The severity of preoperative symptoms at which patients are likely to achieve a minimal important change and patient acceptable symptom state after surgery may help the decision to perform surgery for trapeziometacarpal osteoarthritis. The study objective was to define these thresholds for pain at rest and during activities as well as for the brief Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire. One hundred and fifty-one patients were examined before surgery and 3, 6 and 12 months after surgery. The minimal important change after surgery was 1.9, 3.9 and 16 scores for pain at rest, pain during activities and the brief Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire, respectively. The respective patient acceptable symptom state values were 1.5, 2.5 and 70 after surgery. Our results show that patients with baseline pain values between 3.5 and 5.5 at rest, between 6.5 and 7.5 during activities and a presurgery brief Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire score of about 47, have the greatest chance of achieving a relevant symptom change and an acceptable symptom state. The information from this study may help surgeons in deciding the surgical indications and help patients in their expectation in symptom relief after surgery.
BellamyNHochbergMTubachF, et al.Development of multinational definitions of minimal clinically important improvement and patient acceptable symptomatic state in osteoarthritis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2015, 67: 972–80.
2.
ClementNDDuckworthADJenkinsPJMcEachanJE. Interpretation of the QuickDASH score after open carpal tunnel decompression: threshold values associated with patient satisfaction. J Hand Surg Eur. 2016, 41: 624–31.
3.
CopayAGSubachBRGlassmanSDPollyDWJrSchulerTC. Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods. Spine J. 2007, 7: 541–6.
4.
De KleermaekerFGCMBoogaartsHDMeulsteeJVerhagenWIM. Minimal clinically important difference for the Boston Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire: new insights and review of literature. J Hand Surg Eur. 2019, 44: 283–9.
5.
de VetHCBeckermanHTerweeCBTerluinBBouterLM. Definition of clinical differences. J Rheumatol. 2006, 33: 434.
6.
de VetHCWTerweeCBMokkinkLBKnolDL. Measurement in medicine: a practical guide. 2011. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7.
EngelLBeatonDEToumaZ. Minimal clinically important difference: a review of outcome measure score interpretation. Rheum Dis Clin North Am. 2018, 44: 177–88.
8.
EppingWNoackG. [Surgical treatment of the saddle joint arthrosis]. Handchir Mikrochir Plast Chir. 1983, 15: 168–76.
9.
EscobarARiddleDL. Concordance between important change and acceptable symptom state following knee arthroplasty: the role of baseline scores. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2014, 22: 1107–10.
HarrisJDBrandJCCoteMPFaucettSCDhawanA. Research pearls: the significance of statistics and perils of pooling. Part 1: clinical versus statistical significance. Arthroscopy. 2017, 33: 1102–12.
12.
KnoblochKKraemerRPapstSSorgHVogtPM. German version of the brief Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire: implications for early quality of life following collagenase injection in Dupuytren contracture. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012, 129: 886e–7e.
13.
LiuX. Classification accuracy and cut point selection. Stat Med. 2012, 31: 2676–86.
14.
LondonDAStepanJGCalfeeRP. Determining the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire minimal clinically important difference by means of three methods. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014, 133: 616–25.
15.
MahlerEAMBoersNBijlsmaJWJvan den HoogenFHJden BroederAAvan den EndeCHM. Patient acceptable symptom state in knee osteoarthritis patients succeeds across different patient-reported outcome measures assessing physical function, but fails across other dimensions and rheumatic diseases. J Rheumatol. 2018, 45: 122–7.
16.
MaiaMVde MoraesVYDos SantosJBFaloppaFBellotiJC. Minimal important difference after hand surgery: a prospective assessment for DASH, MHQ, and SF-12. SICOT J. 2016, 2: 32.
17.
MarksMAudigéLHerrenDBSchindeleSNelissenRGVliet VlielandTP. Measurement properties of the German Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire in patients with trapeziometacarpal osteoarthritis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2014, 66: 245–52.
18.
MarksMHenslerSWehrliMScheiblerAGSchindeleSHerrenDB. Trapeziectomy with suspension-interposition arthroplasty for thumb carpometacarpal osteoarthritis: a randomized controlled trial comparing the use of allograft versus flexor carpi radialis tendon. J Hand Surg Am. 2017, 42: 978–86.
19.
MarksMHenslerSWehrliMSchindeleSHerrenDB. Minimal important change and patient acceptable symptom state for patients after proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty. J Hand Surg Eur. 2019, 44: 175–80.
20.
MarksMRodriguesJN. Correct reporting and interpretation of clinical data. J Hand Surg Eur. 2017, 42: 977–9.
21.
MartiCHenslerSHerrenDBNiedermannKMarksM. Measurement properties of the EuroQoL EQ-5D-5L to assess quality of life in patients undergoing carpal tunnel release. J Hand Surg Eur. 2016, 41: 957–62.
22.
MokkinkLBTerweeCBKnolDL, et al.The COSMIN checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties: a clarification of its content. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010, 10: 22.
23.
NwachukwuBUChangBVoletiPB, et al.Preoperative short form health survey score is predictive of return to play and minimal clinically important difference at a minimum 2-year follow-up after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Am J Sports Med. 2017a, 45: 2784–90.
24.
NwachukwuBUFieldsKChangBNawabiDHKellyBTRanawatAS. preoperative outcome scores are predictive of achieving the minimal clinically important difference after arthroscopic treatment of femoroacetabular impingement. Am J Sports Med. 2017b, 45: 612–9.
25.
Puyraimond-ZemmourDEtchetoAFautrelB, et al.Associations between five important domains of health and the patient acceptable symptom state in rheumatoid arthritis and psoriatic arthritis: a cross-sectional study of 977 patients. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2017, 69: 1504–9.
26.
RodriguesJNMabvuureNTNikkhahDShariffZDavisTR. Minimal important changes and differences in elective hand surgery. J Hand Surg Eur. 2015, 40: 900–12.
27.
RodriguesJNZhangWScammellBE, et al.Recovery, responsiveness and interpretability of patient-reported outcome measures after surgery for Dupuytren's disease. J Hand Surg Eur. 2017, 42: 301–9.
28.
ShauverMJChungKC. The minimal clinically important difference of the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire. J Hand Surg Am. 2009, 34: 509–14.
29.
SigfussonRLundborgG. Abductor pollicis longus tendon arthroplasty for treatment of arthrosis in the first carpometacarpal joint. Scand J Plast Reconstr Surg Hand Surg. 1991, 25: 73–7.
30.
TubachFRavaudPBaronG, et al.Evaluation of clinically relevant states in patient reported outcomes in knee and hip osteoarthritis: the patient acceptable symptom state. Ann Rheum Dis. 2005, 64: 34–7.
31.
TubachFRavaudPMartin-MolaE, et al.Minimum clinically important improvement and patient acceptable symptom state in pain and function in rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, chronic back pain, hand osteoarthritis, and hip and knee osteoarthritis: results from a prospective multinational study. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2012, 64: 1699–707.
32.
VermeulenGMSlijperHFeitzRHoviusSEMoojenTMSellesRW. Surgical management of primary thumb carpometacarpal osteoarthritis: a systematic review. J Hand Surg Am. 2011, 36: 157–69.
33.
WajonAVinycombTCarrEEdmundsIAdaL. Surgery for thumb (trapeziometacarpal joint) osteoarthritis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015, 2: CD004631.
34.
WaljeeJFKimHMBurnsPBChungKC. Development of a brief, 12-item version of the Michigan Hand Questionnaire. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011, 128: 208–20.
35.
WehrliMHenslerSSchindeleSHerrenDBMarksM. Measurement properties of the Brief Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire in patients with Dupuytren contracture. J Hand Surg Am. 2016, 41: 896–902.
36.
WeilbyA. Tendon interposition arthroplasty of the first carpo-metacarpal joint. J Hand Surg Br. 1988, 13: 421–5.
37.
WrightAAHensleyCPGilbertsonJLelandJM3rdJacksonS. Defining patient acceptable symptom state thresholds for commonly used patient reported outcomes measures in general orthopedic practice. Man Ther. 2015, 20: 814–9.
