Determining the Minimal Clinically Important Difference on the Oxford Shoulder Instability Score in Patients Undergoing Arthroscopic Bankart Repair for Shoulder Instability

Similar patient-reported outcomes but lower redislocation and higher revision rates following primary Latarjet vs. primary arthroscopic Bankart repair in patients with 10%-20% glenoid bone loss at a minimum 2-year follow-up

BACKGROUND

The amount of glenoid bone loss is closely related to the success rate of surgical treatment following anterior shoulder dislocations. There is an ongoing debate on the most successful treatment in patients with a subcritical amount (10%-20%) of glenoid bone loss (GBL). This study aimed to compare patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) following primary open Latarjet procedure and primary arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR) in patients with 10%-20% GBL at a minimum 2-year follow-up.

METHODS

This multicenter retrospective cohort study included 53 patients with traumatic anterior shoulder dislocations treated with Latarjet or ABR between 2011 and 2019. PROMs included the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI) and Oxford Shoulder Instability Score (OSIS). Secondary outcomes included recurrence, complications, revision surgery, patient satisfaction, and return to sport (RTS).

RESULTS

The mean follow-up was 77 ± 31.7 months. Baseline characteristics were similar between ABR and Latarjet, except for time to follow-up (91 ± 30 vs. 61 ± 26 months, P < .001) and percentage GBL (15 ± 3 vs. 17 ± 3, P = .024). WOSI scores were higher in Latarjet patients compared with ABR; however, this difference was not statistically significant (220 vs. 457, P = .10). OSIS scores were similar following ABR and Latarjet (42 vs. 45, P = .33). Recurrence rates were higher in ABR patients (7 [24%] vs. 0 [0%] recurrences, P = .01), whereas revision rates were higher in Latarjet patients (4 vs. 0 revisions, P = .04). Patient satisfaction and complications were not different between the 2 procedures and neither achieved RTS and RTS to preinjury level.

CONCLUSION

The null hypothesis in which Latarjet and ABR show similar patient-reported outcomes could not be rejected based on the underpowered analysis. Patients treated with Latarjet did not have any recurrences vs. 7 in the ABR group (P = .01). However, revision rates were higher in Latarjet patients (4 vs. 0 revisions, P = .04).

Upper extremity neuromuscular function can distinguish between individuals with and without glenohumeral labral repair

The purpose of this study was to determine whether common measures of neuromuscular function could distinguish injury status indicated by group membership (glenohumeral labral repair, uninjured controls). 16 individuals with glenohumeral labral repair (24.1 ± 5.0 years, 36.7 ± 33.3 months after surgery) and 14 uninjured controls (23.8 ± 2.7 years) volunteered. We measured mass-normalized shoulder abduction and wrist flexion maximal voluntary isometric contraction torque (Nm/kg), motoneuron pool excitability of the flexor carpi radialis (Hoffmann reflex), corticospinal excitability of the upper trapezius, middle deltoid, and flexor carpi radialis (active motor threshold [%]) bilaterally. Receiver operator characteristic curve analyses were performed to determine if each outcome could distinguish injury status along with their outcome thresholds. Binary logistic regression was used to determine the accuracy of classification for each outcome. Our results suggest shoulder abduction torque symmetry (≤95.5 %) and corticospinal excitability for the upper trapezius (≥41.0 %) demonstrated excellent diagnostic utility. Shoulder abduction torque (≤0.71 Nm/kg) and motoneuron pool excitability (≤0.23) demonstrated acceptable diagnostic utility. Shoulder abduction torque symmetry alone was the strongest indicator, and classified injury status with 90.0 % accuracy (p < 0.01). Overall, symmetric shoulder abduction strength most accurately distinguished individuals' injury status, suggesting the utility of bilateral assessment in this population.

Preoperative patient-reported outcome measures predict minimal clinically important difference and patient-acceptable symptomatic state following arthroscopic Bankart repair

Aims

The aims of this study were to validate the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) thresholds for Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI), Rowe score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), and visual analogue scale (VAS) scores following arthroscopic Bankart repair, and to identify preoperative threshold values of these scores that could predict the achievement of MCID and PASS.

Methods

A retrospective review was conducted on 131 consecutive patients with anterior shoulder instability who underwent arthroscopic Bankart repair between January 2020 and January 2023. Inclusion criteria required at least one episode of shoulder instability and a minimum follow-up period of 12 months. Preoperative and one-year postoperative scores were assessed. MCID and PASS were estimated using distribution-based and anchor-based methods, respectively. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis determined preoperative patient-reported outcome measure thresholds predictive of achieving MCID and PASS.

Results

MCID thresholds were determined as 169.6, 6.8, 7.2, and 1.1 for WOSI, Rowe, ASES, and VAS, respectively. PASS thresholds were calculated as ≤ 480, ≥ 80, ≥ 87, and ≤ 1 for WOSI, Rowe, ASES, and VAS, respectively. Preoperative thresholds of ≥ 760 (WOSI) and ≤ 50 (Rowe) predicted achieving MCID for WOSI score (p < 0.001). Preoperative thresholds of ≤ 60 (ASES) and ≥ 2 (VAS) predicted achieving MCID for VAS score (p < 0.001). A preoperative threshold of ≥ 40 (Rowe) predicted achieving PASS for Rowe score (p = 0.005). Preoperative thresholds of ≥ 50 (ASES; p = 0.002) and ≤ 2 (VAS; p < 0.001) predicted achieving PASS for the ASES score. Preoperative thresholds of ≥ 43 (ASES; p = 0.046) and ≤ 4 (VAS; p = 0.024) predicted achieving PASS for the VAS.

Conclusion

This study defined MCID and PASS values for WOSI, Rowe, ASES, and VAS scores in patients undergoing arthroscopic Bankart repair. Higher preoperative functional scores may reduce the likelihood of achieving MCID but increase the likelihood of achieving the PASS. These findings provide valuable guidance for surgeons to counsel patients realistically regarding their expectations.

High Variability in Standardized Outcome Thresholds of Clinically Important Changes in Shoulder Instability Surgery: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

To examine reported minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and patient-acceptable satisfactory state (PASS) values for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) after shoulder instability surgery and assess variability in published values depending on the surgery performed. Our secondary aims were to describe the methods used to derive MCID and PASS values in the published literature, including anchor-based, distribution-based, or other approaches, and to assess the frequency of MCID and PASS use in studies on shoulder instability surgery.

METHODS

A systematic review of MCID and PASS values after Bankart, Latarjet, and Remplissage procedures was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA). The Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases were queried from 1985 to 2023. Inclusion criteria included studies written in English and studies reporting use of MCID or PASS for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS) after Latarjet, Bankart, and Remplissage approaches for shoulder instability surgery. Extracted data included study population characteristics, intervention characteristics, and outcomes of interest. Continuous data were described using medians and ranges. Categorical variables, including PROMs and MCID/PASS methods, were described using percentages. Because MCID is a patient-level rather than a group-level metric, the authors confirmed that all included studies reported proportions (%) of subjects who met or exceeded the MCID.

RESULTS

A total of 174 records were screened, and 8 studies were included in this review. MCID was the most widely used outcome threshold and was reported in all 8 studies, with only 2 studies reporting both the MCID and the PASS. The most widely studied PROMs were the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (range 5.65-9.6 for distribution MCID, 8.5 anchor MCID, 86 anchor PASS); Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (range 11.4-12.4 distribution MCID, 82.5-87.5 anchor PASS); visual analog scale (VAS) (range 1.1-1.7 distribution MCID, 1.5-2.5 PASS); Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (range 60.7-254.9 distribution MCID, 126.43 anchor MCID, 571-619.5 anchor PASS); and Rowe scores (range 5.6-8.4 distribution MCID, 9.7 anchor MCID). Notably, no studies reported on substantial clinical benefit or maximal outcome improvement.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the wide array of available PROMs for assessing shoulder instability surgery outcomes, the availability of clinically significant outcome thresholds such as MCID and PASS remains relatively limited. Although MCID has been the most frequently reported metric, there is considerable interstudy variability observed in their values.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Knowing the outcome thresholds such as MCID and PASS of the PROMs frequently used to evaluate the results of glenohumeral stabilization surgery is fundamental because they allow us to know what is a clinically significant improvement for the patient.

Arthroscopic Stabilization of Recurrent Anterior Shoulder Instability Using Two Anchors, One Single-Loaded plus One Double-Loaded; a Prospective Study with Modified Technique

Objectives

Anterior shoulder instability with minimal glenoid bone loss has several options for Bankart repair. We aimed to evaluate the results of a modified technique using two anchors with double and single loaded suture (three stitches in total) in arthroscopic Bankart surgery.

Methods

Thirty-eight patients underwent arthroscopic Bankart surgery and were assessed after an average 40 months follow-up. They underwent two-anchor repairs with single loaded of a high-strength, non-absorbable braided suture and double loaded suture. The participants were assessed preoperatively and postoperatively in terms of range of motion, CONSTANT Scores, and visual analogue scale (VAS). Recurrence of subluxations, dislocations, and other complications were also assessed.

Results

The mean follow-up time was 40.1±6.99 months. The mean Constant scores were 80.32±4.81 (95%CI: 78.73-81.90) preoperatively and 94.45±3.71 (95%CI: 93.23-95.67) postoperatively (P = < 0.001). A significant change was noted for the VAS score from 2.74±0.95 (95%CI: 2.42-3.05) to 0.63±0.75 (95%CI: 0.38-0.88) (P < 0.001). Mean preoperative external rotation and forward flexion were also preserved postoperatively (P < 0.001). The incidence of nonclinical subluxation was 2/38, 5.3%, however no case of clinical subluxation or re-dislocation was occurred; infection or neurovascular complications have not been observed as well.

Conclusion

Using two anchors with single and double loaded arthroscopic suture showed acceptable clinical results for traumatic anterior shoulder instability repair in properly selected patients.

Effect of Patient Characteristics on the Minimal Clinically Important Difference and Patient Acceptable Symptom State Thresholds After Arthroscopic Bankart Repair

BACKGROUND

There is scarce literature on clinically significant values after arthroscopic Bankart repair (ABR).

PURPOSE

To determine the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and the patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) thresholds at 1 year for the Rowe and Athletic Shoulder Outcome Scoring System (ASOSS) scores after ABR and to determine the effect of patient characteristics on these metrics after ABR.

STUDY DESIGN

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

A retrospective review of patients undergoing ABR from a single institution between January 2017 and January 2020 was performed. Patients with at least 1 episode of instability and a minimum follow-up of 12 months were included. The exclusion criteria were as follows: bony defects of >20% on the anteroinferior portion of the glenoid based on a preoperative computed tomography scan; engaging Hill-Sachs lesions at 90° of abduction and 90° of external rotation based on an arthroscopic examination; previous surgery on the same shoulder; multidirectional instability or concomitant repair of full-thickness rotator cuff tears; superior labral anterior to posterior lesions; posterior labral tears; or humeral avulsion of the glenohumeral ligament lesions. Patient-reported outcome measures were collected both preoperatively and 1-year postoperatively. Delta was defined as the change between preoperative and 1-year postoperative scores. Distribution-based (one-half the standard deviation of the difference between pre- and postoperative outcome scores) and anchored-based approaches (response to a satisfaction question at 1 year) were used to estimate the MCID and the PASS, respectively. The optimal cutoff point, where sensitivity and specificity were maximized, and the percentage of patients achieving those thresholds were also calculated.

RESULTS

Overall, 190 patients were included. The distribution-based MCID for the Rowe and ASOSS scores were calculated to be 8.2 and 8.7, respectively. The rate of patients who achieved MCID thresholds was 96% for the Rowe and 96% for ASOSS scores. The PASS threshold for the Rowe and ASOSS scores were ≥80 and ≥90, respectively. The rate of patients who achieved PASS scores after ABR were 86% and 83%, respectively. The MCID and PASS values showed great variability based on sex (men: 8.5 and ≥85 for Rowe / 8.9 and ≥90 for ASOSS, respectively, vs women: 6.7 and ≥73 for Rowe / 8.1 and ≥75 for ASOSS), age (≥21: 8.4 and ≥80 / 9.2 and ≥90 vs <21: 7.8 and ≥75 / 7.7 and ≥85), sports participation (sports: 8.8 and ≥85 / 9.5 and ≥90 vs no sports: 8.1 and ≥75 / 8.6 and ≥80), and type of athlete (competitive: 8.4 and ≥85 / 8.9 and ≥87 vs recreational: 7.5 and ≥73 / 8.1 and ≥68).

CONCLUSION

This study identified the MCID and PASS thresholds for the Rowe and ASOSS scores at 1 year after ABR. However, these values showed great variability when accounting for different patient characteristics such as sex, age, sports participation, and type of athlete, highlighting the importance of considering individual patient-specific characteristics for optimal treatment decision-making and ensuring treatment success tailored to each patient's unique needs and expectations.

A prospective single-arm study on the efficacy and safety of short-course oral corticosteroids followed by topical corticosteroids in patients with severe chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps

BACKGROUND

Little evidence exists regarding an integrated multidimensional evaluation methodology to analyze the within-patient effects of medical treatment for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP). We aimed to use an integrated evaluation model to analyze the effects of short-course oral corticosteroid (OCS) followed by intranasal corticosteroid spray (INCS) therapy in patients with severe CRSwNP.

METHODS

In all, 32 patients with severe CRSwNP received oral methylprednisolone for three weeks followed by intranasal budesonide spray for nine weeks in this prospective single-arm study. An evaluation model integrating the concepts of the core outcome set (COS), clinical control and minimum clinically important difference (MCID) was longitudinally evaluated.

RESULTS

All uncontrolled patients at baseline showed similar progressive improvements from baseline and more than 1 MCID response across core outcomes during the OCS period, with severe CRSwNP being partly controlled in 31 (96.9%) patients and uncontrolled in 1 (3.1%) patient at 3 weeks. During the subsequent INCS period, 14 (43.8%) patients gradually deteriorated to an uncontrolled status at 12 weeks, whereas 18 (56.2%) exhibited partly controlled CRSwNP until 12 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

In more than half of the patients, severe CRSwNP was partly controlled with the initial OCS followed by INCS therapy. An integrated evaluation model was used to facilitate the comprehensive evaluation of within-patient response, especially in patients with different responses to the same treatment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ChiCTR1900024287.

Arthroscopic Dynamic Anterior Stabilization Using Either Long Head of the Biceps or Conjoined Tendon Transfer for Anterior Shoulder Instability Results in a Similarly Low Recurrence Rate

PURPOSE

To compare the clinical outcomes of arthroscopic dynamic anterior stabilization (DAS) between transferring the long head of the biceps (DAS-LHB) and the conjoined tendon (DAS-CT) for anterior shoulder instability with <15% glenoid bone loss.

METHODS

From January 2016 to May 2019, a total of 63 patients who underwent DAS for recurrent anterior shoulder dislocation with <15% glenoid bone loss were included, comprising 33 patients in DAS-LHB group and 30 patients in DAS-CT group. Clinical outcomes were assessed preoperatively and at a minimum 3-year follow-up, including patient-reported outcomes, range of motion, and return to sports (RTS). Postoperative recurrent instability (including dislocation, subluxation, and subjective instability with a positive apprehension test), revisions and complications also were recorded.

RESULTS

No significant demographic characteristics difference was detected between the DAS-LHB (26.3 ± 7.9 years) and DAS-CT groups (26.0 ± 6.7 years). At the latest follow-up, there were no significant differences between the 2 groups in functional scores: Oxford Shoulder Instability Score (14.8 ± 2.8 vs 15.2 ± 3.6), Rowe score (95.9 ± 6.5 vs 93.2 ± 10.2), visual analog scale for pain (0.8 ± 1.2 vs 0.7 ± 1.7), and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (95 ± 8.8 vs 95.2 ± 9.1) (all P > .218). No significant difference was detected between groups in the rates of RTS (90.1% vs 86.7%, P = .700) and RTS at previous level (78.7% vs 73.3%, P = .258), respectively. No recurrent dislocation occurred in either group. One patient felt occasional subluxation in the DAS-LHB group, and one was positive for the apprehension test in each group. One patient presented with postoperative shoulder stiffness and underwent a secondary arthroscopic debridement in the DAS-CT group.

CONCLUSIONS

Comparable rates of recurrence, complication, return to sports, and subjective shoulder function were observed between DAS-LHB and DAS-CT groups.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Ⅲ; retrospective comparative therapeutic trial.

Arthroscopic Autologous Iliac Crest Grafting Results in Similar Outcomes and Low Recurrence Compared to Remplissage Plus Bankart Repair for Anterior Shoulder Instability With Bipolar Bone Defects

PURPOSE

To compare the functional outcomes, range of motion (ROM), recurrence rates, and complication rates of arthroscopic autologous iliac crest grafting (AICG) and Remplissage plus Bankart repair (RB) for anterior shoulder instability with bipolar bone defects.

METHODS

This study enrolled patients undergoing arthroscopic AICG or RB with 13.5-25% glenoid bone defect combined with Hill-Sachs lesion between January 2013 and April 2020, who had a minimum 2-year follow-up. Patient-reported outcomes were evaluated by Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV), Oxford Shoulder Instability Score (OSIS), Rowe score, Constant score, and visual analog scale (VAS) for pain. Active ROM, return to sports, recurrence, self-reported apprehension, and complications were recorded.

RESULTS

This study included 60 patients, including 28 AICG (Group A) and 32 RB (Group R). Mean glenoid bone defect was similar (17.7% ± 3.1% vs 16.6% ± 2.4%; P = .122). Both groups showed significant postoperative improvement in Rowe score, SSV, OSIS, and Constant score. No significant difference was found in postoperative Rowe Score (87.7 vs 85.2; P = .198). A total of 20/28 (71.4%) patients in Group A versus 26/32 (81.3%) patients in Group R met the Patient Acceptable Symptomatic State determined by VAS pain score (P = .370). Both groups showed high return-to-sports rates (67.8% vs 71.8%; P = .735) and slightly decreased ROM. There were two cases of recurrence in Group A versus one in Group R (P = .594). Group R had insignificantly higher positive self-reported apprehension rate (40.6% vs 17.9%; P = .055).

CONCLUSION

For anterior shoulder instability with bipolar bone defects, both arthroscopic AICG and RB can result in satisfactory clinical outcomes, good postoperative ROM, and low recurrence and complication rates.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III; retrospective cohort study.

Clinical and Radiological Outcomes in Patients With Anterior Shoulder Instability and Glenoid Bone Loss after Arthroscopic Free Bone Block Combined With Dynamic Anterior Stabilization

BACKGROUND

As an alternative to the Latarjet procedure, the arthroscopic free bone block (FBB) procedure combined with dynamic anterior stabilization (DAS) has been recently proposed to provide both glenoid augmentation and a tendon sling effect for treating anterior shoulder instability (ASI) with glenoid bone loss.

PURPOSE

To evaluate the clinical and radiological outcomes of FBB-DAS for ASI with glenoid bone loss.

STUDY DESIGN

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

Patients who underwent arthroscopic FBB-DAS for ASI with >15% glenoid bone loss between February 2017 and March 2020 were screened and enrolled in this study. Clinical outcome measures were assessed preoperatively and at a minimum 2-year follow-up, including recurrence, complications, shoulder functional scores, range of motion, and return to sports. Postoperative computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging were also performed.

RESULTS

Of a total of 65 patients with a mean follow-up of 46.1 ± 13.1 months, no patients experienced a recurrent dislocation or subluxation postoperatively, while 2 had a positive anterior apprehension test (3.1%). Additionally, 2 patients (3.1%) experienced complications of hematoma and shoulder stiffness, respectively. The mean visual analog scale score, American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score, Rowe score, and Oxford Shoulder Instability Score all improved significantly from 3.2 ± 2.4, 75.0 ± 18.9, 43.6 ± 27.3, and 33.8 ± 9.0 preoperatively to 1.3 ± 0.8, 95.1 ± 8.0, 95.5 ± 7.8, and 14.8 ± 3.5 at final follow-up, respectively (all P < .001). No difference was detected in range of motion except for 8.1° and 7.5° external rotation limitations in adduction and abduction, respectively. There were 62 patients (95.4%) who returned to sports, and 54 patients (83.1%) returned to the preinjury level. The transferred biceps tendon was intact in all 59 patients who completed radiological examination at the latest follow-up. Good bone healing was achieved in 98.3% of patients, and the glenoid bone defect decreased from 18.1% to 4.9%. Osseous and labral glenoids were significantly enlarged in width and depth on the latest magnetic resonance imaging (all P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Arthroscopic FBB-DAS provided satisfactory clinical and radiological outcomes for ASI with glenoid bone loss. Despite slight external rotation restrictions, it achieved low recurrence and complication rates, excellent shoulder functional scores, a high return-to-sports rate, and favorable graft healing and remodeling.

Defining Minimal Clinically Important Difference and Patient Acceptable Symptom State After the Latarjet Procedure

BACKGROUND

The Latarjet procedure is one of the most well-established treatment options for anterior shoulder instability. However, meaningful clinical outcomes after this surgery have not been defined.

PURPOSE

This study aimed to establish the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) for commonly used outcome measures in patients undergoing the Latarjet procedure and determine correlations between preoperative patient characteristics and achievement of MCID or PASS.

STUDY DESIGN

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

A multicenter retrospective review at 4 institutions was performed to identify patients undergoing primary open Latarjet procedure with minimum 2-year follow-up. Data collected included patient characteristics (age, sex, sports participation), radiological parameters (glenoid bone loss, off-track Hill-Sachs lesion), and 4 patient-reported outcome measures (collected preoperatively and 2 years postoperatively): the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), the visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, and the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI). The MCID and PASS for each outcome measure were calculated, and Pearson and Spearman coefficient analyses were used to identify correlations between MCID or PASS and preoperative variables (age, sex, sports participation, glenoid bone loss, off-track Hill-Sachs lesion).

RESULTS

A total of 156 patients were included in the study. The MCID values for ASES, SANE, VAS pain, and WOSI were calculated to be 9.6, 12.4, 1.7, and 254.9, respectively. The PASS values for ASES, SANE, VAS pain, and WOSI were 86.0, 82.5, 2.5, and 571.0, respectively. The rates of patients achieving MCID were 61.1% for VAS pain, 71.6% for ASES, 74.1% for SANE, and 84.2% for WOSI. The rates of achieving PASS ranged from 78.4% for WOSI to 84.0% for VAS pain. There was no correlation between any of the studied preoperative variables and the likelihood of achieving MCID or PASS.

CONCLUSION

This study defined MCID and PASS values for 4 commonly used outcome measures in patients undergoing the Latarjet procedure. These findings are essential for incorporating patient perspectives into the clinical effectiveness of the Latarjet procedure and provide valuable parameters for the design and interpretation of future clinical trials.