Comparative Clinical Outcomes and Patient Satisfaction in Primary vs. Revision Total Elbow Arthroplasty.

IF 2.9 2区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS
Seung Min Ryu, Min Geol Je, Jeong Hee Park, Hui Ben, Kyoung Hwan Koh, In-Ho Jeon
{"title":"Comparative Clinical Outcomes and Patient Satisfaction in Primary vs. Revision Total Elbow Arthroplasty.","authors":"Seung Min Ryu, Min Geol Je, Jeong Hee Park, Hui Ben, Kyoung Hwan Koh, In-Ho Jeon","doi":"10.1016/j.jse.2025.01.036","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Total elbow arthroplasty has become a common surgical procedure. However, a certain percentage of patients may require revision due to unsatisfactory outcomes or complications. This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction between primary and revision total elbow arthroplasty, considering factors such as etiology and causes for revision.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study utilized a retrospective analysis of medical records from a cohort of 33 and 18 cases of primary and revision total elbow arthroplasty, respectively, with a minimum follow-up of 2 years from the primary procedure. Clinical outcomes were assessed by measuring the Mayo Elbow Performance Score, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score, range of motion, numeric rating scale, the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation questionnaire, and patient satisfaction.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Significant differences were observed between primary and revision groups in the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (79.5 vs. 65.0), Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand scores (32.6 vs. 53.7), and elbow range of motion (107.6° vs. 85.8°). The patients' subjective assessment via the numeric rating scale score, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation score, and satisfaction did not show significant differences. The average numeric rating scale score was 1.6 for both groups; however, the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation score (63 vs. 54) and patient satisfaction (4.0 vs. 4.1) were not significantly different between groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The clinical outcomes of primary versus revision total elbow arthroplasty were significantly worse in the revision group. Patient satisfaction scores were not different between the primary and revision groups despite differences in outcome scores, suggesting that revision patients may be satisfied with their outcomes despite lower clinical scores. These findings underscore the importance of considering both patient-reported outcomes and satisfaction levels in addition to objective clinical measures when evaluating the success of primary versus revision total elbow arthroplasty procedures.</p>","PeriodicalId":50051,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2025.01.036","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Total elbow arthroplasty has become a common surgical procedure. However, a certain percentage of patients may require revision due to unsatisfactory outcomes or complications. This study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction between primary and revision total elbow arthroplasty, considering factors such as etiology and causes for revision.

Methods: The study utilized a retrospective analysis of medical records from a cohort of 33 and 18 cases of primary and revision total elbow arthroplasty, respectively, with a minimum follow-up of 2 years from the primary procedure. Clinical outcomes were assessed by measuring the Mayo Elbow Performance Score, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score, range of motion, numeric rating scale, the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation questionnaire, and patient satisfaction.

Results: Significant differences were observed between primary and revision groups in the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (79.5 vs. 65.0), Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand scores (32.6 vs. 53.7), and elbow range of motion (107.6° vs. 85.8°). The patients' subjective assessment via the numeric rating scale score, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation score, and satisfaction did not show significant differences. The average numeric rating scale score was 1.6 for both groups; however, the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation score (63 vs. 54) and patient satisfaction (4.0 vs. 4.1) were not significantly different between groups.

Conclusion: The clinical outcomes of primary versus revision total elbow arthroplasty were significantly worse in the revision group. Patient satisfaction scores were not different between the primary and revision groups despite differences in outcome scores, suggesting that revision patients may be satisfied with their outcomes despite lower clinical scores. These findings underscore the importance of considering both patient-reported outcomes and satisfaction levels in addition to objective clinical measures when evaluating the success of primary versus revision total elbow arthroplasty procedures.

初次与翻修全肘关节置换术的临床疗效和患者满意度比较。
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
6.50
自引率
23.30%
发文量
604
审稿时长
11.2 weeks
期刊介绍: The official publication for eight leading specialty organizations, this authoritative journal is the only publication to focus exclusively on medical, surgical, and physical techniques for treating injury/disease of the upper extremity, including the shoulder girdle, arm, and elbow. Clinically oriented and peer-reviewed, the Journal provides an international forum for the exchange of information on new techniques, instruments, and materials. Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery features vivid photos, professional illustrations, and explicit diagrams that demonstrate surgical approaches and depict implant devices. Topics covered include fractures, dislocations, diseases and injuries of the rotator cuff, imaging techniques, arthritis, arthroscopy, arthroplasty, and rehabilitation.
×
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