSE

To evaluate the rate and duration of return to work in patients undergoing Latarjet for failed soft-tissue stabilization or glenoid bone loss.

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing Latarjet from 2005 to 2015 at our institution were retrospectively reviewed at a minimum of 2 years postoperatively. Patients completed a standardized and validated work questionnaire, Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index Survey, and a satisfaction survey.

RESULTS

Of 89 eligible patients who had Latarjet, 67 patients (75.3%) responded to the questionnaire, of whom 51 patients (76.1%) were employed within 3 years before surgery (mean age: 29.9 ± 11.8 years; mean follow-up: 54.6 ± 11.9 months) and had an average glenoid bone loss of 14.5 ± 6.1%. Fifty patients (98.0%) returned to work by 2.7 ± 3.0 months postoperatively; 45 patients (88.2%) patients returned to the same level of occupational intensity. Those who held sedentary, light, moderate, or heavy intensity occupations returned to their previous occupation at a rate of 100.0%, 93.3%, 90.0%, and 66.7% (P = .2) at a duration of 1.2 ± 1.6 months, 1.8 ± 1.9 months, 3.1 ± 3.5 months, and 6.5 ± 4.1 months (P = .001), respectively. The average postoperative Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index score was 70.9 ± 34.2. Fifty patients (98.0%) noted at least "a little improvement" in their quality of life following surgery, with 35 patients (68.6%) noting great improvement. Furthermore, 49 patients (96.1%) reported being satisfied with their procedure, with 25 patients (49.0%) reporting being very satisfied. Four patients (7.8%) returned to the operating room, with 1 patient (2.0%) requiring arthroscopic shoulder stabilization.

CONCLUSIONS

Approximately 98% of patients who underwent Latarjet returned to work by 2.7 ± 3.0 months postoperatively. Patients with greater-intensity occupations had a longer duration of absence before returning to their preoperative level of occupational intensity. Information regarding return to work is imperative in preoperative patient consultation to manage expectations.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, case series.