» Articles » PMID: 27545048

Determining the Minimal Clinically Important Difference for the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Score, Simple Shoulder Test, and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) Measuring Pain After Shoulder Arthroplasty

Overview
Date 2016 Aug 23
PMID 27545048
Citations 106
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) for the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, the Simple Shoulder Test (SST), and a visual analog scale (VAS) measuring pain have not been previously described using an anchor-based method after shoulder arthroplasty. The purpose of this study was to determine the MCIDs for these measures after shoulder arthroplasty for glenohumeral arthritis or advanced rotator cuff disease.

Methods: Primary anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA), primary reverse TSA, or hemiarthroplasty was performed in 326 patients by 1 of 5 shoulder and elbow surgeons. The SST score, ASES score, and VAS pain score were collected preoperatively and at a minimum of 2 years postoperatively (mean, 3.5 years). The MCIDs were calculated for the ASES score, SST score, and VAS pain score using an anchor-based method.

Results: The MCIDs for the ASES score, SST score, and VAS pain score were 20.9 (P < .001), 2.4 (P < .0001), and 1.4 (P = .0158), respectively. Duration of follow-up and type of arthroplasty (anatomic TSA vs reverse TSA) did not have a significant effect on the MCIDs (P > .1) except shorter follow-up correlated with a larger MCID for the ASES score (P = .0081). Younger age correlated with larger MCIDs for all scores (P < .024). Female sex correlated with larger MCIDs for the VAS pain score (P = .123) and ASES score (P = .05).

Conclusions: Patients treated with a shoulder arthroplasty require a 1.4-point improvement in the VAS pain score, a 2.4-point improvement in the SST score, and a 21-point improvement in the ASES score to achieve a minimal clinical importance difference from the procedure.

Citing Articles

Impact of insurance payer type (medicare vs. private) on the patient reported outcomes after shoulder arthroplasty.

Romeo P, Papalia A, Cecora A, Lezak B, Alben M, Ragland D JSES Int. 2025; 9(1):169-174.

PMID: 39898232 PMC: 11784262. DOI: 10.1016/j.jseint.2024.08.199.


Trends in shoulder arthroplasty research over the decades.

Dupley L, Atwan Y, Viswanath A J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2025; 62:102882.

PMID: 39872123 PMC: 11762249. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcot.2024.102882.


Outcomes after revision surgery for glenoid baseplate failure in reverse shoulder arthroplasty.

Chen R, Vaughan A, Singh J, Lazarus M, Williams G, Namdari S Shoulder Elbow. 2025; 17(1):63-68.

PMID: 39866539 PMC: 11755498. DOI: 10.1177/17585732231215438.


Meta-Analysis of the Efficacy of Rapid Rehabilitation Surgical Nursing in Lumbar Disc Herniation.

Duan H, Wang J, Liang D, Liu H, Sun F, Li C Healthcare (Basel). 2024; 12(22).

PMID: 39595454 PMC: 11593620. DOI: 10.3390/healthcare12222256.


Minimum two-year follow-up of a reverse total shoulder arthroplasty using a wedged baseplate.

Parker S, Bell S, Wiemer F, Coghlan J, Clitherow H, Rayment H Shoulder Elbow. 2024; :17585732241293396.

PMID: 39582720 PMC: 11579998. DOI: 10.1177/17585732241293396.