Does Resilience Change in Patients Undergoing Shoulder Surgery? A Retrospective Comparative Study Utilizing the Brief Resilience Scale.

IF 4.2 2区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS
Daniel J Song, Emily R McDermott, Daniel Homeier, David J Tennent, Jay K Aden, Justin J Ernat, John M Tokish
{"title":"Does Resilience Change in Patients Undergoing Shoulder Surgery? A Retrospective Comparative Study Utilizing the Brief Resilience Scale.","authors":"Daniel J Song, Emily R McDermott, Daniel Homeier, David J Tennent, Jay K Aden, Justin J Ernat, John M Tokish","doi":"10.1097/CORR.0000000000003368","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Resilience refers to the ability to adapt or recover from stress. There is increasing appreciation that it plays an important role in wholistic patient-centered care and may affect patient outcomes, including those of orthopaedic surgery. Despite being a focus of the current orthopaedic evidence, there is no strong understanding yet of whether resilience is a stable patient quality or a dynamic one that may be modified perioperatively to improve patient-reported outcome scores.</p><p><strong>Questions/purposes: </strong>(1) Does resilience change postoperatively? (2) How do outcome measures change postoperatively in relation to resilience grouping? (3) For patients who do have resilience instability (change in resilience of ≥ 1 SD between any two follow-up points), how were patient-level factors, surgical characteristics, and outcome measures associated with instability?</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this single-surgeon, retrospective, comparative study, we identified all patients who underwent shoulder surgery between March 2021 and March 2023 from the medical records of one US military teaching hospital, resulting in 144 initial patients. Data on resilience (measured by the Brief Resilience Scale) and outcomes (assessed using the Numeric Rating Scale [NRS] and the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation [SANE]) were collected for all patients and maintained in a longitudinal outcomes score database. Patients younger than 18 years of age (1% [1 of 144]) who underwent surgery for fracture, acute tendon rupture (8% [11 of 144]), or revision surgery (3% [4 of 144]); had concomitant shoulder conditions (such as, instability or rotator cuff tear) (1% [2 of 144]); or had incomplete follow-up data (4% [5 of 144]) were excluded, leaving 84% (121 of 144) of the original sample size for analysis. Among the patients, 12% (15 of 121) were women, the mean age was 41 ± 15 years, and the most common indication for surgery was instability (40% [48 of 121]) followed by rotator cuff repair (29% [35 of 121]). Based on their preoperative Brief Resilience Scale and its deviation from the mean, patients were stratified into low (> 1 SD below mean), intermediate (within 1 SD above and below mean), and high (> 1 SD above mean) resilience groups. Preoperatively, 19% (23 of 121) of patients were classified as low resilience, 62% (75 of 121) as intermediate resilience, and 19% (23 of 121) as high resilience. The mean ± SD preoperative Brief Resilience Scale score was 25 ± 4. The Brief Resilience Scale is a six-item scale with a calculated summary score ranging from 6 to 30. A higher score is suggestive of greater perceived resilience. There were no differences in the preoperative Brief Resilience Scale score with regard to age, gender, type of surgery performed, or outcome measures. Patient resilience was followed during the postoperative period for a minimum of 6 months, and instability in the scale was evaluated. Instability in resilience was defined as change in Brief Resilience Scale score by > 1 SD from one follow-up time point to another. Perioperative NRS and SANE outcomes, in addition to demographic data, were utilized to evaluate the relationship between resilience and patient-level factors.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Brief Resilience Scale groups across all time points remained consistent with no change in grouping or crossover in groups except for patients with low resilience who had an increase in mean ± SD Brief Resilience Scale score by the final follow-up (18 ± 3 versus 20 ± 4; p < 0.05). Regardless of resilience group, there was a decrease in mean ± SD NRS (4.4 ± 2.2 versus 2.4 ± 2.3; p < 0.001) and an improvement in mean ± SD SANE (46 ± 19 versus 69 ± 21; p < 0.001) scores during the postoperative period. At the 1- to 2-month follow-up and the 6- to 10-month follow-up visits, patients with high resilience were more likely to have lower NRS scores than patients with intermediate resilience (1.8 ± 1.0 versus 3.8 ± 2.3; p = 0.003) and low resilience (1.5 ± 1.8 versus 3.3 ± 2.4; p < 0.001), respectively. No relationship was observed between resilience groups and SANE scores, surgical category, and percentage of patients meeting the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) of the NRS or the SANE. Regarding resilience instability, 46% (56 of 121) of patients were categorized as having a Brief Resilience Scale change of ≥ 1 SD from baseline during the postoperative period. Gender (r = 0.03; p = 0.21), age (p = 0.81), and surgical category (r = 0.01; p = 0.88) were not associated with the likelihood of resilience instability. Individuals whose resilience increased had a lower starting Brief Resilience Scale score than those whose resilience stayed the same (22 ± 4 versus 25 ± 4, respectively; p < 0.001) or those whose resilience decreased (22 ± 4 versus 26 ± 3, respectively; p < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>When evaluated by resilience group, the trait appears static; however, at the individual level, resilience appears dynamic and complex. Patients with high resilience may have less postoperative pain. Identification of patients with low resilience may indicate patients who experience more dynamic change in this psychometric property.</p><p><strong>Level of evidence: </strong>Level III, therapeutic study.</p>","PeriodicalId":10404,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®","volume":" ","pages":"1049-1059"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12106220/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000003368","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Resilience refers to the ability to adapt or recover from stress. There is increasing appreciation that it plays an important role in wholistic patient-centered care and may affect patient outcomes, including those of orthopaedic surgery. Despite being a focus of the current orthopaedic evidence, there is no strong understanding yet of whether resilience is a stable patient quality or a dynamic one that may be modified perioperatively to improve patient-reported outcome scores.

Questions/purposes: (1) Does resilience change postoperatively? (2) How do outcome measures change postoperatively in relation to resilience grouping? (3) For patients who do have resilience instability (change in resilience of ≥ 1 SD between any two follow-up points), how were patient-level factors, surgical characteristics, and outcome measures associated with instability?

Methods: In this single-surgeon, retrospective, comparative study, we identified all patients who underwent shoulder surgery between March 2021 and March 2023 from the medical records of one US military teaching hospital, resulting in 144 initial patients. Data on resilience (measured by the Brief Resilience Scale) and outcomes (assessed using the Numeric Rating Scale [NRS] and the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation [SANE]) were collected for all patients and maintained in a longitudinal outcomes score database. Patients younger than 18 years of age (1% [1 of 144]) who underwent surgery for fracture, acute tendon rupture (8% [11 of 144]), or revision surgery (3% [4 of 144]); had concomitant shoulder conditions (such as, instability or rotator cuff tear) (1% [2 of 144]); or had incomplete follow-up data (4% [5 of 144]) were excluded, leaving 84% (121 of 144) of the original sample size for analysis. Among the patients, 12% (15 of 121) were women, the mean age was 41 ± 15 years, and the most common indication for surgery was instability (40% [48 of 121]) followed by rotator cuff repair (29% [35 of 121]). Based on their preoperative Brief Resilience Scale and its deviation from the mean, patients were stratified into low (> 1 SD below mean), intermediate (within 1 SD above and below mean), and high (> 1 SD above mean) resilience groups. Preoperatively, 19% (23 of 121) of patients were classified as low resilience, 62% (75 of 121) as intermediate resilience, and 19% (23 of 121) as high resilience. The mean ± SD preoperative Brief Resilience Scale score was 25 ± 4. The Brief Resilience Scale is a six-item scale with a calculated summary score ranging from 6 to 30. A higher score is suggestive of greater perceived resilience. There were no differences in the preoperative Brief Resilience Scale score with regard to age, gender, type of surgery performed, or outcome measures. Patient resilience was followed during the postoperative period for a minimum of 6 months, and instability in the scale was evaluated. Instability in resilience was defined as change in Brief Resilience Scale score by > 1 SD from one follow-up time point to another. Perioperative NRS and SANE outcomes, in addition to demographic data, were utilized to evaluate the relationship between resilience and patient-level factors.

Results: Brief Resilience Scale groups across all time points remained consistent with no change in grouping or crossover in groups except for patients with low resilience who had an increase in mean ± SD Brief Resilience Scale score by the final follow-up (18 ± 3 versus 20 ± 4; p < 0.05). Regardless of resilience group, there was a decrease in mean ± SD NRS (4.4 ± 2.2 versus 2.4 ± 2.3; p < 0.001) and an improvement in mean ± SD SANE (46 ± 19 versus 69 ± 21; p < 0.001) scores during the postoperative period. At the 1- to 2-month follow-up and the 6- to 10-month follow-up visits, patients with high resilience were more likely to have lower NRS scores than patients with intermediate resilience (1.8 ± 1.0 versus 3.8 ± 2.3; p = 0.003) and low resilience (1.5 ± 1.8 versus 3.3 ± 2.4; p < 0.001), respectively. No relationship was observed between resilience groups and SANE scores, surgical category, and percentage of patients meeting the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) of the NRS or the SANE. Regarding resilience instability, 46% (56 of 121) of patients were categorized as having a Brief Resilience Scale change of ≥ 1 SD from baseline during the postoperative period. Gender (r = 0.03; p = 0.21), age (p = 0.81), and surgical category (r = 0.01; p = 0.88) were not associated with the likelihood of resilience instability. Individuals whose resilience increased had a lower starting Brief Resilience Scale score than those whose resilience stayed the same (22 ± 4 versus 25 ± 4, respectively; p < 0.001) or those whose resilience decreased (22 ± 4 versus 26 ± 3, respectively; p < 0.001).

Conclusion: When evaluated by resilience group, the trait appears static; however, at the individual level, resilience appears dynamic and complex. Patients with high resilience may have less postoperative pain. Identification of patients with low resilience may indicate patients who experience more dynamic change in this psychometric property.

Level of evidence: Level III, therapeutic study.

肩部手术患者的恢复力会改变吗?运用简易心理弹性量表的回顾性比较研究。
背景:弹性是指从压力中适应或恢复的能力。越来越多的人认识到,它在以患者为中心的整体护理中发挥着重要作用,并可能影响患者的预后,包括矫形手术的预后。尽管弹性是目前骨科证据的焦点,但对于弹性是一种稳定的患者质量还是一种动态的,可以在围手术期进行修改以提高患者报告的结果评分,目前还没有很强的理解。问题/目的:(1)术后恢复力会改变吗?(2)与弹性分组相关的术后结局测量指标如何变化?(3)对于确实存在弹性不稳定的患者(任何两个随访点之间弹性变化≥1 SD),患者水平因素、手术特征和结局测量与不稳定的关系如何?方法:在这项单外科医生回顾性比较研究中,我们从一家美国军事教学医院的医疗记录中确定了2021年3月至2023年3月期间接受肩部手术的所有患者,共144例初始患者。收集所有患者的恢复力(用简短恢复力量表测量)和结果(用数字评定量表[NRS]和单一评估数字评价量表[SANE]评估)数据,并保存在纵向结果评分数据库中。年龄小于18岁的患者(1%[1 / 144])因骨折、急性肌腱断裂(8%[11 / 144])或翻修手术(3%[4 / 144])接受手术;伴有肩部疾病(如不稳定或肩袖撕裂)(1%[144人中的2人]);或随访资料不完整者(4%[5 / 144])被排除,剩余84%(121 / 144)原始样本量用于分析。121例患者中有15例(12%)为女性,平均年龄41±15岁,最常见的手术指征是不稳定(40%[121例中的48例]),其次是肩袖修复(29%[121例中的35例])。根据术前恢复力简短量表及其与平均值的偏差,将患者分为低恢复力组(低于平均值1个标准差)、中恢复力组(高于平均值1个标准差)和高恢复力组(高于平均值1个标准差)。术前,19%(23 / 121)的患者被分类为低弹性,62%(75 / 121)的患者被分类为中等弹性,19%(23 / 121)的患者被分类为高弹性。术前简短恢复量表评分平均值±SD为25±4分。简要弹性量表是一个包含6个项目的量表,计算出的总得分范围从6到30。得分越高,表明其感知复原力越强。术前简短恢复量表评分在年龄、性别、手术类型或结果测量方面没有差异。术后随访患者恢复能力至少6个月,并评估量表的不稳定性。弹性不稳定性定义为从一个随访时间点到另一个随访时间点,简要弹性量表得分以>.1 SD的变化。围手术期NRS和SANE结果,以及人口统计数据,被用来评估恢复力与患者水平因素之间的关系。结果:所有时间点的简短弹性量表组保持一致,分组或组间交叉没有变化,除了低弹性患者在最终随访时平均±SD简短弹性量表得分增加(18±3比20±4;P < 0.05)。无论恢复力组,平均±SD NRS均下降(4.4±2.2 vs 2.4±2.3;p < 0.001)和mean±SD SANE的改善(46±19 vs 69±21;P < 0.001)。在1 ~ 2个月的随访和6 ~ 10个月的随访中,高弹性患者的NRS评分较中等弹性患者低(1.8±1.0比3.8±2.3;P = 0.003)和低弹性(1.5±1.8 vs 3.3±2.4;P < 0.001)。恢复力组与SANE评分、手术类别和满足NRS或SANE最小临床重要差异(MCID)的患者百分比之间没有关系。在恢复力不稳定方面,46%(121例中的56例)的患者被归类为术后恢复力量表与基线相比有≥1 SD的短暂变化。性别(r = 0.03;P = 0.21)、年龄(P = 0.81)、手术类型(r = 0.01;P = 0.88)与弹性不稳定性的可能性无关。心理弹性增加的个体比心理弹性不变的个体得分低(22±4分比25±4分);P < 0.001)或恢复力下降(分别为22±4比26±3);P < 0.001)。结论:在心理弹性组的评价中,该特质呈现静态;然而,在个人层面上,恢复力是动态的和复杂的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.00
自引率
11.90%
发文量
722
审稿时长
2.5 months
期刊介绍: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® is a leading peer-reviewed journal devoted to the dissemination of new and important orthopaedic knowledge. CORR® brings readers the latest clinical and basic research, along with columns, commentaries, and interviews with authors.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信