Stratification of the minimal clinically important difference, substantial clinical benefit, and patient acceptable symptomatic state after total shoulder arthroplasty by implant type, preoperative diagnosis, and sex
- PMID: 38461936
- DOI: 10.1016/j.jse.2024.01.040
Stratification of the minimal clinically important difference, substantial clinical benefit, and patient acceptable symptomatic state after total shoulder arthroplasty by implant type, preoperative diagnosis, and sex
Abstract
Background: Clinical significance, as opposed to statistical significance, has increasingly been utilized to evaluate outcomes after total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA). The purpose of this study was to identify thresholds of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) for TSA outcome metrics and determine if these thresholds are influenced by prosthesis type (anatomic or reverse TSA), sex, or preoperative diagnosis.
Methods: A prospectively collected international multicenter database inclusive of 38 surgeons was queried for patients receiving a primary aTSA or rTSA between 2003 and 2021. Prospectively, outcome metrics including ASES, shoulder function score (SFS), SST, UCLA, Constant, VAS Pain, shoulder arthroplasty smart (SAS) score, forward flexion, abduction, external rotation, and internal rotation was recorded preoperatively and at each follow-up. A patient satisfaction question was administered at each follow-up. Anchor-based MCID, SCB, and PASS were calculated as defined previously overall and according to implant type, preoperative diagnosis, and sex. The percentage of patients achieving thresholds was also quantified.
Results: A total of 5851 total shoulder arthroplasties (TSAs) including aTSA (n = 2236) and rTSA (n = 3615) were included in the study cohort. The following were identified as MCID thresholds for the overall (aTSA + rTSA irrespective of diagnosis or sex) cohort: VAS Pain (-1.5), SFS (1.2), SST (2.1), Constant (7.2), ASES (13.9), UCLA (8.2), SPADI (-21.5), and SAS (7.3), Abduction (13°), Forward elevation (16°), External rotation (4°), Internal rotation score (0.2). SCB thresholds for the overall cohort were: VAS Pain (-3.3), SFS (2.9), SST 3.8), Constant (18.9), ASES (33.1), UCLA (12.3), SPADI (-44.7), and SAS (18.2), Abduction (30°), Forward elevation (31°), External rotation (12°), Internal rotation score (0.9). PASS thresholds for the overall cohort were: VAS Pain (0.8), SFS (7.3), SST (9.2), Constant (64.2), ASES (79.5), UCLA (29.5), SPADI (24.7), and SAS (72.5), Abduction (104°), Forward elevation (130°), External rotation (30°), Internal rotation score (3.2). MCID, SCB, and PASS thresholds varied depending on preoperative diagnosis and sex.
Conclusion: MCID, SCB, and PASS thresholds vary depending on implant type, preoperative diagnosis, and sex. A comprehensive understanding of these differences as well as identification of clinically relevant thresholds for legacy and novel metrics is essential to assist surgeons in evaluating their patient's outcomes, interpreting the literature, and counseling their patients preoperatively regarding expectations for improvement. Given that PASS thresholds are fragile and vary greatly depending on cohort variability, caution should be exercised in conflating them across different studies.
Keywords: ATSA; MCID; PASS; RTSA; SCB; anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty; reverse total shoulder arthroplasty.
Copyright © 2024 Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery Board of Trustees. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Similar articles
-
Does the Relationship Between Preoperative Function and Achievement of Clinically Important Benchmarks of Success After Total Shoulder Arthroplasty Depend on Outcome Assessment Design?Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2025 Mar 1;483(3):377-395. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000003347. Epub 2025 Jan 7. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2025. PMID: 39778205
-
Quantifying success after first revision reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: the minimal clinically important difference, substantial clinical benefit, and patient acceptable symptomatic state.J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2023 Oct;32(10):e516-e527. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2023.03.032. Epub 2023 May 11. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2023. PMID: 37178967
-
What Is the Accuracy of Three Different Machine Learning Techniques to Predict Clinical Outcomes After Shoulder Arthroplasty?Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2020 Oct;478(10):2351-2363. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000001263. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2020. PMID: 32332242 Free PMC article.
-
The variability of MCID, SCB, PASS, and MOI thresholds for PROMs in the reverse total shoulder arthroplasty literature: a systematic review.J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2024 Oct;33(10):2320-2332. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2024.03.051. Epub 2024 May 15. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2024. PMID: 38754543
-
The variability of minimum clinically important difference, substantial clinical benefit, and patient acceptable symptom state thresholds for Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in the anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty literature: a systematic review.JSES Rev Rep Tech. 2025 Mar 6;5(3):497-505. doi: 10.1016/j.xrrt.2025.01.012. eCollection 2025 Aug. JSES Rev Rep Tech. 2025. PMID: 40697307 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by
-
Comparison of ultrasound- vs. landmark-guided injections for musculoskeletal pain: an umbrella review.J Rehabil Med. 2024 Aug 26;56:jrm40679. doi: 10.2340/jrm.v56.40769. J Rehabil Med. 2024. PMID: 39185547 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Research Materials