Patient-reported outcome tools and baseline scores vary by country and region for arthroscopic repair of massive rotator cuff tears: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND

Different patient-reported outcome (PRO) tools are used in patients with arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR) which complicates outcome comparisons. The purpose of this systematic review was to compare PRO usage and baseline scores across world regions and countries in patients with ARCR of massive rotator cuff tears (MRCT).

METHODS

A systematic review was performed on ARCR for MRCT. The search was conducted from September to November of 2022 using the MEDLINE database for articles published in the last 15 years. Thirty-seven articles were included after initial screening and full-text review. In each article, PRO usage, baseline scores, and country of origin were collected. PRO usage was reported in percentages and baseline scores were normalized for each region to facilitate comparisons. Normalization was performed using the PRO means from each article. These averages were converted to fractions using the worst and best possible scores. These were combined into a single numerical value, expressed as a decimal from 0 to 1, using the total sample size for each tool per region. Values closer to 0 represent worse functional outcomes.

RESULTS

Thirty-two percent (n = 12) of articles were from Asia, 43.2% (n = 16) from Europe, 5.4% (n = 2) from the Middle East, and 18.9% (n = 7) from North America. The most commonly reported PRO tools were American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) in 19 papers, Constant-Murley Score (CMS) in 26 papers, Visual Analog Scale for pain (VAS) in 19 papers, and University of California in Los Angeles (UCLA) in 11 papers. ASES was reported in 51% of articles with 63% being from Asia (n = 12) compared to 21% from North America (n = 4). CMS was reported in 70% of studies with 58% being from Europe. Upon normalization, the preoperative score ranged from 0.30 to 0.44. Europe (0.39), and North America (0.40) showed similar scores. The lowest and highest scores were seen in the Middle East (0.3) and Asia (0.44) respectively.

CONCLUSION

There is no standardized method to report outcomes in patients undergoing ARCR for MRCT. Great variation in usage exists in PROs which complicates data comparison between world regions. With normalization, baseline scores where similar among Asia, North America, and Europe, and lowest in the Middle East.