Two‐Year Retrospective Patient‐Reported Outcomes Following Superior Capsular Reconstruction
Ahmad Hammad, Cameron Phillips, Coen A. Wijdicks, Christopher R. Adams, Patrick J. Denard
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the short-term patient-reported outcomes of superior capsular reconstruction (SCR) and identify factors contributing to the success or failure of the procedure at 2 years. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed on data prospectively collected from the Surgical Outcomes System database. Patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) including American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) score, visual analog scale for pain, and Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey (VR-12) were evaluated at a minimum of 2 years postoperatively and reported using a minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and the percent of maximal possible improvement (MPI). In addition, preoperative and intraoperative variables were evaluated in patients with and without a postoperative improvement in ASES and SANE scores meeting the threshold of MCID. RESULTS: Two-year follow-up data were available for 350 patients. Statistically significant improvements were noted in all PROMs at 2-year follow-up. In total, 240 patients (68.8%) achieved an MCID improvement of >17.5 in ASES score, and 185 patients (52.9%) achieved an MCID of >29.8 improvement in the SANE score. Primary SCRs were associated with a higher MPI in the ASES score (60.1% ± 39.8% vs 40.4% ± 47.9%; P = .025) and VR-12 physical score (14.0% ± 13.8% vs 8.0% ± 14.7%; P = .028) compared to revision repairs. Only diabetes was identified as a predictor of SANE score improvement (64.5% vs 62.2%; P = .041). CONCLUSIONS: SCR is associated with improvement in patient-reported outcomes at short-term follow-up, with 53% to 69% of patients achieving an improvement considered to meet the MCID. Greater improvement is expected when SCR is performed as a primary procedure rather than as a revision procedure for failed rotator cuff repair. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative study.