What are the perspectives of patients with hand and wrist conditions, chronic pain, and patients recovering from stroke on the use of patient and outcome information in everyday care? A Mixed-Methods study.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the patients' perspectives on the use of patient- and outcome information tools in everyday care and to investigate which characteristics affect general understanding and perceived value of patient- and outcome information. METHODS: This mixed-methods study included surveys and interviews on understanding, experience, decision-support, and perceived value in patients with hand and wrist conditions and chronic pain. We synthesized our quantitative and qualitative findings using a triangulation protocol and identified factors independently associated with general understanding and perceived value of patient- and outcome information using hierarchical logistic regression. RESULTS: We included 3379 patients. The data triangulation indicated that patients understand the outcome information, they find it valuable, it supports decision-making, and it improves patient-clinician interaction. The following variables were independently associated with better general understanding: having more difficulty with questionnaires (standardized odds ratio 0.34 [95%-CI 031-0.38]), having a finger condition (0.72 [0.57-0.92]), longer follow-up (0.75 [0.61-0.91]), and undergoing surgical treatment (ref: non-surgical treatment, 1.33 [1.11-1.59]). For more general value, these were: having more difficulty with questionnaires (0.40 [0.36-0.44]), having a wrist condition (0.71 [0.54-0.92]), better hand function (1.12 [1.02-1.22]), and requiring help with questionnaires (1.65 [1.33-2.05]). CONCLUSION: Patients value the use of patient- and outcome information tools in daily care and find it easy to understand. The factors associated with understanding and value can be targeted to personalized and value-based healthcare. We recommend using outcome information to improve patient independence, empowerment, and involvement in decision-making.

The Validity and Responsiveness of the Patient-Specific Functional Scale in Patients With First Carpometacarpal Osteoarthritis.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess the content, construct, and discriminative validity and responsiveness of the Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS) in patients with thumb carpometacarpal arthritis. METHODS: Data were collected at Xpert Clinics, comprising 34 outpatient hand surgery and hand therapy clinics in the Netherlands. We included 267 patients for content validity and 323 patients for construct validity and responsiveness. The PSFS items were classified into the International Classification of Function Core Set for Hand Conditions to assess content validity. We used hypothesis testing to investigate the construct validity and responsiveness. The Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire was used as a comparator instrument. The standardized response mean was calculated to evaluate the magnitude of change. For discriminative validity, we used independent t tests to discriminate between satisfied and dissatisfied patients. RESULTS: We classified 98% of the PSFS items in the International Classification of Function "activities" and "participation" domains, indicating good content validity. Two of six hypotheses for construct validity and three of six hypotheses for responsiveness were confirmed. The standardized response mean for the PSFS was 0.57 (0.46-0.68) and 0.47 (0.35-0.58) for the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire total score. The mean PSFS score showed good discriminative validity because it could distinguish between satisfied and dissatisfied patients at the 3-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The PSFS scores showed good content and discriminative validity in patients with first carpometacarpal arthritis. Hypothesis testing for responsiveness and construct validity indicates that the PSFS measures a unique construct different from the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The PSFS may be a useful scale for measuring the patient-specific status of individuals with thumb carpometacarpal arthritis.

Incision techniques for trigger thumb release: a comparison of outcomes of four types of skin incision.

Although trigger thumb release is commonly performed, there is no consensus on the optimal skin incision. This study aimed to compare outcomes of four incision techniques, including V-shaped, oblique, transverse and longitudinal incisions. Outcomes included the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire, satisfaction with the treatment and postoperative complications. The results of 875 patients who underwent trigger thumb release were assessed. All groups demonstrated improvement in self-reported hand function (range of 10-14 points), pain (25-27 points) and aesthetics (4-7 points) from baseline to 3 months postoperatively with no differences between incision techniques. Of the patients, 76% reported good or excellent satisfaction with the outcome of treatment. Satisfaction and complication rates of the different incision techniques were similar. These findings imply that there is no clear benefit of one type of incision over another for trigger thumb release, suggesting that surgeons may use the technique of their preference.Level of evidence: III.

Algorithm Versus Expert: Machine Learning Versus Surgeon-Predicted Symptom Improvement After Carpal Tunnel Release.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Surgeons rely on clinical experience when making predictions about treatment effects. Incorporating algorithm-based predictions of symptom improvement after carpal tunnel release (CTR) could support medical decision-making. However, these algorithm-based predictions need to outperform predictions made by surgeons to add value. We compared predictions of a validated prediction model for symptom improvement after CTR with predictions made by surgeons. METHODS: This cohort study included 97 patients scheduled for CTR. Preoperatively, surgeons estimated each patient's probability of improvement 6 months after surgery, defined as reaching the minimally clinically important difference on the Boston Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Symptom Severity Score. We assessed model and surgeon performance using calibration (calibration belts), discrimination (area under the curve [AUC]), sensitivity, and specificity. In addition, we assessed the net benefit of decision-making based on the prediction model's estimates vs the surgeon's judgement. RESULTS: The surgeon predictions had poor calibration and suboptimal discrimination (AUC 0.62, 95%-CI 0.49-0.74), while the prediction model showed good calibration and appropriate discrimination (AUC 0.77, 95%-CI 0.66-0.89, P = .05). The accuracy of surgeon predictions was 0.65 (95%-CI 0.37-0.78) vs 0.78 (95%-CI 0.67-0.89) for the prediction model ( P = .03). The sensitivity of surgeon predictions and the prediction model was 0.72 (95%-CI 0.15-0.96) and 0.85 (95%-CI 0.62-0.97), respectively ( P = .04). The specificity of the surgeon predictions was similar to the model's specificity ( P = .25). The net benefit analysis showed better decision-making based on the prediction model compared with the surgeons' decision-making (ie, more correctly predicted improvements and/or fewer incorrectly predicted improvements). CONCLUSION: The prediction model outperformed surgeon predictions of improvement after CTR in terms of calibration, accuracy, and sensitivity. Furthermore, the net benefit analysis indicated that using the prediction model instead of relying solely on surgeon decision-making increases the number of patients who will improve after CTR, without increasing the number of unnecessary surgeries.

Explaining Personalized Activity Limitations in Patients With Hand and Wrist Disorders: Insights from Sociodemographic, Clinical, and Mindset Characteristics.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the association of sociodemographic, clinical, and mindset characteristics on outcomes measured with a patient-specific patient-reported outcome measure (PROM); the Patient Specific Functional Scale (PSFS). Secondly, we examined whether these factors differ when a fixed-item PROM, the Michigan Hand Outcome Questionnaire (MHQ), is used as an outcome. DESIGN: Cohort study, using the aforementioned groups of factors in a hierarchical linear regression. SETTING: Twenty-six clinics for hand and wrist conditions in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: Two samples of patients with various hand and wrist conditions and treatments: n=7111 (PSFS) and n=5872 (MHQ). INTERVENTIONS: NA. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The PSFS and MHQ at 3 months. RESULTS: The PSFS exhibited greater between-subject variability in baseline, follow-up, and change scores than the MHQ. Better PSFS outcomes were associated with: no involvement in litigation (ß[95% confidence interval=-0.40[-0.54;-0.25]), better treatment expectations (0.09[0.06;0.13]), light workload (0.08[0.03;0.14]), not smoking (-0.07[-0.13;-0.01]), men sex (0.07[0.02;0.12]), better quality of life (0.07[0.05;0.10]), moderate workload (0.06[0.00;0.13]), better hand satisfaction (0.05[0.02; 0.07]), less concern (-0.05[-0.08;-0.02]), less pain at rest (-0.04[-0.08;-0.00]), younger age (-0.04[-0.07;-0.01]), better comprehensibility (0.03[0.01;0.06]), better timeline perception (-0.03[-0.06;-0.01]), and better control (-0.02[-0.04;-0.00]). The MHQ model was highly similar but showed a higher R2 than the PSFS model (0.41 vs 0.15), largely due to the R2 of the baseline scores (0.23 for MHQ vs 0.01 for PSFS). CONCLUSIONS: Health care professionals can improve personalized activity limitations by addressing treatment expectations and illness perceptions, which affect PSFS outcomes. Similar factors affect the MHQ, but the baseline MHQ score has a stronger association with the outcome score than the PSFS. While the PSFS is better for individual patient evaluation, we found that it is difficult to explain PSFS outcomes based on baseline characteristics compared with the MHQ. Using both patient-specific and fixed-item instruments helps health care professionals develop personalized treatment plans that meet individual needs and goals.

Tailoring and evaluating treatment with the Patient-Specific Needs Evaluation: A Patient-Centered Approach.

BACKGROUND: No patient-reported instrument assesses patient-specific information needs, treatment goals, and Personal Meaningful Gain (PMG, a novel construct evaluating individualized, clinically relevant improvement). This study reports the development of the Patient-Specific Needs Evaluation (PSN) and examines its discriminative validity (i.e., its ability to distinguish satisfied from dissatisfied patients) and test-retest reliability in patients with hand or wrist conditions. METHODS: A mixed-methods approach was used to develop and validate the PSN, following COSMIN guidelines, including pilot testing, a survey (pilot: n=223, final PSN: n=275), cognitive debriefing (n=16), expert input, and validation. Discriminative validity was assessed by comparing the satisfaction level of patients who did or did not achieve their PMG (n=1,985) and test-retest reliability using absolute agreement, Cohen's kappa, and ICCs (n=102). We used a sample of 2,860 patients to describe responses to the final PSN. RESULTS: The PSN has only five questions (completion time ±3 minutes) and is freely accessible online. The items and response options were considered understandable by 90-92% and complete by 84-89% of the end-users. The PSN had excellent discriminative validity (Cramer's V: 0.48, p<0.001) and moderate to high test-retest reliability (Kappa: 0.46-0.68, ICCs: 0.53-0.73). CONCLUSIONS: The PSN is a freely available patient-centered decision-support tool that helps clinicians tailor their consultations to the patient's individual needs and goals. It contains the PMG, a novel construct evaluating individualized, clinically relevant treatment outcomes. The PSN may function as a conversation starter, facilitate expectation management, and aid shared decision-making. The PSN is implementation-ready and can be readily adapted to other patient populations. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: I.

Long-Term Outcomes of Nonsurgical Treatment of Thumb Carpometacarpal Osteoarthritis: A Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Although nonsurgical treatment of thumb carpometacarpal (CMC-1) osteoarthritis (OA) provides short-term improvement, the durability of these effects beyond 1 year is unknown. In this study, we investigated patient-reported pain and limitations in activities of daily living (ADL) at >5 years following nonsurgical treatment (i.e., exercise therapy and use of an orthosis) for CMC-1 OA. We hypothesized that pain and limitations in ADL would not worsen after 12 months. Secondary outcomes were satisfaction with treatment results and health-related quality of life at >5 years of follow-up and the rate of conversion to surgery. METHODS: This was a multicenter, prospective cohort study using 2 overlapping samples. The change in the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire (MHQ) subscales of pain and ADL between 12 months and >5 years was the primary outcome as measured in the first sample (n = 170), which consisted of patients who did not undergo conversion to surgery. Additional measurement time points included baseline and 3 months. We evaluated conversion to surgery in a second sample, which included all patients who responded to the invitation for this follow-up study (n = 217). RESULTS: At a median follow-up of 6.6 years (range, 5.1 to 8.7 years), the score on the MHQ pain subscale did not differ significantly from that at 12 months. The score on the MHQ ADL improved by 4.4 points (95% confidence interval [CI],1.5 to 7.2) compared with 12 months, but this was not clinically relevant. At >5 years, 5% of the patients rated their satisfaction as "poor," 14% as "moderate," 26% as "fair," 39% as "good," and 16% as "excellent." The median EuroQol-5 Dimensions-5 Levels (EQ-5D-5L) index score was 0.852 (range, 0.135 to 1). The rate of conversion to surgery was 22% (95% CI,16.4% to 27.7%) at a median follow-up of 7 years (range, 5.5 to 9.0 years). CONCLUSIONS: We found positive outcomes at >5 years of follow-up for nonsurgical treatment of CMC-1 OA, with no worsening of pain or of limitations in ADL after 12 months. Our findings support nonsurgical treatment as the first treatment choice and suggest that treatment effects are sustainable. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level II . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Changes in illness perception, pain catastrophizing, and psychological distress following hand surgeon consultation: A prospective study.

BACKGROUND: Baseline mindset factors are important factors that influence treatment decisions and outcomes. Theoretically, improving the mindset prior to treatment may improve treatment decisions and outcomes. This prospective cohort study evaluated changes in patients' mindset following hand surgeon consultation. Additionally, we assessed if the change in illness perception differed between surgical and nonsurgical patients. METHODS: The primary outcome was illness perception, measured using the total score of the Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire (B-IPQ, range 0-80). Secondary outcomes were the B-IPQ subscales, pain catastrophizing (measured using the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS)), and psychological distress (measured using the Patient Health Questionnaire-4). RESULTS: A total of 276 patients with various hand and wrist conditions completed the mindset questionnaires before and after hand surgeon consultation (median time interval: 15 days). The B-IPQ total score improved from 39.7 (±10.6) before to 35.8 (±11.3) after consultation (p < 0.0001, Cohen's d = 0.36); scores also improved for the B-IPQ subscales Coherence, Concern, Emotional Response, Timeline, Treatment Control, and Identity and the PCS. There were no changes in the other outcomes. Surgical patients improved on the B-IPQ subscales Treatment Control and Timeline, while nonsurgical patients did not. CONCLUSIONS: Illness perception and pain catastrophizing improved following hand surgeon consultation, suggesting that clinicians may actively influence the patients' mindset during consultations, and that they may try to enhance this effect to improve outcomes. Furthermore, surgical patients improved more in illness perceptions, indicating that nonsurgical patients may benefit from a more targeted strategy for changing mindset.

The Ultrashort Mental Health Screening Tool Is a Valid and Reliable Measure With Added Value to Support Decision-making.

BACKGROUND: Mental health influences symptoms, outcomes, and decision-making in musculoskeletal healthcare. Implementing measures of mental health in clinical practice can be challenging. An ultrashort screening tool for mental health with a low burden is currently unavailable but could be used as a conversation starter, expectation management tool, or decision support tool. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Which items of the Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS), Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-4), and Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire (B-IPQ) are the most discriminative and yield a high correlation with the total scores of these questionnaires? (2) What is the construct validity and added clinical value (explained variance for pain and hand function) of an ultrashort four-item mental health screening tool? (3) What is the test-retest reliability of the screening tool? (4) What is the response time for the ultrashort screening tool? METHODS: This was a prospective cohort study. Data collection was part of usual care at Xpert Clinics, the Netherlands, but prospective measurements were added to this study. Between September 2017 and January 2022, we included 19,156 patients with hand and wrist conditions. We subdivided these into four samples: a test set to select the screener items (n = 18,034), a validation set to determine whether the selected items were solid (n = 1017), a sample to determine the added clinical value (explained variance for pain and hand function, n = 13,061), and a sample to assess the test-retest reliability (n = 105). Patients were eligible for either sample if they completed all relevant measurements of interest for that particular sample. To create an ultrashort screening tool that is valid, reliable, and has added value, we began by picking the most discriminatory items (that is, the items that were most influential for determining the total score) from the PCS, PHQ-4, and B-IPQ using chi-square automated interaction detection (a machine-learning algorithm). To assess construct validity (how well our screening tool assesses the constructs of interest), we correlated these items with the associated sum score of the full questionnaire in the test and validation sets. We compared the explained variance of linear models for pain and function using the screening tool items or the original sum scores of the PCS, PHQ-4, and B-IPQ to further assess the screening tool's construct validity and added value. We evaluated test-retest reliability by calculating weighted kappas, ICCs, and the standard error of measurement. RESULTS: We identified four items and used these in the screening tool. The screening tool items were highly correlated with the PCS (Pearson coefficient = 0.82; p < 0.001), PHQ-4 (0.87; p < 0.001), and B-IPQ (0.85; p < 0.001) sum scores, indicating high construct validity. The full questionnaires explained only slightly more variance in pain and function (10% to 22%) than the screening tool did (9% to 17%), again indicating high construct validity and much added clinical value of the screening tool. Test-retest reliability was high for the PCS (ICC 0.75, weighted kappa 0.75) and B-IPQ (ICC 0.70 to 0.75, standard error of measurement 1.3 to 1.4) items and moderate for the PHQ-4 item (ICC 0.54, weighted kappa 0.54). The median response time was 43 seconds, against more than 4 minutes for the full questionnaires. CONCLUSION: Our ultrashort, valid, and reliable screening tool for pain catastrophizing, psychologic distress, and illness perception can be used before clinician consultation and may serve as a conversation starter, an expectation management tool, or a decision support tool. The clinical utility of the screening tool is that it can indicate that further testing is warranted, guide a clinician when considering a consultation with a mental health specialist, or support a clinician in choosing between more invasive and less invasive treatments. Future studies could investigate how the tool can be used optimally and whether using the screening tool affects daily clinic decisions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, diagnostic study.

Outcomes of an exercise program in patients with dorsal or volar midcarpal laxity: a cohort study of 213 patients.

PURPOSE: Describing the outcomes of an exercise program on wrist and hand function for patients with midcarpal instability (MCI). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study has a prospective cohort design. Two hundred and thirteen patients with MCI were included. The intervention was a 3-month exercise program consisting of hand therapy and home exercises. The primary outcome was perceived wrist and hand function evaluated with the Patient-Rated Wrist/Hand Evaluation (PRWHE) three months after treatment onset. Secondary outcomes were conversion to surgery, pain, and satisfaction with treatment results. RESULTS: PRWHE total scores improved from 51 ± 19 (mean ± SD) to 33 ± 24 at 3 months (95% CI: 36-30, p < 0.001). All visual analog scales for pain demonstrated clinically relevant improvements at 6 weeks and 3 months (p < 0.001). At 3 months, 81% of the participants would undergo the treatment again. After a median follow-up of 2.8 years, 46 patients (22%) converted to surgery. CONCLUSIONS: We found clinically relevant improvements in hand and wrist function and pain. Most participants would undergo treatment again and 78% of the participants did not convert to surgery. Hence, non-invasive treatment should be the primary treatment choice for patients with MCI.

Midcarpal instability (MCI) is a disabling condition and treatment options are limited.Patients with MCI can benefit from an exercise program aiming to improve the strength and coordination of the wrist muscles.Participants improved in hand/wrist function and 78% did not convert to surgery.Non-invasive treatment should be the primary treatment choice for these patients.

Prevalence of Complications and Association With Patient-Reported Outcomes After Trapeziectomy With a Weilby Sling: A Cohort Study.

PURPOSE: The primary aim of this study was to report complications during the first year after trapeziectomy with Weilby sling using a standardized tool designed by the International Consortium for Health Outcome Measures. The secondary aim was to determine the association of complications and patient-reported outcomes 12 months after surgery. METHODS: We included patients who underwent trapeziectomy with Weilby sling between November 2013 and December 2018. All complications during the first year were scored using the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement Complications in Hand and Wrist conditions (ICHAW) tool. Pain and hand function were measured before surgery and 12 months after surgery using the Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire (MHQ). Minimally Important Change thresholds of 18.6 for MHQ pain and 9.4 for MHQ function were used to determine clinical importance. RESULTS: Of 531 patients after trapeziectomy with Weilby sling, 65% had an uneventful recovery, 16% experienced ICHAW Grade 1 deviations only, and 19% experienced Grade 2 or 3 deviations, including requiring antibiotics, corticosteroid injections, or additional surgery. On average, patients improved in pain and hand function, even in the presence of ICHAW events. Although all ICHAW grades were associated with poorer patient-reported outcomes 12 months after surgery, Grade 2 and 3 exceeded the Minimally Important Change threshold for pain and/or function. CONCLUSIONS: In 531 patients, 65% had an uneventful recovery, 16% experienced ICHAW Grade 1 deviations only, and 19% experienced grade 2 or 3 deviations. We recommend describing Grade 1 as "adverse protocol deviations" and grade 2 and 3 as complications, because of clinically relevant poorer patient-reported outcomes 12 months after surgery. The ICHAW is a promising tool to evaluate systematically and compare complications in hand surgery, although we recommend further evaluation. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic IV.

Treatment Invasiveness and Illness Perceptions Are Strongly Associated With Outcome Expectations in Patients Treated for Hand or Wrist Conditions: A Cross-sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Multiple studies have shown that more-positive outcome expectations are associated with better treatment outcomes. Although this has not been shown to represent a causal relationship, there nonetheless is an interest in positively modifying outcome expectations to improve treatment outcomes. However, little is known about what is independently associated with outcome expectations in clinical practice. For example, it is unknown to what extent expectations are associated with treatment or patient characteristics such as sociodemographics or with patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) on patient perceptions of physical or mental health or illness. Studying factors associated with outcome expectations may provide relevant information for clinicians and researchers aiming to improve outcome expectations. Improving expectations might, in turn, improve treatment outcomes. QUESTION/PURPOSE: Which factors (that is, sociodemographics, PROMs, illness perceptions, treatment, surgeon, and location) are independently associated with outcome expectations in patients with hand or wrist conditions? METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study. Between July 2018 and December 2021, we screened 21,327 patients with a diagnosed hand or wrist condition with complete baseline sociodemographic data such as age and workload. Sixty percent (12,765 of 21,327) of patients completed all relevant PROMs. We excluded patients receiving rare treatments, leaving 58% (12,345 of 21,327) for inclusion in the final sample. Those who participated were more often scheduled for surgical treatment and had higher expectations. We performed a multilevel analysis involving two steps. First, we evaluated whether patients receiving the same treatment, being counseled by the same surgeon, or being treated at the same location have more similar outcome expectations. We found that only patients receiving the same treatment had more similar outcome expectations. Therefore, we used a multilevel regression model to account for this correlation within treatments, and added treatment characteristics (such as nonsurgical versus minor or major surgery) to potential explanatory factors. Second, in the multilevel hierarchical regression analysis, we added sociodemographics (Model 1), PROMs for physical and mental health (Model 2), illness perceptions (Model 3), and treatment characteristics (most-definitive model) to assess the explained variance in outcome expectations per step and the relative association with outcome expectations. RESULTS: Sociodemographic factors such as age and workload explained 1% of the variance in outcome expectations. An additional 2% was explained by baseline PROMs for physical and mental health, 9% by illness perceptions, and 18% by treatment characteristics, resulting in an explained variance of 29% of the most-definitive model. A large number of patient and treatment characteristics were associated with outcome expectations. We used standardized betas to compare the magnitude of the effect of the different continuous and categorical variables. Among the associated variables, minor surgery (standardized beta [ß] = 0.56 [95% confidence interval 0.44 to 0.68]; p < 0.001) and major surgery (ß = 0.61 [95% CI 0.49 to 0.73]; p < 0.001) had the strongest positive association with outcome expectations (receiving surgery is associated with higher outcome expectations than nonsurgical treatment). A longer illness duration expected by the patient (-0.23 [95% CI -0.24 to -0.21]; p < 0.001) and being treated for the same condition as before (-0.08 [95% CI -0.14 to -0.03]; p = 0.003) had the strongest negative association with outcome expectations. CONCLUSION: Outcome expectations are mainly associated with the invasiveness of the treatment and by patients' illness perceptions; patients before surgical treatment have more positive expectations of the treatment outcome than patients before nonsurgical treatment, even after accounting for differences in clinical and psychosocial profiles. In addition, patients with a more-positive perception of their illness had more-positive expectations of their treatment. Our findings suggest expectation management should be tailored to the specific treatment (such as surgical versus nonsurgical) and the specific patient (including their perception of their illness). It may be more beneficial to test and implement expectation management strategies for nonsurgical treatments such as physical therapy than for surgical treatments, given that our findings indicate a greater need to do so. An additional advantage of such a strategy is that successful interventions may prevent converting to surgical interventions, which is a goal of the stepped-care principles of standard care. Future studies might investigate the causality of the association between pretreatment expectations and outcomes by performing an experimental study such as a randomized controlled trial, in which boosting expectations is compared with usual care in nonsurgical and surgical groups. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, prognostic study.

Determining the Minimally Important Change of the Michigan Hand outcomes Questionnaire in patients undergoing trigger finger release.

INTRODUCTION: The Michigan Hand outcomes Questionnaire (MHQ) is a widely used instrument to evaluate treatment results for hand conditions. Establishing the Minimally Important Change (MIC) is essential for interpreting change in outcome that is clinically relevant. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: The purpose of this study was to determine the MIC of the MHQ total and subscale scores in patients undergoing trigger finger release. STUDY DESIGN: This is a prospective cohort study conducted between December 2011 and February 2020. METHODS: Patients completed the MHQ prior to surgery and 3 months postoperatively. The MIC of the MHQ was determined using 5 anchor-based methods (ie, 2 anchor mean change methods and 3 receiver operating characteristic methods). The median MIC value was determined to represent the triangulated MIC. RESULTS: A total of 1814 patients were included. The MIC for the MHQ total score ranged from 7.7 to 10.9, with a triangulated estimate of 9.3. The MIC estimates for 5 of 6 of the MHQ subscales ranged from 7.7 to 20.0. No MICs could be determined for the MHQ subscale "aesthetics" due to low correlations between the anchor questions and MHQ change scores. CONCLUSIONS: These MIC estimates can contribute to the interpretation of clinical outcomes following trigger finger release and for assessment of power in prospective trials.

Routinely-Collected Outcomes of Proximal Row Carpectomy.

PURPOSE: To describe patient-reported pain and function 12 months after proximal row carpectomy (PRC). Secondary outcomes included return to work, grip strength, range of wrist motion, satisfaction with treatment results, and complications. METHODS: This cohort study was part of the British Society for Surgery of the Hand Studyathon 2021, using ongoing routinely-collected data of 304 eligible patients who underwent PRC (73% scapholunate advanced collapse, 11% scaphoid nonunion advanced collapse wrist; 11% Kienböck, 5% other indications) from Xpert Clinics, the Netherlands between 2012-2020. The primary outcome was the Patient Rated Wrist/Hand Evaluation total score (range, 0-100, lower scores indicate better performance). RESULTS: Of the 304 patients, the primary outcome was available in 217 patients. The total Patient Rated Wrist/Hand Evaluation score improved from 60 (95% confidence interval [CI], 57-63) to 38 (95% CI, 35-41) at 3 months, and 26 (95% CI, 23-29) at 12 months. The pain and function subscales improved by 18 (95% CI, 17-20) and 16 (95% CI, 14-18) points, respectively. At 12 months, 82% had returned to work at a median time of 12 (95% CI, 9-14) weeks following PRC. Grip strength did not improve. Wrist flexion and extension demonstrated a clinically irrelevant decrease. Satisfaction with treatment result was excellent in 27% of patients, good in 42%, fair in 20%, moderate in 6%, and poor in 5%. Complications occurred in 11% of patients, and conversion to wrist arthroplasty occurred in 2 patients. CONCLUSION: A clinically relevant improvement in patient-reported pain and function was observed at 3 months after PRC, with continued improvement to 12 months. These data can be used for shared-decision making and expectation management. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic IV.

Is Early Active Motion After 3-Ligament Tenodesis Noninferior to Late Active Motion? A Prospective, Multicenter Cohort Study.

PURPOSE: If early active motion after 3-ligament tenodesis is safe, it may yield more patient comfort and an early return to activities. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate whether early active motion is noninferior to late active motion after 3-ligament tenodesis for scapholunate interosseous ligament injuries. METHODS: This prospective, multicenter cohort study, using a noninferiority design with propensity score matching, compared a late active motion protocol (immobilization for 10-16 days, wrist therapy in weeks 5-6) with an early active motion protocol (immobilization for 3-5 days, wrist therapy during week 2). Patients who were older than 18 years, had complete baseline information on demographics, and underwent 3-ligament tenodesis were included. The outcome measures were postoperative Patient-Reported Wrist/Hand Evaluation scores, pain, complications, return to work, range of motion, grip strength, and satisfaction with treatment results at 3 months of follow-up. RESULTS: After propensity matching, a total of 108 patients were included. Patient-Reported Wrist/Hand Evaluation and pain scores during physical load following an early active motion protocol were noninferior compared with scores following a late active motion protocol. Furthermore, early active motion did not lead to an increase of complications, differences in range of motion or grip strength, or less satisfaction with the treatment result. An earlier return to work was not observed. CONCLUSIONS: Early active motion leads to noninferior results without more complications as compared with late active motion. Based on these findings, early active motion can be considered safe, and might be recommended due to its potential benefits compared with late active motion after 3-ligament tenodesis. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic III.

Complications and Functional Outcomes following Trigger Finger Release: A Cohort Study of 1879 Patients.

BACKGROUND: Although trigger finger release is considered a safe procedure, large cohort studies reporting consistent complication rates and functional outcomes are scarce. Further insight into outcomes of this commonly performed procedure is essential for adequate treatment evaluation and patient counseling. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess the complication rates and functional outcomes following trigger finger release. METHODS: This is an observational multicenter cohort study of patients undergoing trigger finger release. The primary outcome included the occurrence of complications. The secondary outcome was change in hand function (Michigan Hand outcomes Questionnaire) from baseline to 3 months postoperatively. RESULTS: Complications were observed in 17.1 percent of 1879 patients. Most complications were minor, requiring hand therapy or analgesics (7.0 percent of all patients), antibiotics, or steroid injections (7.8 percent). However, 2.1 percent required surgical treatment and 0.2 percent developed complex regional pain syndrome. The Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire total score improved from baseline to 3 months postoperatively with 12.7 points, although the authors found considerable variation in outcomes with less improvement in patients with better baseline scores. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that trigger finger release results in improved hand function, although complications occur in 17 percent. Most complications are minor and can be treated with nonsurgical therapy, resulting in improved hand function as well. However, additional surgical treatment is required in 2 percent of patients. In addition, the authors found that change in hand function depends on the baseline score, with less improvement in patients with better baseline scores. Future studies should investigate factors that contribute to the variability in treatment outcomes following trigger finger release. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.

Rasch analysis of the brief Michigan Hand Questionnaire in patients with thumb osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND: The brief Michigan Hand Questionnaire (brief MHQ) is a 12-item self-reported measure of hand function for patients with hand disorders which has been validated using Classical Test Theory. Rasch analysis can provide more detailed psychometric information. The purpose of this Rasch analysis is to assess the psychometric properties of the brief MHQ for patients with thumb osteoarthritis, and to make recommendations for improvements to the questionnaire if needed.  METHODS: The Michigan Hand Questionnaire and demographic data were collected from 923 thumb osteoarthritis patients treated in specialized clinics for hand surgery and therapy in the Netherlands. Rasch analysis was performed on the 12 items of the brief MHQ using RUMM 2030 to assess the fit of the brief MHQ to the Rasch model. To determine fit, analysis of fit summary statistics, individual person fit and individual item fit were assessed. Threshold distributions were assessed to identify if any items required rescoring. The Person Separation Index was calculated to measure reliability of the questionnaire. Differential item functioning was assessed to identify item bias, and Principal Component Analysis was performed to identify unidimensionality and local dependence. RESULTS: The brief MHQ showed misfit (χ2 = 1312.5, p < 0.0001) with 6 items having disordered thresholds and 9 items requiring rescoring. After deleting 3 of the rescored items due to significant item fit residuals, the brief MHQ had an acceptable reliability (Cronbach's alpha = 0.79). Misfit to the model (χ2 = 49.6, p = 0.0001), multidimensionality (10.2% of t-tests were significant), and item bias from non-uniform differential item functioning for 7 items across many person variables were still found. CONCLUSION: Although no satisfactory solutions were found to correct the misfit to the Rasch model, it is recommended that the response options of the brief MHQ be rescored, and that items 6, 9 and 10 be removed. The lack of unidimensionality indicates that the items do not represent the singular construct of hand disability and that totalling the scores of the brief MHQ does not provide a valid measure of hand disability for people with thumb osteoarthritis. The 37-item Michigan Hand Questionnaire may provide a better assessment of hand disability for patients with thumb osteoarthritis.

Prevalence and Risk Factors for Postoperative Complications Following Open A1 Pulley Release for a Trigger Finger or Thumb.

PURPOSE: Although A1 pulley release is an effective treatment to reduce pain and improve hand function, complications may occur. More insight into risk factors for complications is essential to improve patient counseling and potentially target modifiable risk factors. This study aimed to identify factors associated with complications following A1 pulley release. METHODS: Patients completed baseline questionnaires, including patient characteristics, clinical characteristics, and the Michigan Hand outcomes Questionnaire. We retrospectively reviewed medical records to identify complications classified using the International Consortium for Health Outcome Measurement Complications in Hand and Wrist conditions tool. Grade 1 complications comprise treatment with additional hand therapy, splinting, or analgesics, grade 2 treatment with antibiotics or steroid injections, grade 3A minor surgical treatment, grade 3B major surgical treatment, and grade 3C complex regional pain syndrome. Logistic regression analyses were performed to examine the contribution of patient characteristics, clinical characteristics, and patient-reported outcome measurement scores to complications. RESULTS: Of the included 3,428 patients, 16% incurred a complication. The majority comprised milder grades 1 (6%) and 2 (7%) complications, followed by more severe grades 3B (2%), 3C (0.1%), and 3A (0.1%) complications. A longer symptom duration (standardized odds ratio [SOR], 1.09), ≥3 preoperative steroid injections (SOR, 3.22), a steroid injection within 3 months before surgery (SOR, 2.02), and treatment of the dominant hand (SOR, 1.34), index finger (SOR, 1.65), and middle finger (SOR, 2.01) were associated with a higher complication rate. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that ≥3 preoperative steroid injections and a steroid injection within 3 months before surgery were the most influential factors contributing to complications. These findings can assist clinicians during patient counseling and may guide preoperative treatment. We recommend that clinicians should consider avoiding steroid injections within 3 months before surgery and to be reluctant to perform >2 steroid injections. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic II.

Rasch Analysis of the Michigan Hand Questionnaire.

OBJECTIVES: The Michigan Hand Questionnaire (MHQ) is a commonly used evaluation for hand problems, but previous work reports conflicting evidence regarding the subscale structures. Rasch analysis uses probabilistic modeling of items and responses: if scale items can be fit to the Rasch model, it provides evidence of construct validity and interval-level measurement for precise statistical estimates. We conducted Rasch analysis on the MHQ to evaluate model fit, unidimensionality of the subscales, bias across person factors, and conversion to interval metrics. METHODS: We conducted a secondary Rasch analysis of MHQ data from 924 persons with thumb basal joint osteoarthritis using the RUMM2030 software. Modeling was based on responses for the most affected hand and person factors including age, sex, type of work, whether the dominant side was the most affected, and surgical status. The analysis plan followed the published recommendations for examinations of person and item fit, with iterative adjustments as required. RESULTS: A total of 11 of the 37 items required rescoring to create orderly progression of scoring thresholds. Only the overall hand function and pain subscales could be fit to the Rasch model, demonstrating unidimensionality and good reliability of fit estimates. Dividing the activities of daily living subscale into unilateral and bilateral activities also allowed unilateral activities to fit the model. Persistent misfitting in other subscales suggested local dependency and response bias across multiple person factors. CONCLUSIONS: This Rasch analysis of the MHQ raises concerns regarding the validity and fundamental measurement properties of this widely used outcome evaluation when used as a summary score.