Shoulder outcome scoring systems have substantial ceiling effects 2 years after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair

Purpose Previous studies show no difference in clinical outcomes between patients with healed and structurally failed rotator cuff repairs. The objective of this study was to assess ceiling effects when reporting surgical outcomes of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair using four of the currently most...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA, 2021-07, Vol.29 (7), p.2070-2076
Main Authors: Jo, Young-Hoon, Lee, Kwang-Hyun, Jeong, Soo-Young, Kim, Sung Jae, Lee, Bong-Gun
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Elbow
Elbow (anatomy)
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Orthopedics
Repair
Rotator cuff
Shoulder
Sports Medicine
Surgical outcomes
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Purpose Previous studies show no difference in clinical outcomes between patients with healed and structurally failed rotator cuff repairs. The objective of this study was to assess ceiling effects when reporting surgical outcomes of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair using four of the currently most popular clinical shoulder outcome scoring systems. Methods Ninety-two patients who underwent arthroscopic rotator cuff repair were examined. The simple shoulder test (SST), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) shoulder rating scale, and Constant–Murley shoulder score were completed 2 years postoperatively. Demographic data of the subjects were analysed using descriptive statistics. The ceiling effects in the outcome data assessed for each scale were estimated based on two previously reported definitions. Results The number of patients with the maximum possible score was 31 (33.7%) with the SST, 26 (28.3%) with the ASES score, 28 (30.4%) with the UCLA scale, and 18 (19.6%) with the Constant–Murley score. The standardised distance of the outcome data assessed by the SST, ASES score, UCLA scale, and Constant–Murley scores were 0.92, 0.97, 0.96, and 1.18, respectively. Conclusion The SST, ASES score, and UCLA scale evaluated at 2 years postoperatively have substantial ceiling effects showing that the proportion of patients with the maximum possible score is > 20%, and the standardised distance is
ISSN:0942-2056
1433-7347
DOI:10.1007/s00167-020-06036-y