What is the correlation between patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) scores and patient satisfaction following elective reverse total shoulder replacement?
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online July, 2019
What is the correlation between patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) scores and patient satisfaction following elective reverse total shoulder replacement?
Outcomes of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) have typically been assessed using the same instruments as anatomical shoulder arthroplasties. However, to date, there has been a lack of investigation with respect to the correlation of such scores and patient satisfaction in the RTSA population.
Methods
The Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) and Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (QD) score were prospectively collected in 38 RTSA patients (41 shoulders) postoperatively. Scores were then evaluated to establish whether or not they correlated with patient satisfaction at a minimum of 1 year postoperatively.
Results
The correlation coefficient for the OSS and patient satisfaction was found to be 0.313 (p = 0.011) and the correlation coefficient for the QD score and patient satisfaction was −0.292 (p = 0.017), showing a statistically significant but moderately weak relationship between the OSS and QD scores with patient satisfaction (p < 0.05).
Conclusions
The present study showed no strongly significant relationship between patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) scores and patient satisfaction following elective RTSA. These findings emphasise the need to question the appropriateness of standard PROM scores for the assessment of outcome and success following elective RTSA.
JazayeriRKwonYW. Evolution of the reverse total shoulder prosthesis. Bull NYU Hosp Jt Dis2011; 69: 50–55.
2.
BaulotESivereauxFBoileauP. Grammont’s idea: the story of Pauls Grammont’s functional surgery concept and the development of the reverse principle. Clin Orthop Relat Res2011; 469: 2425–2431.
3.
LeeLHDesaiA. Reverse polarity shoulder replacement: current concepts and review of literature. World J Orthop2014; 5: 255–261.
ReesJLDawsonJHandGCRet al.The use of patient-reported outcome measures and patient satisfaction ratings to assess outcome in hemi-arthroplasty of the shoulder. J Bone Joint Surg2010; 92B: 1107–1111.
9.
MurrayDWFrostSJ. Pain in the assessment of total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg1998; 80: 426–431.
10.
HarreldKClarkRDownesKViraniNFrankleM. Correlation of subjective and objective measures before and after shoulder arthroplasty. Orthopaedics2013; 36: 808–814.
11.
ZywielMGMahomedAGandhiRPeruccioAVMahomedNN. Measuring expectations in orthopaedic surgery: A systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res2013; 471: 3446–3456.
12.
Gibbons E, Fitzpatrick R. Patient reported outcome measures: Their role in measuring and improving patient experience. 2012. patientexperience.org/article/patient-reported-outcome-measures-their-role-in-measuring-and-improving-patient-experience (Accessed 23/11/2015).
13.
DawsonJFitzpatrickRCarrA. Questionnaire in the perceptions of patients about shoulder surgery. J Bone Joint Surg1996; 78B: 593–600.
Beaton DE, Wright JG, Katz JN. Development of the QuickDASH: Comparison of three item approaches. J Bone Joint Surg (Am). 2005; 87-A: 1038–1046.
16.
Devlin NJ, Appleby J. Getting the most out of PROMS, putting health outcomes at the heart of NHS decision making. The Kings Fund. London; 2010.
17.
ChowAMayerEKDarziAWAthanasiouT. Patient reported outcome measures: The importance of patient satisfaction in surgery. Surgery2009; 146: 435–443.
18.
BrokelmanRBGHaverkampDvan LoonCHolAvan KampenAVethR. The validation of the visual analogue scale for patient satisfaction after total hip arthroplasty. Eur Orthop Traumatol2012; 3: 101–105.
19.
National Patient Safety Agency. Defining research: NRES guidance to help you decide if your project requires review by a Research Ethics Committee. 2009.
20.
Altman G, Moore SM, Gardner MJ, Pocock SJ. Statistical guidelines for contributors to medical journals. In: Altman G, Machin D, Bryant TN, Gardner MJ (Eds) Statistics with Confidence (2nd edition). Bristol. BMJ Books. 2000. p186-187.
21.
Altman G and Gardner MJ. Means and their differences. In Altman G, Machin D, Bryant TN, Gardner MJ (Eds) Statistics with Confidence (2nd edition). Bristol. BMJ Books. 2000. p32-33.
22.
Banerjee A. Medical Statistics made clear: An introduction to basic concepts. London. Royal Society of Medicine Press. 2003.
23.
Robson C. Real World Research: a resource for users of social research methods in applied settings (3rd edition). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2011.
24.
LegginBGMichenerLAShafferMABrennemanSKIannottiJPWilliamsGR. The Penn Shoulder Score: Reliability and Validity. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther2006; 36: 138–151.
25.
LloydHJankinsonCHadiMGibbonsEFitzpatrickR. Patient reports of the outcome of treatment: a structured review of approaches. Health Qual Life Outcomes2014; 12: 1–9.
26.
ChenALBainEBHoranMPHawkinsRJLittletonNHVailCO. Determinants of patient satisfaction with outcome after shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elbow Surg2007; 16: 25–30.
27.
YounisFSultanJHughesPJ. The range of the Oxford Shoulder Score in the asymptomatic population: a marker for post-operative improvement. Ann R Coll Surg Eng2011; 93: 629–633.
28.
AasheimTFinsenV. The DASH and the QuickDASH instruments in the general population in Norway. J Hand Surg2014; 39E: 140–144.
29.
Van BerckelMMGBosmaNHHagemanMGJSRingDVranceanuA-M. The correlation between a numerical rating scale of patient satisfaction with current management of an upper extremity disorder and a general measure of satisfaction with the medical visit. Hand2017; 12: 202–206.
