全肘关节置换术的报道结果：一项系统回顾

Q4 Medicine

Seminars in Arthroplasty Pub Date : 2025-04-20 DOI:10.1053/j.sart.2025.03.007

Timothy R. Buchanan BS , Chris B. Lamprecht BS , Victoria E. Bindi BS , Oluwaferanmi T. Dada BS , Michael Guyot BS , Andrew H.A. Kaiser BS , Robert J. Cueto BS , Keegan M. Hones MD, MS , Jonathan O. Wright MD , Thomas W. Wright MD , Joseph J. King MD , Kevin A. Hao MD

{"title":"全肘关节置换术的报道结果：一项系统回顾","authors":"Timothy R. Buchanan BS , Chris B. Lamprecht BS , Victoria E. Bindi BS , Oluwaferanmi T. Dada BS , Michael Guyot BS , Andrew H.A. Kaiser BS , Robert J. Cueto BS , Keegan M. Hones MD, MS , Jonathan O. Wright MD , Thomas W. Wright MD , Joseph J. King MD , Kevin A. Hao MD","doi":"10.1053/j.sart.2025.03.007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) outcomes are historically modest with high rates of complications. While many studies have explored means of improving TEA outcomes, lack of standardization of outcome measures has made cross-study comparison difficult. This systematic review aims to characterize patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), elbow range of motion (ROM), strength, and complications across the TEA literature.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We performed a systematic review using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We queried PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases to identify clinical studies on TEA from 1969 to 2023. Studies were excluded if they lacked clinical outcomes or included allograft prosthetic composites, hemiarthroplasties, or oncologic indications for TEA.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>We included 271 articles reporting on 23,005 elbows (21,665 patients) that underwent TEA (median age 62 years, 41% female, and median follow-up of 58 months). PROMs were reported by 60% (n = 161) of studies. The most common of the 15 identified PROMs was the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (89%, n = 144) followed by the visual analog scale for pain (15%, n = 24); Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score (12%, n = 20); Quick Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score (8%, n = 13); and Oxford Elbow score (7%, n = 11). The number of PROMs reported per study increased over time (<em>P</em> < .001) and decreased with increasing cohort size (<em>P</em> = .004). Elbow ROM was reported by 82% (n = 223) of studies; arm strength was reported by 4% (n = 11) of studies, and complications were reported in 92% (n = 250) of studies.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Significant heterogeneity exists in the reporting of outcome measures in the TEA literature. To facilitate future cross-study comparison, we recommend reporting of at least the Mayo Elbow Performance Score, visual analog scale for pain, elbow ROM (flexion, extension, pronation, and supination), and elbow strength via objective elbow extension measurements.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":39885,"journal":{"name":"Seminars in Arthroplasty","volume":"35 3","pages":"Pages 413-430"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reported outcome measures in total elbow arthroplasty: a systematic review\",\"authors\":\"Timothy R. Buchanan BS , Chris B. Lamprecht BS , Victoria E. Bindi BS , Oluwaferanmi T. Dada BS , Michael Guyot BS , Andrew H.A. Kaiser BS , Robert J. Cueto BS , Keegan M. Hones MD, MS , Jonathan O. Wright MD , Thomas W. Wright MD , Joseph J. King MD , Kevin A. Hao MD\",\"doi\":\"10.1053/j.sart.2025.03.007\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) outcomes are historically modest with high rates of complications. While many studies have explored means of improving TEA outcomes, lack of standardization of outcome measures has made cross-study comparison difficult. This systematic review aims to characterize patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), elbow range of motion (ROM), strength, and complications across the TEA literature.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We performed a systematic review using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We queried PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases to identify clinical studies on TEA from 1969 to 2023. Studies were excluded if they lacked clinical outcomes or included allograft prosthetic composites, hemiarthroplasties, or oncologic indications for TEA.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>We included 271 articles reporting on 23,005 elbows (21,665 patients) that underwent TEA (median age 62 years, 41% female, and median follow-up of 58 months). PROMs were reported by 60% (n = 161) of studies. The most common of the 15 identified PROMs was the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (89%, n = 144) followed by the visual analog scale for pain (15%, n = 24); Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score (12%, n = 20); Quick Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score (8%, n = 13); and Oxford Elbow score (7%, n = 11). The number of PROMs reported per study increased over time (<em>P</em> < .001) and decreased with increasing cohort size (<em>P</em> = .004). Elbow ROM was reported by 82% (n = 223) of studies; arm strength was reported by 4% (n = 11) of studies, and complications were reported in 92% (n = 250) of studies.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Significant heterogeneity exists in the reporting of outcome measures in the TEA literature. To facilitate future cross-study comparison, we recommend reporting of at least the Mayo Elbow Performance Score, visual analog scale for pain, elbow ROM (flexion, extension, pronation, and supination), and elbow strength via objective elbow extension measurements.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":39885,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Seminars in Arthroplasty\",\"volume\":\"35 3\",\"pages\":\"Pages 413-430\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Seminars in Arthroplasty\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1045452725000367\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Seminars in Arthroplasty","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1045452725000367","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

历史上，全肘关节置换术（TEA）的预后一般，并发症发生率高。虽然许多研究探索了改善TEA结果的方法，但结果测量缺乏标准化，使得交叉研究比较变得困难。本系统综述旨在描述TEA文献中患者报告的结果测量（PROMs）、肘关节活动范围（ROM）、力量和并发症。方法：我们使用系统评价和荟萃分析指南的首选报告项目进行系统评价。我们查询了PubMed/MEDLINE、Embase、Web of Science和Cochrane数据库，以确定1969年至2023年TEA的临床研究。如果缺乏临床结果或包含同种异体假体复合材料、半关节置换术或肿瘤适应症的研究被排除。结果：我们纳入了271篇文章，报道了23005例肘部（21665例患者）接受TEA治疗（中位年龄62岁，41%为女性，中位随访58个月）。60% （n = 161）的研究报告了PROMs。在确定的15种PROMs中，最常见的是Mayo肘部表现评分（89%,n = 144），其次是疼痛视觉模拟量表（15%,n = 24）；手臂、肩部和手部残疾评分（12%,n = 20）；手臂、肩部和手部快速残疾评分（8%,n = 13）；牛津肘评分（7%,n = 11）。每次研究报告的prom数量随时间而增加(P <；.001)，并随着队列规模的增加而下降（P = .004）。82% （n = 223）的研究报告肘部ROM；4% （n = 11）的研究报告了臂力，92% （n = 250）的研究报告了并发症。结论TEA文献中结果测量的报告存在显著的异质性。为了便于将来的交叉研究比较，我们建议至少报告Mayo肘关节表现评分、疼痛视觉模拟量表、肘关节活动度（屈曲、伸展、旋前和旋后）以及通过客观肘关节伸展测量得出的肘关节力量。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Reported outcome measures in total elbow arthroplasty: a systematic review

Background

Total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) outcomes are historically modest with high rates of complications. While many studies have explored means of improving TEA outcomes, lack of standardization of outcome measures has made cross-study comparison difficult. This systematic review aims to characterize patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), elbow range of motion (ROM), strength, and complications across the TEA literature.

Methods

We performed a systematic review using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We queried PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases to identify clinical studies on TEA from 1969 to 2023. Studies were excluded if they lacked clinical outcomes or included allograft prosthetic composites, hemiarthroplasties, or oncologic indications for TEA.

Results

We included 271 articles reporting on 23,005 elbows (21,665 patients) that underwent TEA (median age 62 years, 41% female, and median follow-up of 58 months). PROMs were reported by 60% (n = 161) of studies. The most common of the 15 identified PROMs was the Mayo Elbow Performance Score (89%, n = 144) followed by the visual analog scale for pain (15%, n = 24); Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score (12%, n = 20); Quick Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score (8%, n = 13); and Oxford Elbow score (7%, n = 11). The number of PROMs reported per study increased over time (P < .001) and decreased with increasing cohort size (P = .004). Elbow ROM was reported by 82% (n = 223) of studies; arm strength was reported by 4% (n = 11) of studies, and complications were reported in 92% (n = 250) of studies.

Conclusion

Significant heterogeneity exists in the reporting of outcome measures in the TEA literature. To facilitate future cross-study comparison, we recommend reporting of at least the Mayo Elbow Performance Score, visual analog scale for pain, elbow ROM (flexion, extension, pronation, and supination), and elbow strength via objective elbow extension measurements.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Seminars in Arthroplasty Medicine-Surgery

CiteScore

1.00

自引率

0.00%

发文量

104

期刊介绍： Each issue of Seminars in Arthroplasty provides a comprehensive, current overview of a single topic in arthroplasty. The journal addresses orthopedic surgeons, providing authoritative reviews with emphasis on new developments relevant to their practice.