Protocol for a multicenter, randomised controlled trial of surgeon-directed home therapy vs. outpatient rehabilitation by physical therapists for reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: the SHORT trial

June S Kennedy, Emily K Reinke, Lisa G M Friedman, Chad Cook, Brian Forsythe, Robert Gillespie, Armodios Hatzidakis, Andrew Jawa, Peter Johnston, Sameer Nagda, Gregory Nicholson, Benjamin Sears, Brent Wiesel, Grant E Garrigues, SHORT Trial Investigators, Christopher Hagen, Insup Hong, Marcella Roach, Natasha Jones, Kuhan Mahendraraj, Evan Michaelson, Jackie Bader, Libby Mauter, Sunita Mengers, Nellie Renko, John Strony, Paul Hart, Elle Steele, Amanda Naylor, Jaina Gaudette, Katherine Sprengel, June S Kennedy, Emily K Reinke, Lisa G M Friedman, Chad Cook, Brian Forsythe, Robert Gillespie, Armodios Hatzidakis, Andrew Jawa, Peter Johnston, Sameer Nagda, Gregory Nicholson, Benjamin Sears, Brent Wiesel, Grant E Garrigues, SHORT Trial Investigators, Christopher Hagen, Insup Hong, Marcella Roach, Natasha Jones, Kuhan Mahendraraj, Evan Michaelson, Jackie Bader, Libby Mauter, Sunita Mengers, Nellie Renko, John Strony, Paul Hart, Elle Steele, Amanda Naylor, Jaina Gaudette, Katherine Sprengel

Abstract

Background: Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) has emerged as a successful surgery with expanding indications. Outcomes may be influenced by post-operative rehabilitation; however, there is a dearth of research regarding optimal rehabilitation strategy following RTSA. The primary purpose of this study is to compare patient reported and clinical outcomes after RTSA in two groups: in one group rehabilitation is directed by formal, outpatient clinic-based physical therapists (PT group) as compared to a home therapy group, in which patients are instructed in their rehabilitative exercises by surgeons at post-operative appointments (HT group). Secondary aims include comparisons of complications, cost of care and quality of life between the two groups.

Methods: This randomised controlled trial has commenced at seven sites across the United States. Data is being collected on 200 subjects by clinical research assistants pre-operatively and post-operatively at 2, 6, and 12 weeks, 6 months, 1 and 2 year visits. The following variables are being assessed: American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES), pain level using the numeric pain scale, the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) score, and shoulder active and passive range of motion for analysis of the primary aim. Chi square and t-tests will be used to measure differences in baseline characteristics of both groups. Repeated measures linear mixed effects modeling for measurement of differences will be used for outcomes associated with ASES and SANE and scores, and range of motion measures. Secondary aims will be analyzed for comparison of complications, cost, and quality of life assessment scores using data obtained from the PROMIS 29 v. 2, questionnaires administered at standard of care post-operative visits, and the electronic health record. Subjects will be allowed to crossover between the PT and HT groups, and analysis will include both intention-to-treat including patients who crossed over, and a second with cross-over patients removed, truncated to the time they crossed over.

Discussion: RTSA is being performed with increasing frequency, and the optimal rehabilitation strategy is unclear. This study will help clarify the role of formal physical therapy with particular consideration to outcomes, cost, and complications. In addition, this study will evaluate a proposed rehabilitation strategy.

Trial registration: This study is registered as NCT03719859 at ClincialTrials.gov .

Keywords: Clinical outcomes; Complications; Costs; Home therapy; Patient reported outcomes; Physical therapy; Rehabilitation; Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty; Shoulder; Shoulder arthritis.

Conflict of interest statement

All of the authors in this study have no competing interests.

© 2021. The Author(s).

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
A. Start position for measuring scaption. B. End position for measuring scaption
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
A. Set up for measuring external rotation in neutral position with the arm at the side. B. Measuring scaption with subject’s arm placed on top of the goniometer
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
A. Set up for measuring external rotation at 90 degrees of abduction. B. Patient, and C Clinometer positioning for measuring active and passive external rotation at 90 degrees of abduction
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Study Flow Diagram

References

    1. Schairer WW, Nwachukwu BU, Lyman S, Craig EV, Gulotta LV. National utilization of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in the United States. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2015;24(1):91–97. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2014.08.026.
    1. Wagner ER, Farley KX, Higgins I, Wilson JM, Daly CA, Gottschalk MB. The incidence of shoulder arthroplasty: rise and future projections compared with hip and knee arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2020;29(12):2601–2609. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2020.03.049.
    1. Wall B, Nové-Josserand L, O’Connor DP, Edwards TB, Walch G. Reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a review of results according to etiology. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(7):1476–1485. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.F.00666.
    1. Ecklund KJ, Lee TQ, Tibone J, Gupta R. Rotator cuff tear arthropathy. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2007;15(6):340–349. doi: 10.5435/00124635-200706000-00003.
    1. Kim SH, Wise BL, Zhang Y, Szabo RM. Increasing incidence of shoulder arthroplasty in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93(24):2249–2254. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.J.01994.
    1. Schairer WW, Nwachukwu BU, Lyman S, Gulotta LV. Arthroplasty treatment of proximal humerus fractures: 14-year trends in the United States. Phys Sportsmed. 2017;45(2):92–96. doi: 10.1080/00913847.2017.1311199.
    1. Garrigues GE, Johnston PS, Pepe MD, Tucker BS, Ramsey ML, Austin LS. Hemiarthroplasty versus reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for acute proximal humerus fractures in elderly patients. Orthopedics. 2012;35(5):e703–e708. doi: 10.3928/01477447-20120426-25.
    1. Drake GN, O’Connor DP, Edwards TB. Indications for reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in rotator cuff disease. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468(6):1526–1533. doi: 10.1007/s11999-009-1188-9.
    1. Berliner JL, Regalado-Magdos A, Ma CB, Feeley BT. Biomechanics of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2015;24(1):150–160. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2014.08.003.
    1. Boileau P, Watkinson DJ, Hatzidakis AM, Balg F. Grammont reverse prosthesis: design, rationale, and biomechanics. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2005;14(1 Suppl S):147S–161S. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2004.10.006.
    1. Cameron B, Galatz L, Williams GR. Factors affecting the outcome of total shoulder arthroplasty. Am J Orthop. 2001;30(8):613–623.
    1. Iannotti JP, Norris TR. Influence of preoperative factors on outcome of shoulder arthroplasty for glenohumeral osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85(2):251–258. doi: 10.2106/00004623-200302000-00011.
    1. Levy JC, Ashukem MT, Formaini NT. Factors predicting postoperative range of motion for anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2016;25(1):55–60. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2015.06.026.
    1. Samitier G, Alentorn-Geli E, Torrens C, Wright TW. Reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Part 1: systematic review of clinical and functional outcomes. Int J Shoulder Surg. 2015;9(1):24–31. doi: 10.4103/0973-6042.150226.
    1. Goldenberg BT, Samuelsen BT, Spratt JD, Dornan GJ, Millett PJ. Complications and implant survivorship following primary reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in patients younger than 65 years: a systematic review. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2020;29(8):1703–1711. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2020.02.004.
    1. Aibinder W, Schoch B, Parsons M, Watling J, Kevin Ko J, Gobbato B, et al. Risk factors for complications and revision surgery after anatomic and reverse Total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2021;5(11):e689–e701. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2021.04.029.
    1. Hughes M, Neer CS. Glenohumeral joint replacement and postoperative rehabilitation. Phys Ther. 1975;55(8):850–858. doi: 10.1093/ptj/55.8.850.
    1. Pierre PS. Rehabilitation and activity expectations following reverse shoulder arthroplasty. In: Frankle M, Marberry S, Pupello D, editors. Reverse Shoulder Arthroplasty: Biomechanics, Clinical Techniques, and Current Technologies. Cham: Springer Publishing; 2016. pp. 289–296.
    1. Pierre PS, Frankle M. Shoulder rehabilitation: Is there a role for home therapy? In: Bennett JP, editor. Physical Therapy: Theory, Practices and Benefits. Hauppauge: Nova Science Publishers; 2011. ISBN 978–1–61122–418-4.
    1. Boudreau S, Boudreau ED, Higgins LD, Wilcox RB. Rehabilitation following reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2007;37(12):734–743. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2007.2562.
    1. Wilcox RB, Arslanian LE, Millett P. Rehabilitation following total shoulder arthroplasty. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2005;35(12):821–836. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2005.35.12.821.
    1. Wolff AL, Rosenzweig L. Anatomical and biomechanical framework for shoulder arthroplasty rehabilitation. J Hand Ther. 2017;30(2):167–174. doi: 10.1016/j.jht.2017.05.009.
    1. Blacknall J, Neumann L. Rehabilitation following reverse Total shoulder replacement. Shoulder Elbow. 2011;3(4):232–240. doi: 10.1111/j.1758-5740.2011.00138.x.
    1. Boardman ND, Cofield RH, Bengtson KA, Little R, Jones MC, Rowland CM. Rehabilitation after total shoulder arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 2001;16(4):483–486. doi: 10.1054/arth.2001.23623.
    1. Brems JJ. Rehabilitation following total shoulder arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994;307:70–85.
    1. Brown DD, Friedman RJ. Postoperative rehabilitation following total shoulder arthroplasty. Orthop Clin North Am. 1998;29(3):535–547. doi: 10.1016/S0030-5898(05)70027-4.
    1. Bullock GS, Garrigues GE, Ledbetter L, Kennedy J. A systematic review of proposed rehabilitation guidelines following anatomic and reverse shoulder arthroplasty. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2019;49(5):337–346. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2019.8616.
    1. Denard PJ, Lädermann A. Immediate versus delayed passive range of motion following total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2016;25(12):1918–1924. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2016.07.032.
    1. Mulieri PJ, Holcomb JO, Dunning P, Pliner M, Bogle RK, Pupello D, Frankle MA. Is a formal physical therapy program necessary after total shoulder arthroplasty for osteoarthritis. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2010;19(4):570–579. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2009.07.012.
    1. Davis DE, Cox R, Patel MS, Lazarus M, Ramsey M, Namdari S. Successful outcomes achieved via web-based, home program after Total shoulder arthroplasty. Arch Bone Jt Surg. 2020;8(6):661–667. doi: 10.22038/abjs.2020.42832.2164.
    1. Hagen MS, Allahabadi S, Zhang AL, Feeley BT, Grace T, Ma CB. A randomized single-blinded trial of early rehabilitation versus immobilization after reverse total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2020;29(3):442–450. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2019.10.005.
    1. Lee J, Consigliere P, Fawzy E, Mariani L, Witney-Lagen C, Natera L, Buch B, Atoun E, Sforza G, Amar E, Levy O. Accelerated rehabilitation following reverse Total shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2021;5(9):e545–e557. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2020.11.017.
    1. Kirsch JM, Namdari S. Rehabilitation after anatomic and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: A critical analysis review. JBJS Reviews. 2020;8(2):e0129. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.RVW.19.00129.
    1. Nair B. Clinical Trial Designs. Indian Dermatol Online J. 2019;10(2):193–201. doi: 10.4103/idoj.IDOJ_475_18.
    1. Chan A-W, Tetzlaff JM, Altman DG, Laupacis A, Gøtzsche PC, Krle A-Jerić K, Hrobjartsson A, Mann H, Dickersin K, Berlin JA, Dore CJ, Parulekar WR, Summerskill WS, Groves T, Schulz KF, Sox HC, Rockhold FW, Rennie D, Moher D. SPIRIT 2013 statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2015;38(6):506–514.
    1. Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform. 2009;42(2):377–381. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010.
    1. Katz JN, Brophy RH, Chaisson CE, de Chaves L, Cole BJ, Dahm DL, Donnell-Fink LA, Guermazi A, Haas AK, Jones MH, Levy BA, Mandl LA, Martin SD, Marx RG, Miniaci A, Matava MJ, Palmisano J, Reinke EK, Richardson BE, Rome BN, Safran-Norton CE, Skoniecki DJ, Solomon DH, Smith MV, Spindler KP, Stuart MJ, Wright J, Wright RW, Losina E. Surgery versus physical therapy for a meniscal tear and osteoarthritis. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(18):1675–1684. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1301408.
    1. Angst F, Goldhahn J, Drerup S, Aeschlimann A, Schwyzer H-K, Simmen BR. Responsiveness of six outcome assessment instruments in total shoulder arthroplasty. Arthritis Rheum. 2008;59(3):391–398. doi: 10.1002/art.23318.
    1. Werner BC, Chang B, Nguyen JT, Dines DM, Gulotta LV. What change in american shoulder and elbow surgeons score represents a clinically important change after shoulder arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016;474(12):2672–2681. doi: 10.1007/s11999-016-4968-z.
    1. Gowd AK, Charles MD, Liu JN, Lalehzarian SP, Cabarcas BC, Manderle BJ, Nicholson GP, Romeo AA, Verma NN. Single assessment numeric evaluation (SANE) is a reliable metric to measure clinically significant improvements following shoulder arthroplasty. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2019;28(11):2238–2246. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2019.04.041.
    1. Hays RD, Spritzer KL, Schalet BD, Cella D. PROMIS®-29 v2.0 profile physical and mental health summary scores. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(7):1885–1891. doi: 10.1007/s11136-018-1842-3.
    1. Franovic S, Taylor K, Kuhlmann N, Aboona F, Schlosser C, Muh SJ. PROMIS CAT forms demonstrate responsiveness in patients following reverse shoulder arthroplasty across numerous health domains. Semin Arthroplast: JSES. 2020;30(1):28–34. doi: 10.1053/j.sart.2020.04.003.
    1. Werner BC, Holzgrefe RE, Griffin JW, Lyons ML, Cosgrove CT, Hart JM, Brockmeier SF. Validation of an innovative method of shoulder range-of-motion measurement using a smartphone clinometer application. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2014;23(11):e275–e282. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2014.02.030.
    1. Constant CR, Murley AH. A clinical method of functional assessment of the shoulder. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1987;(214):160–4. 10.1097/00003086-198701000-00023.
    1. Hopkins WG. Measures of reliability in sports medicine and science. Sports Med. 2000;30(1):1–15. doi: 10.2165/00007256-200030010-00001.
    1. Garrigues GE, Zmistowski B, Cooper AM, Green A. ICM shoulder group. Proceedings from the 2018 international consensus meeting on orthopedic infections: the definition of periprosthetic shoulder infection. J Shoulder Elb Surg. 2019;28(6S):S8–S12. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2019.04.034.
    1. Cook CE, Thigpen CA. Five good reasons to be disappointed with randomized trials. J Man Manip Ther. 2019;27(2):63–65. doi: 10.1080/10669817.2019.1589697.
    1. Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D, Egger M, Davidoff F, Elbourne D, Gøtzsche PC, Lang T, CONSORT GROUP (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2001;134(8):663–694. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-134-8-200104170-00012.
    1. Klapproth CP, van Bebber J, Sidey-Gibbons CJ, Valderas JM, Leplege A, Rose M, Fischer F. Predicting EQ-5D-5L crosswalk from the PROMIS-29 profile for the United Kingdom, France, and Germany. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2020;18(1):389. doi: 10.1186/s12955-020-01629-0.
    1. Whitehead SJ, Ali S. Health outcomes in economic evaluation: the QALY and utilities. Br Med Bull. 2010;96(1):5–21. doi: 10.1093/bmb/ldq033.
    1. Revicki DA, Kawata AK, Harnam N, Chen W-H, Hays RD, Cella D. Predicting EuroQol (EQ-5D) scores from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) global items and domain item banks in a United States sample. Qual Life Res. 2009;18(6):783–791. doi: 10.1007/s11136-009-9489-8.
    1. Goldstein DA. Using quality-adjusted life-years in cost-effectiveness analyses: do not throw out the baby or the bathwater. JOP. 2016;12(6):500–502. doi: 10.1200/JOP.2016.011460.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors en medewerkers

Medische omstandigheden

Geneesmiddelinterventies

3
Abonneren