PDF herunterladen
J Wrist Surg 2021; 10(04): 322-328
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1726292
Scientific Article

Evaluating Immediate and Short-Term Postoperative Clinical Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Ulnar Shortening for Ulnar Impaction Syndrome Using PROMIS

David N. Bernstein 
1   Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York
,
Richard D. Lander
1   Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York
,
Warren C. Hammert
1   Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York
› Institutsangaben Funding None.
› Weitere Informationen
    Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Background The early recovery trajectory of patients undergoing ulnar shortening for ulnar impaction syndrome using the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) is unknown.

Questions/Purposes Using PROMIS Upper Extremity (UE), Physical Function (PF), Pain Interference (PI), and Depression, we asked (1) do patients undergoing operative management for ulnar impaction syndrome present at their preoperative visit with notable impairment?; (2) At immediate follow-up, do patients present with a clinically appreciable change in symptom severity?; and (3) At short-term follow-up, do patients present with a clinically appreciable change in symptom severity?

Materials and Methods We identified patients from 01/2017 to 12/2019 at our institution undergoing ulnar shortening for ulnar impaction syndrome who completed all PROMIS domains at a preoperative visit and at least one postoperative time point (i.e., less than 4 weeks and/or greater than 12 weeks). Distribution- and anchor-based minimal clinically important difference estimates were used to evaluate clinically appreciable changes in symptoms over time.

Results A total of 38 patients met our inclusion criteria. The average change in PROMIS UE, PF, PI, and Depression scores from preoperative to immediate postoperative follow-up were –3.8, –4.3, 3.2, and 0.5, respectively. However, by short-term follow-up, the average change in PROMIS UE, PF, PI, and Depression scores were 3.7, 3.2, –4.7, and –3.9, respectively.

Conclusions Patients have worsening function at the immediate postoperative follow-up. By short-term postoperative follow-up, functional status and PI levels improve. Our findings can help hand surgeons provide evidence-based guidance on expected initial recovery following operative management for ulnar impaction syndrome.

Level of Evidence This is a level II, prognostic study.

Keywords

ulnar impaction syndrome - recovery pattern - patient-reported outcome measures - PROMs - PROMIS

Note

The work was performed at the Department of Orthopaedics & Physical Performance, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York.


Ethical Approval

The Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the University of Rochester Medical Center approved this study. The approved protocol number is: STUDY00000872.




Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 10. September 2020

Angenommen: 03. Februar 2021

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
24. März 2021

© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Sammer DM, Rizzo M. Ulnar impaction. Hand Clin 2010; 26 (04) 549-557
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Ahsan ZS, Song Y, Yao J. Outcomes of ulnar shortening osteotomy fixed with a dynamic compression system. J Hand Surg Am 2013; 38 (08) 1520-1523
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Elgammal A, Rozée B. Outcomes of the ulnar shortening osteotomy using a dynamic compression plate on the ulnar surface of the ulna. J Wrist Surg 2018; 7 (04) 344-349
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Baek GH, Chung MS, Lee YH, Gong HS, Lee S, Kim HH. Ulnar shortening osteotomy in idiopathic ulnar impaction syndrome. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005; 87 (12) 2649-2654
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Fries JF, Bruce B, Cella D. The promise of PROMIS: using item response theory to improve assessment of patient-reported outcomes. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2005; 23 (5, Suppl 39): S53-S57
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Tyser AR, Beckmann J, Franklin JD. et al. Evaluation of the PROMIS physical function computer adaptive test in the upper extremity. J Hand Surg Am 2014; 39 (10) 2047-2051
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Beckmann JT, Hung M, Voss MW, Crum AB, Bounsanga J, Tyser AR. Evaluation of the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system upper extremity computer adaptive test. J Hand Surg Am 2016; 41 (07) 739-744
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Overbeek CL, Nota SP, Jayakumar P, Hageman MG, Ring D. The PROMIS physical function correlates with the QuickDASH in patients with upper extremity illness. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2015; 473 (01) 311-317
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Bernstein DN, Houck JR, Mahmood B, Hammert WC. Responsiveness of the PROMIS and its concurrent validity with other region- and condition-specific PROMS in patients undergoing carpal tunnel release. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2019; 477 (11) 2544-2551
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Makhni EC, Meadows M, Hamamoto JT, Higgins JD, Romeo AA, Verma NN. Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) in the upper extremity: the future of outcomes reporting?. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2017; 26 (02) 352-357
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Hammert WC, Calfee RP. Understanding PROMIS. J Hand Surg Am 2020; 45 (07) 650-654
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 HealthMeasures. PROMIS®. Accessed February 18, 2021 at: http://www.healthmeasures.net/score-and-interpret/interpret-scores/promis
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Papuga MO, Dasilva C, McIntyre A, Mitten D, Kates S, Baumhauer JF. Large-scale clinical implementation of PROMIS computer adaptive testing with direct incorporation into the electronic medical record. Health Syst (Basingstoke) 2017; 7 (01) 1-12
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Norman GR, Sloan JA, Wyrwich KW. Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med Care 2003; 41 (05) 582-592
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Kazmers NH, Qiu Y, Yoo M, Stephens AR, Tyser AR, Zhang Y. The minimal clinically important difference of the PROMIS and QuickDASH instruments in a nonshoulder hand and upper extremity patient population. J Hand Surg Am 2020; 45 (05) 399-407.e6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Kortlever JT, Janssen SJ, van Berckel MM, Ring D, Vranceanu AM. What is the most useful questionnaire for measurement of coping strategies in response to nociception?. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2015; 473 (11) 3511-3518
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Smet LD, Vandenberghe L, Degreef I. Ulnar impaction syndrome: ulnar shortening vs. arthroscopic wafer procedure. J Wrist Surg 2014; 3 (02) 98-100
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Sorensen AA, Howard D, Tan WH, Ketchersid J, Calfee RP. Minimal clinically important differences of 3 patient-rated outcomes instruments. J Hand Surg Am 2013; 38 (04) 641-649
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Beleckas CM, Gerull W, Wright M, Guattery J, Calfee RP. Variability of PROMIS scores across hand conditions. J Hand Surg Am 2019; 44 (03) 186-191.e1
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Brodke DJ, Saltzman CL, Brodke DS. PROMIS for orthopaedic outcomes measurement. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2016; 24 (11) 744-749
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Baumhauer JF. Patient-reported outcomes - are they living up to their potential?. N Engl J Med 2017; 377 (01) 6-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar