Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery
Volume 14, Issue 6 , Pages 575-584, November 2005

Characterizing the effect of diagnosis on presenting deficits and outcomes after total shoulder arthroplasty

  • I.M. Parsons IV, MD

      Affiliations

    • Seacoast Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine, Marshbrook Professional Center, Somersworth, NH, USA
  • ,
  • Barry Campbell

      Affiliations

    • Department of Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
  • ,
  • Robert M. Titelman, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
  • ,
  • Kevin L. Smith, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
  • ,
  • Frederick A. Matsen III, MD

      Affiliations

    • Department of Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests: Frederick A. Matsen III, MD, Department of Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine, University of Washington Medical Center, 1959 NE Pacific St, Box 356500, Seattle, WA 98195

This study compared self-assessed deficits in comfort, function, and health status before and after total shoulder arthroplasty for 4 different diagnoses: degenerative joint disease (DJD), secondary DJD (2°DJD), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and capsulorrhaphy arthropathy (CA). Deficits were assessed by the Simple Shoulder Test and Short Form 36 (SF-36) questionnaires. There was a significant difference among diagnoses for preoperative and postoperative functional deficits. The profiles of improvement within the categories of comfort, motion, strength, and function were different for each diagnosis. Patients with DJD and CA were most improved in the category of motion, whereas those with 2°DJD and RA were most improved in the category of comfort. There was also a statistically significant difference in 5 of the 8 domains of the preoperative SF-36 among diagnoses. Factors associated with each diagnosis play a significant role in determining the magnitude of preoperative deficits and postoperative improvement in shoulder function.

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 This work was supported by the Douglas T. Harryman II/DePuy Endowed Chair for Shoulder Research at the University of Washington.

PII: S1058-2746(05)00100-X

doi:10.1016/j.jse.2005.02.021

Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery
Volume 14, Issue 6 , Pages 575-584, November 2005