Search

Background: To interpret patient-rated outcome measures, clinicians rely on the minimal clinically important difference. The authors studied the range of minimal clinically important difference scores for the overall Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire score its and subscales in a population with various diagnoses and treatments., Methods: Patients with a single, unilateral, atraumatic hand/forearm diagnosis completed the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire before treatment and at 4 ± 1 weeks and 12 ± 2 weeks after treatment. Three methods were used to calculate the minimal clinically important difference: two anchor question methods based on satisfaction (mean change and receiver operating characteristic) and a statistical distribution method., Results: One hundred eighty-six patients were enrolled, with a baseline median overall questionnaire score of 60.7. Using the mean change method, a minimal clinically important difference of 13 was calculated for the overall questionnaire score. Using a receiver operating characteristic curve (0.8 effect size), the minimal clinically important difference was 9, with an area under the curve of 0.92. When receiver operating characteristic analysis was based on dichotomization of reported satisfaction, the minimal clinically important difference was 12, with an area under the curve of 0.85. Calculating the difference by statistical distribution gave a value of 8. For the subscales, by all methods, triangulated minimal clinically important difference estimates ranged from 10.9 to 14.4., Conclusions: The minimal clinically important difference for the overall Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire score in atraumatic hand/forearm conditions falls between 8 and 13. Multiple analytic methods produce nonidentical but similar minimal clinically important differences. The authors recommend using difference estimates in these ranges when planning a clinical trial to investigate hand/forearm function across a range of diagnoses and treatments.

Purpose: To compare the tensile properties of a 3-0, 4-strand flexor tendon repair with a 4-0, 4-strand repair and a 4-0, 8-strand repair., Methods: Following evaluation of the intrinsic material properties of the 2 core suture calibers most commonly used in tendon repair (3-0 and 4-0), we tested the mechanical properties of 40 cadaver flexor digitorum profundus tendons after zone II repair with 1 of 3 techniques: a 3-0, 4-strand core repair, a 4-0, 8-strand repair, or a 4-0, 4-strand repair. We compared results across suture caliber for the 2 sutures and across tendon repair methods., Results: Maximum load to failure of 3-0 polyfilament caprolactam suture was 49% greater than that of 4-0 polyfilament caprolactam suture. The cross-sectional area of 3-0 polyfilament caprolactam was 42% greater than that of 4-0 polyfilament caprolactam. The 4-0, 8-strand repair produced greater maximum load to failure when compared with the 2 4-strand techniques. Load at 2-mm gap, stiffness, and work to yield were significantly greater in the 4-0, 8-strand repair than in the 3-0, 4-strand repair., Conclusions: In an ex vivo model, an 8-strand repair using 4-0 suture was 43% stronger than a 4-strand repair using 3-0 suture, despite the finding that 3-0 polyfilament caprolactam was 49% stronger than 4-0 polyfilament caprolactam. These results suggest that, although larger-caliber suture has superior tensile properties, the number of core suture strands across a repair site has an important effect on time zero, ex vivo flexor tendon repair strength., Clinical Relevance: Surgeons should consider using techniques that prioritize multistrand core suture repair over an increase in suture caliber., (Copyright © 2014 American Society for Surgery of the Hand. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To quantify the performance of the verbally administered Quick Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH) questionnaire by assessing its replication of self-administered scores, its test-retest reliability, and its rate of scorable completion compared with its self-administered, written administration., Methods: Fifty patients presenting for initial visits to a hand clinic were enrolled regardless of diagnosis. All patients completed a written and a verbal QuickDASH 1 day apart (25 patients written first; 25 patients verbal first). Intraclass correlation coefficients quantified the verbal questionnaire's ability to reproduce written scores. Participants verbally completed the questionnaire a final time, 5 months later, to assess test-retest reliability. To quantify the usability of survey data, we compared percentages of scorable surveys between written and verbally administered QuickDASH questionnaires in this study and in prior studies within our division., Results: The intraclass correlation coefficient between the 2 QuickDASH administration types for the entire sample was 0.91. Across all participants, there was a minimal change in mean score from a patient's written QuickDASH to that patient's first verbal QuickDASH score. Scoring consistency between QuickDASH administrations was similar for each administration sequence (phone followed by written vs. written followed by phone) and by diagnosis. Test-retest reliability between the 2 verbal administrations demonstrated good reliability and a minimal difference between scores. In this study, no written or verbal surveys were incomplete. Reviewing our practice, 17% of 258 written questionnaires produced unscorable data compared with 0% of 239 verbally administered surveys., Conclusions: Our results indicate that verbal administration of the QuickDASH replicates clinically relevant scores of the written QuickDASH, has good test-retest performance, and may minimize unusable data. These data allow researchers greater flexibility in gathering patient outcome data in both retrospective and prospective studies., Type of Study/level of Evidence: Diagnostic II., (Copyright © 2014 American Society for Surgery of the Hand. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patient self-reporting questionnaires such as the QuickDASH, a shortened version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) outcome measure, are critical to current orthopaedic outcomes research. The use of these questionnaires could introduce recall bias in retrospective, case-control, and cross-sectional studies if no preoperative data has been collected prior to study inception. The purpose of this study was to quantify recall accuracy on the QuickDASH questionnaire as a function of the duration of the recall interval., Methods: This cross-sectional study enrolled 140 patients with nontraumatic hand and elbow diseases. Patients were stratified into groups of thirty-five based on the time since their initial office visit (three months, six months, twelve months, or twenty-four months). All patients had completed the QuickDASH as part of a standard intake form at the time of the initial office visit (actual baseline score). Patients were contacted by phone and asked to recall their upper extremity disability from the time of the initial office visit with use of the QuickDASH questionnaire. Patients also completed the QuickDASH to rate their current disability. Actual and recalled QuickDASH scores for each group were statistically compared. Kruskal-Wallis analysis was used to determine any differences in recall accuracy between the groups. Pearson correlation coefficients quantified relations between recall accuracy and patient age and current function (absolute QuickDASH scores)., Results: Mean differences between recalled QuickDASH scores and actual scores were all less than the QuickDASH minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of 13 points at different time points: three months (-7.1, p < 0.01), six months (0.8, p = 0.79), twelve months (-2.3, p = 0.43), and twenty-four months (-2.8, p = 0.26). There were no significant differences in recall accuracy across the four groups (p = 0.77). Recalled QuickDASH scores were highly correlated with actual baseline values (rp ≥ 0.74). Recall accuracy was neither correlated with patient age nor current QuickDASH scores (rp ≤ 0.04)., Conclusions: Patients with a nontraumatic hand or elbow diagnosis are able to recall prior level of function accurately for up to two years with the QuickDASH questionnaire. Although data collected prospectively remain optimal, our data suggest that research conducted with use of recalled QuickDASH scores produces reliable assessment of disability from common upper extremity diagnoses with acceptable recall bias.