PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
BACKGROUND: The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is a valuable tool for patient-based outcome analysis, for which limited data is available in the literature, especially after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR). Although several studies have reported MCID after ARCR, few have studied the impact of various clinical factors such as Diabetes, pseudoparalysis, type of cuff repair, and retear over MCID. This study attempts to determine the MCID in shoulder functional scores after ARCR and the impact of various factors on MCID.
METHODS: 144 patients undergoing ARCR were prospectively evaluated at six and 12 months by ASES and UCLA scores. MCID for American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) and the University of California and Los Angeles (UCLA) scores were calculated using an anchor-based and distribution-based approach. MCID was also calculated for diabetic and non-diabetic patients, smokers vs. non-smokers, presence or absence of pseudoparalysis, type of cuff repair (single row vs. suture bridge), and presence of retears. Uni- and multivariate analysis was performed to identify factors affecting the MCID of both scores.
RESULTS: Mean MCID for ASES score was 13.3 and 16.6 using an anchor-based and distribution-based approach, respectively. For the UCLA score, the mean MCID was 10.0 and 12.6 by anchor-based and 12.6 by distribution-based approach, respectively. Patients with higher pre-operative ASES scores demonstrated lower MCID values. No significant difference was observed in MCID scores of diabetic vs. non-diabetic patients, smoker vs. non-smoker, patients with or without pseudoparalysis, and type of cuff repair. The age, gender, and presence of retear did not affect MCID values.
CONCLUSIONS: This study establishes the MCID values of ASES and UCLA scores for rotator cuff repair by anchor and distribution methods. No patient or surgical factors appear to affect the MCID except pre-operative ASES scores.
METHODS: Prospective cohort, Level II.
METHODS: 144 patients undergoing ARCR were prospectively evaluated at six and 12 months by ASES and UCLA scores. MCID for American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) and the University of California and Los Angeles (UCLA) scores were calculated using an anchor-based and distribution-based approach. MCID was also calculated for diabetic and non-diabetic patients, smokers vs. non-smokers, presence or absence of pseudoparalysis, type of cuff repair (single row vs. suture bridge), and presence of retears. Uni- and multivariate analysis was performed to identify factors affecting the MCID of both scores.
RESULTS: Mean MCID for ASES score was 13.3 and 16.6 using an anchor-based and distribution-based approach, respectively. For the UCLA score, the mean MCID was 10.0 and 12.6 by anchor-based and 12.6 by distribution-based approach, respectively. Patients with higher pre-operative ASES scores demonstrated lower MCID values. No significant difference was observed in MCID scores of diabetic vs. non-diabetic patients, smoker vs. non-smoker, patients with or without pseudoparalysis, and type of cuff repair. The age, gender, and presence of retear did not affect MCID values.
CONCLUSIONS: This study establishes the MCID values of ASES and UCLA scores for rotator cuff repair by anchor and distribution methods. No patient or surgical factors appear to affect the MCID except pre-operative ASES scores.
METHODS: Prospective cohort, Level II.
摘要：
背景：最小临床重要差异（MCID）是基于患者的结果分析的有价值的工具，文献中可用的数据有限，尤其是关节镜肩袖修复术（ARCR）后。尽管一些研究报道了ARCR后的MCID，很少有人研究各种临床因素的影响，如糖尿病，假性麻痹,袖口修复的类型，并撕毁MCID。本研究试图确定ARCR后肩关节功能评分中的MCID以及各种因素对MCID的影响。
方法：144例接受ARCR的患者在6个月和12个月时通过ASES和UCLA评分进行前瞻性评估。使用基于锚和基于分布的方法计算了美国肩肘外科医生（ASES）和加利福尼亚大学洛杉矶分校（UCLA）的MCID分数。还计算了糖尿病和非糖尿病患者的MCID，吸烟者vs.非吸烟者,是否存在假麻痹，袖带修复的类型(单排vs.缝合桥)，和重新泪液的存在。进行单因素和多因素分析以确定影响两个评分的MCID的因素。
结果：使用基于锚点和基于分布的方法，ASES评分的平均MCID分别为13.3和16.6，分别。对于加州大学洛杉矶分校的分数，基于锚的方法的平均MCID为10.0和12.6，基于分布的方法为12.6，分别。术前ASES评分较高的患者表现出较低的MCID值。在糖尿病与糖尿病的MCID评分中没有观察到显着差异。非糖尿病患者，吸烟者vs.非吸烟者,有或没有假性麻痹的患者，和袖口修复的类型。年龄,性别,再撕裂的存在不影响MCID值。
结论：本研究通过锚定和分配方法建立了肩袖修复的ASES和UCLA评分的MCID值。除了术前ASES评分外，没有患者或手术因素会影响MCID。
方法：前瞻性队列，二级。
方法：144例接受ARCR的患者在6个月和12个月时通过ASES和UCLA评分进行前瞻性评估。使用基于锚和基于分布的方法计算了美国肩肘外科医生（ASES）和加利福尼亚大学洛杉矶分校（UCLA）的MCID分数。还计算了糖尿病和非糖尿病患者的MCID，吸烟者vs.非吸烟者,是否存在假麻痹，袖带修复的类型(单排vs.缝合桥)，和重新泪液的存在。进行单因素和多因素分析以确定影响两个评分的MCID的因素。
结果：使用基于锚点和基于分布的方法，ASES评分的平均MCID分别为13.3和16.6，分别。对于加州大学洛杉矶分校的分数，基于锚的方法的平均MCID为10.0和12.6，基于分布的方法为12.6，分别。术前ASES评分较高的患者表现出较低的MCID值。在糖尿病与糖尿病的MCID评分中没有观察到显着差异。非糖尿病患者，吸烟者vs.非吸烟者,有或没有假性麻痹的患者，和袖口修复的类型。年龄,性别,再撕裂的存在不影响MCID值。
结论：本研究通过锚定和分配方法建立了肩袖修复的ASES和UCLA评分的MCID值。除了术前ASES评分外，没有患者或手术因素会影响MCID。
方法：前瞻性队列，二级。
