Beletsky, Alexander

Background: Clinically significant outcomes (CSOs) connect patient-reported outcome measures data to patient-perceived benefit. Although investigators have established threshold values for various CSOs, the timeline to achieve these outcomes after isolated biceps tenodesis (BT) has yet to be defined. Purpose: To define the time-dependent nature of minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) achievement after isolated BT. Study Design: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (ASES), the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, and the Constant-Murley score (CMS) were administered preoperatively and at 6 and 12 months postoperatively to patients undergoing isolated BT between 2014 and 2018 at our institution. Cumulative probabilities for achieving MCID, SCB, and PASS were calculated using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. Weibull parametric regression evaluated the hazard ratios (HRs) of achieving earlier MCID, SCB, and PASS. Results: Overall cohort (N = 190) achievement rates ranged between 77.8% and 83.2% for MCID, between 42.2% and 80.2% for SCB, and between 59.7% and 62.9% for PASS. Median achievement time was 5.3 to 6.1 months for MCID, 5.9 to 6.4 months for SCB, and 6.07 to 6.1 months for PASS. Multivariate Weibull parametric regression identified older age, male sex, higher body mass index, preoperative thyroid disease, smoking history, and higher preoperative CMS as predictors of delayed CSO achievement (HR, 1.01-6.41), whereas normal tendon on arthroscopy, defined as absence of tenosynovitis or tendon tear on arthroscopy, predicted earlier CSO achievement (HR, 0.19-0.46). Location of tenodesis and worker compensation status did not significantly predict the time to achieve CSOs on multivariate analysis. Conclusion: After isolated BT, patients can expect to attain CSO by 13 months postoperatively, with most patients achieving this between 5 and 8 months. Patients tend to take longer to achieve PASS than MCID and SCB.

Purpose To compare the performance of the Patient‐Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) physical function (PF), pain interference (PIF), and depression computer adaptive tests (CAT) relative to legacy instruments in patients undergoing meniscal surgery. Methods Patients scheduled to undergo meniscal surgery completed legacy knee function PROMs (International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC], Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [KOOS] subscores), Marx Activity Rating Scale (MARS), Veterans‐Rand 12 (VR12), Short Form 12 (SF12), and the Brief Resilience Scale (BRS) alongside PROMIS PF, PIF, and Depression preoperatively. Spearman rank correlations were calculated, and score distributions were examined for floor and ceiling effects. Results 152 patients (46.6 ± 14.9 years, 67.1% male) completed PROMs for appropriate inclusion. PROMIS PF yielded high‐moderate to high correlations with the IKDC and KOOS subscales ( r = 0.61 to 0.73), demonstrating similar performance to the IKDC. PROMIS PIF demonstrated moderately high‐moderate to high correlations with the IKDC, KOOS subscales, VR‐12 Physical Component Score (PCS), and SF12 PCS ( r = 0.62 to 0.71), performing comparably to KOOS Pain ( r = 0.55 to 0.92). PROMIS Depression demonstrated moderate to high‐moderate correlations with the mental health legacies ( r = 0.46 to 0.66). Significant ceiling effects were observed for MARS (n = 29, 18.8%), and significant floor effects were exhibited by PROMIS Depression (n = 38, 25%) and MARS (n = 27, 17.6%). Conclusion The PROMIS PF, PIF CAT, and Depression instruments exhibit comparable performance profiles relative to legacy knee PROMs. PROMIS PF and PIF demonstrated no floor and ceiling effects, whereas PROMIS Depression exhibited a significant relative floor effect. PROMIS PF and PIF may be appropriately used to establish functional baselines preoperatively. Level of Evidence IV, diagnostic case series.

Purpose The purpose of this study is to define the impact of preoperative opioid use on postoperative opioid use, patient‐reported outcomes, and revision rates in a cohort of patients receiving arthroscopic shoulder surgery. Methods Patients who underwent shoulder arthroscopy were identified from an institutional database. Inclusion criteria were completion of preoperative and postoperative patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) at 1‐year follow‐up and completion of a questionnaire on use of opioids and number of pills per day. Outcomes assessed included postoperative PROM scores, postoperative opioid use, persistent pain, and achievement of the patient acceptable symptomatic state. A matched cohort analysis was performed to evaluate the impact of opioid use on achievement of postoperative outcomes, whereas a multivariate regression was performed to determine additional risk factors. Receiver operating characteristic curves were used to establish threshold values in oral morphine equivalents (OMEs) that predicted each outcome. Results A total of 184 (16.3%) patients were included in the opioid use (OU) group and 1,058 in the no opioid use (NOU) group. The OU and NOU groups showed statistically significant differences in both preoperative and postoperative scores across all PROMs ( P < .001). Multivariate logistic regression identified preoperative opioid use as a significant predictor of reduced achievement of the patient acceptable symptomatic state (odds ratio [OR], 0.69, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.29‐0.83, P = .008), increased likelihood of endorsing persistent pain (OR, 1.73, 95% CI, 1.17‐2.56, P = .006), and increased opioid use at 1 year (OR, 21.3, 95% CI, 12.2‐37.2, P < .001). Consuming a high dosage during the perioperative period increased risk of revision surgery (OR, 8.59, 95% CI, 2.12‐34.78, P < .003). Results were confirmed by matched cohort analysis. Receiver operating characteristic analysis found that total OME >1430 mg/d in the perioperative period (area under the curve, 0.76) and perioperative daily OME >32.5 predicted postoperative opioid consumption (area under the curve, 0.79). Conclusions Patients with a history of preoperative opioid use can achieve significant improvements in patient‐reported outcomes after arthroscopic shoulder surgery. However, preoperative opioid use negatively impacts patients’ level of satisfaction and is a significant predictor of pain and continued opioid usage. Level of evidence Level III, retrospective cohort study