Do Outcomes Differ after Rotator Cuff Repair for Patients Receiving Workers’ Compensation?
- 236 Downloads
Comparisons of outcomes after rotator cuff repair between Worker’s Compensation Board (WCB) recipients and nonrecipients generally do not consider patient, injury, and shoulder characteristics. We compared preoperative differences between WCB recipients and nonrecipients and determined the impact on their 6-month postoperative outcome. We evaluated a prospective cohort of 141 patients with full-thickness rotator cuff tears, 36 of whom (26%) were WCB recipients, preoperatively and 3 and 6 months after rotator cuff repair. Their mean age was 54.0 ± 10.4 years (standard deviation) and 102 (72%) patients were male. Shoulder range of motion, Western Ontario Rotator Cuff (WORC) index, and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons’ score were used to evaluate outcomes. We performed regression analyses to control for baseline differences in age, baseline scores, smoking status, symptom duration, injury type, and associated biceps disorder between WCB recipients and nonrecipients. WCB recipients were younger and more likely to smoke, have a traumatic injury, and undergo surgery within 6 months of injury. WCB recipients had lower recovery for all outcomes when these differences were not considered but when differences were accounted for, only 6-month WORC scores were lower in WCB recipients. Clinicians should consider preoperative characteristics before concluding WCB recipients experience less recovery after surgical repair.
Level of Evidence: Level I, prognostic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
We thank Dr. A. Senthilselvan, biostatistician, for assistance with the data analysis in this study and critical review of the study methodology.
- 6.Boissonnault WG, Badke MB, Wooden MJ, Ekedahl S, Fly K. Patient outcome following rehabilitation for rotator cuff repair surgery: the impact of selected medical comorbidities. J Orthop Sport Phys Ther. 2007;37:312–319.Google Scholar
- 7.Clarkson HM. Musculoskeletal Assessment: Joint Range of Motion and Manual Muscle Strength. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2000.Google Scholar
- 12.Feng S, Guo S, Nobuhara K, Hashimoto J, Mimori K. Prognostic indicators for outcome following rotator cuff tear repair. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2003;11:110–116.Google Scholar
- 15.Harryman DT 2nd, Hettrich CM, Smith KL, Campbell B, Sidles JA, Matsen FA 3rd. A prospective multipractice investigation of patients with full-thickness rotator cuff tears: the importance of comorbidities, practice, and other covariables on self-assessed shoulder function and health status. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85:690–696.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 19.Hayes K, Ginn KA, Walton JR, Szomor ZL, Murrell GA. A randomised clinical trial evaluating the efficacy of physiotherapy after rotator cuff repair. Austral J Physiother. 2004;50:77–83.Google Scholar
- 25.Kleinbaum DG, Kupper LL, Muller KE, Nizam A. Applied Regression Analysis and Other Multivariable Methods. 3rd ed. Toronto, Canada: Duxbury Press; 1998.Google Scholar
- 26.Kocher MS, Horan MP, Briggs KK, Richardson TR, O’Holleran J, Hawkins RJ. Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons subjective shoulder scale in patients with shoulder instability, rotator cuff disease, and glenohumeral arthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:2006–2011.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 37.Rosenbaum PR. Propensity Score. In: Armitage P, Colton T, eds. Encyclopedia of Biostatistics. New York, NY: Wiley; 1998:3551–3555.Google Scholar