Baumgarten KM. Can the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) be used as a stand-alone outcome instrument in patients undergoing total shoulder arthroplasty?
J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2022;
31:e426-e435. [PMID:
35413432 DOI:
10.1016/j.jse.2022.02.036]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/20/2021] [Revised: 02/02/2022] [Accepted: 02/08/2022] [Indexed: 02/01/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESIS
There is no consensus as to which patient-determined shoulder outcome scores should be considered when analyzing patient outcomes for either clinical or research purposes. Use of multiple patient-determined outcomes may be redundant and cause increased responder burden. To date, the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) has not been widely accepted as a stand-alone shoulder-specific outcome measure. The hypothesis of this study was that the SANE would correlate with and be equal or superior in responsiveness to other outcome measures that have been used in a stand-alone fashion in patients undergoing total shoulder arthroplasty (American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons [ASES], Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder [WOOS], and Simple Shoulder Test [SST] scores). In addition, it was hypothesized that the SANE would be more relevant to each patient than the ASES assessment, further supporting the use of the SANE as a stand-alone shoulder-specific outcome measure.
METHODS
A retrospective review of a database of patients undergoing total shoulder arthroplasty was performed, in which the SANE score was recorded simultaneously with the ASES, WOOS, and/or SST score. Correlations were determined using the Pearson coefficient. Subgroup analysis was performed to determine whether correlations differed in (1) preoperative outcome and (2) postoperative outcome determinations. Responsiveness was determined by calculating the standardized response mean and the effect size of all scores. The relevance of the SANE and ASES assessments was examined using the scores of 150 consecutive patients to determine the number of questions on each assessment that were not answered.
RESULTS
Correlation was excellent for the SANE score and the ASES score (n = 1447, r = 0.82, P < .0001), WOOS score (n = 1514, r = 0.83, P < .0001), and SST score (n = 1095, r = 0.81, P < .0001). The correlation of preoperative scores was moderate and that of postoperative scores was strong-moderate when the SANE score was compared with all 3 other scores. All scores were highly responsive, with standardized response mean values of 2.2 for the SANE score, 2.3 for the ASES score, 1.4 for the WOOS score, and 1.6 for the SST score. The effect size of the SANE score was 2.9; ASES score, 2.9; WOOS score, 2.9; and SST score, 2.3. One hundred percent of the SANE questions were answered completely compared with 61% of the ASES questions (P < .0001).
CONCLUSION
In patients undergoing total shoulder arthroplasty, the SANE score highly correlated with the WOOS, ASES, and SST scores, which have been used as stand-alone shoulder-specific outcome measures. The SANE score may provide the same information as the WOOS, ASES, and SST score regarding outcomes with a significant reduction in responder burden. It is logical that the SANE can be used as a stand-alone instrument for patients undergoing total shoulder arthroplasty.
Collapse