Skip to main content

Time required to achieve clinically significant outcomes after arthroscopic superior capsular reconstruction

Abstract

Purpose

To investigate the time-dependent nature of clinically significant outcomes, including the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit, and Patient Acceptable Symptomatic State (PASS) after arthroscopic superior capsular reconstruction, and the factors contributing to the achievement of early clinically significant outcomes.

Methods

Patients who underwent ASCR between March 2015 and September 2020 with complete preoperative and postoperative 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were retrospectively analysed. Threshold values for MCID, substantial clinical benefit, and PASS were obtained from the previous literature for the PROMs. The time required to achieve clinically significant outcomes was calculated using Kaplan–Meier analysis. Multivariate Cox regression was performed to evaluate the variables predictive of an earlier or delayed achievement of MCID.

Results

Fifty-nine patients with a mean age of 64.5 ± 8.7 years old were included. The time of mean achievement of MCID, substantial clinical benefit, and PASS for VAS was 11.2 ± 0.9, 16.3 ± 1.1, and 16.6 ± 0.9 months, respectively. The time of mean achievement of MCID, substantial clinical benefit, and PASS for ASES was 13.2 ± 1.0, 16.8 ± 1.0, and 18.3 ± 0.9 months, respectively. The time of mean achievement of MCID, substantial clinical benefit, and PASS for the Constant score was 11.6 ± 0.9, 15.1 ± 1.0, and 14.7 ± 0.9 months, respectively. The time of mean achievement of MCID, substantial clinical benefit, and PASS for SANE was 14.4 ± 1.0, 16.1 ± 1.0, and 15.5 ± 0.8 months, respectively. Patients with a higher preoperative VAS score achieved an earlier MCID for VAS (P = 0.014). However, patients with a higher preoperative ASES and SANE scores achieved delayed MCID for ASES and SANE (P = 0.026, and P < 0.001, respectively).

Conclusion

Most patients achieved MCIDs around 1 year after arthroscopic superior capsular reconstruction. A higher preoperative VAS score favours faster MCID achievement, while higher preoperative ASES and SANE scores contribute to delayed MCID achievement.

Study design

Cohort study

Level of evidence

Level IV.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Alben MG, Gordon D, Gambhir N, Kim MT, Romeo PV, Rokito AS et al (2023) Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) of upper extremity PROMIS scores following arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 31:2602–2614

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Ban I, Troelsen A, Kristensen MT (2016) High inter-rater reliability, agreement, and convergent validity of Constant score in patients with clavicle fractures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 25:1577–1582

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ben H, Kholinne E, Lee JB, So SP, Zeng CH, Koh KH et al (2023) Postoperative MRI signal intensity correlates functional outcomes after superior capsular reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 31:1903–1909

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ben H, Kholinne E, Zeng CH, So SP, Lee JB, Sun Y et al (2023) Early Postoperative MRI evaluation of a fascia lata autograft with and without polypropylene mesh augmentation after superior capsular reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 51:912–918

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Cole BJ, Cotter EJ, Wang KC, Davey A (2017) Patient understanding, expectations, outcomes, and satisfaction regarding anterior cruciate ligament injuries and surgical management. Arthroscopy 33:1092–1096

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Croci E, Warmuth F, Baum C, Kovacs BK, Nuesch C, Baumgartner D et al (2023) Load-induced increase in muscle activity during 30 degrees abduction in patients with rotator cuff tears and control subjects. J Orthop Traumatol 24:41

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Degan TJ, Hartzler RU, Rahal A, DeBerardino TM, Burkhart SS (2022) Prospective 1-year outcomes are maintained at short-term final follow-up after superior capsular reconstruction augmentation of complete rotator cuff repair. Arthroscopy 38:1411–1419

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Evuarherhe A Jr, Condron NB, Gilat R, Knapik DM, Patel S, Wagner KR et al (2022) Defining clinically significant outcomes following superior capsular reconstruction with acellular dermal allograft. Arthroscopy 38(1444–1453):e1441

    Google Scholar 

  9. Forsythe B, Patel HH, Berlinberg EJ, Forlenza EM, Okoroha KR, Williams BT et al (2023) A radiostereometric analysis of tendon migration after arthroscopic and mini-open biceps tenodesis: interference screw versus single suture anchor fixation. Am J Sports Med 51:2869–2880

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Hamid KS, Nwachukwu BU, Bozic KJ (2017) Decisions and incisions: a value-driven practice framework for academic surgeons. J Bone Jt Surg Am 99:e50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hammad AM, Phillips C, Wijdicks CA, Adams CR, Denard PJ (2022) Two-year retrospective patient-reported outcomes following superior capsular reconstruction. Arthroscopy 38:262–266

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Harris JD, Brand JC, Cote MP, Dhawan A (2017) Research pearls: the significance of statistics and perils of pooling. Part 3: pearls and pitfalls of meta-analyses and systematic reviews. Arthroscopy 33:1594–1602

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hirschmann MT, Wind B, Amsler F, Gross T (2010) Reliability of shoulder abduction strength measure for the Constant–Murley score. Clin Orthop Relat Res 468:1565–1571

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Jackson GR, Tuthill T, Schundler SF, Condon JJ, Salazar LM, Nwiloh M et al (2023) acellular dermal allograft and tensor fascia lata autograft show similar patient outcome improvement and high rates of complications and failures at a minimum two-year follow-up: a systematic review. Arthroscopy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2023.01.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Katz NP, Paillard FC, Ekman E (2015) Determining the clinical importance of treatment benefits for interventions for painful orthopedic conditions. J Orthop Surg Res 10:24

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Kearney M, Jennrich MK, Lyons S, Robinson R, Berger B (2011) Effects of preoperative education on patient outcomes after joint replacement surgery. Orthop Nurs 30:391–396

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kholinne E, Kwak JM, Cho CH, AlSomali K, Van Nguyen T, Kim H et al (2021) Arthroscopic superior capsular reconstruction for older patients with irreparable rotator cuff tears: a comparative study with younger patients. Am J Sports Med 49:2751–2759

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Kholinne E, Kwak JM, Kim H, Koh KH, Jeon IH (2020) Arthroscopic superior capsular reconstruction with mesh augmentation for the treatment of irreparable rotator cuff tears: a comparative study of surgical outcomes. Am J Sports Med 48:3328–3338

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Kim YK, Jung KH, Choi KY, Kang SW, Choi RJ (2023) Arthroscopic superior capsular reconstruction with tensor fascia lata allograft for irreparable rotator cuff tears: clinical and radiologic outcomes for a minimum 1-year follow-up. Arthroscopy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2022.12.037

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lee JB, Kholinne E, Yeom JW, Ben H, AlAhmadi BM, Koh KH et al (2022) Effect of fatty infiltration of the infraspinatus muscle on outcomes and graft failure after arthroscopic superior capsule reconstruction for irreparable posterosuperior rotator cuff tears. Am J Sports Med 50:3907–3914

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Mahatme RJ, Modrak M, Wilhelm C, Lee MS, Owens JS, Gillinov SM et al (2023) Glenohumeral superior translation and subacromial contract pressure are both improved with superior capsular reconstruction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of biomechanical investigations. Arthroscopy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2023.08.025

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Manderle BJ, Gowd AK, Liu JN, Beletsky A, Nwachukwu BU, Nicholson GP et al (2020) Time required to achieve clinically significant outcomes after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. Am J Sports Med 48:3447–3453

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Muench LN, Dyrna F, Otto A, Wellington I, Obopilwe E, Scheiderer B et al (2023) Superior capsular reconstruction partially restores native glenohumeral joint loads in a dynamic biomechanical shoulder model. Arthroscopy 39:1781–1789

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Nwachukwu BU, Chang B, Adjei J, Schairer WW, Ranawat AS, Kelly BT et al (2018) Time required to achieve minimal clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit after arthroscopic treatment of femoroacetabular impingement. Am J Sports Med 46:2601–2606

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Pashuck TD, Hirahara AM, Cook JL, Cook CR, Andersen WJ, Smith MJ (2021) Superior capsular reconstruction using dermal allograft is a safe and effective treatment for massive irreparable rotator cuff tears: 2-year clinical outcomes. Arthroscopy 37(489–496):e481

    Google Scholar 

  26. Rihn JA, Currier BL, Phillips FM, Glassman SD, Albert TJ (2013) Defining the value of spine care. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 21:419–426

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Shin SJ, Lee S, Hwang JY, Lee W, Koh KH (2022) Superior capsular reconstruction using acellular dermal allograft combined with remaining rotator cuff augmentation improved shoulder pain and function at 1 year after the surgery. Arthroscopy 38:1089–1098

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Yeom JW, Kim DM, Lee JB, Ben H, Alahmadi BM, Park JH et al (2022) Patient acceptable symptom state, minimal clinically important difference, and substantial clinical benefit after arthroscopic superior capsular reconstruction. Am J Sports Med 50:3308–3317

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was supported by a Grant (2022IL0023) from the Asan Institute for Life Sciences, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Korea.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to In-Ho Jeon.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

We have no conflict of interest to disclose.

IRB approval

Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval number: 2023-0408.

Ethical approval

This retrospective chart review study involving human participants was in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The Human Investigation Committee (IRB) of Asan Medical Center approved this study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ben, H., Zeng, C.H., Kholinne, E. et al. Time required to achieve clinically significant outcomes after arthroscopic superior capsular reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-023-07649-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-023-07649-9

Keywords