The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American). 2006;88:508-513.
doi:10.2106/JBJS.E.00132
© 2006 The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow CME: Take the activity for this article:
 CME 1: January, February, March 2006
Right arrow Letters to the Editor: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Letters to the Editor are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Smith, A. M.
Right arrow Articles by Cofield, R. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Smith, A. M.
Right arrow Articles by Cofield, R. H.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

Patient and Physician-Assessed Shoulder Function After Arthroplasty

Adam M. Smith, MD1, Sunni A. Barnes, PhD2, John W. Sperling, MD2, Christopher M. Farrell, MD2, Joel D. Cummings, MD2 and Robert H. Cofield, MD2

1 Kentucky Sports Medicine, 601 Perimeter Drive, Suite 200, Lexington, KY 40517
2 Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic and Mayo Foundation, 200 First Street S.W., Rochester, MN 55905. E-mail address for J.W. Sperling: sperling.john{at}mayo.edu

Investigation performed at the Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Mayo Clinic and Mayo Foundation, Rochester, Minnesota

The authors did not receive grants or outside funding in support of their research for or preparation of this manuscript. They did not receive payments or other benefits or a commitment or agreement to provide such benefits from a commercial entity. No commercial entity paid or directed, or agreed to pay or direct, any benefits to any research fund, foundation, educational institution, or other charitable or nonprofit organization with which the authors are affiliated or associated.

Background: We found no information in the literature regarding the relationship between patient and physician-derived outcome assessments with a shoulder questionnaire. In this study, we examined a group of patients who were assessed with patient and physician-administered questionnaires following shoulder arthroplasty.

Methods: From August 2003 to February 2004, sixty-seven consecutive patients who had been followed for a minimum of six months after shoulder arthroplasty were evaluated with a self-administered and an identical physician-directed shoulder questionnaire that assessed clinical and functional outcomes at the time of routine follow-up. An assessment of the agreement between physicians and patients as well as the factors that affected agreement was performed.

Results: The intraclass correlation indicated almost perfect physician-patient agreement (>0.80) on items related to overall pain, pain at night, pain with activity, stability, and active elevation and substantial agreement (intraclass correlation, 0.66 and 0.69) between the physician and patient assessments of pain without activity and strength. While the differences were small, on the average physician ratings for pain were lower (indicating less pain) than patient ratings for pain, physicians rated stability and strength as being closer to normal, and they reported less active elevation. There was substantial agreement between the physician and patient assessments of outcome with the modified Neer system (intraclass correlation = 0.75), with 87% agreement if excellent and satisfactory outcomes were combined.

Conclusions: A patient-derived questionnaire can provide a high level of agreement with surgeon assessments of outcome following shoulder surgery. Patient-administered methods should continue to be evaluated as a means of assessment of these patients.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 JBJSHome page
M. J. Taunton, A. L. McIntosh, J. W. Sperling, and R. H. Cofield
Total Shoulder Arthroplasty with a Metal-Backed, Bone-Ingrowth Glenoid Component. Medium to Long-Term Results
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., October 1, 2008; 90(10): 2180 - 2188.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JBJSHome page
R. V. O'Toole, R. C. Castillo, A. N. Pollak, E. J. MacKenzie, M. J. Bosse, and the LEAP Study Group
Determinants of Patient Satisfaction After Severe Lower-Extremity Injuries
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., June 1, 2008; 90(6): 1206 - 1211.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JBJSHome page
E. V. Cheung, J. W. Sperling, and R. H. Cofield
Reimplantation of a Glenoid Component Following Component Removal and Allogenic Bone-Grafting
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., August 1, 2007; 89(8): 1777 - 1783.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]