Skip to content

LifeNet: Extracellular Matrix Graft in Rotator Cuff Repair

Extracellular Matrix Scaffold Graft Augmentation in Rotator Cuff Repair: a Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Trial

Status
Terminated
Phases
Phase 4
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT03551509
Enrollment
9
Registered
2018-06-11
Start date
2018-07-01
Completion date
2024-06-30
Last updated
2025-06-19

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Rotator Cuff Tear

Keywords

Rotator Cuff Tear, Large Rotator Cuff Tear, Massive Rotator Cuff Tear, ECM, Extracellular Matrix, ArthroFLEX

Brief summary

This trial is to evaluate the effectiveness of the ArthroFLEX® ECM scaffold graph as an augment in rotator cuff repair surgery to reduce the failure rate of rotator cuff repairs for large and massive rotator cuff tears.

Detailed description

This is a prospective, randomized, controlled, multi-center clinical trial to evaluate the effectiveness of an ECM scaffold graft to augment repair of a large/massive rotator cuff tear. The study will involve 70 patients. 35 patients will be randomly assigned to each arm of the study. Despite advances in surgical technology, repairs of large (3-5 cm) and massive (\>5 cm) rotator cuff tears (RCT) fail between 20%-90% of the time \[1\]. Due to their size and increased structural involvement, large or massive RCT present a substantial challenge to orthopaedic surgeons. \[16\] The repairs tend to fail at the suture-tendon junction, which is due to several factors, including tension at the repair and quality of the tendon \[1-2,5\]. Full thickness tears are uncommon in younger patients, especially those less than forty years old and are usually traumatic in etiology. Younger patients also typically fair better following arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with fewer failures and more successful return to pre-injury level of function \[16\]. One strategy to augment repair of large to massive rotator cuff tears has been the development of biological scaffold materials, which are composed of extracellular matrix (ECM). The ECM composing the scaffolds are made from a number of tissues, including, but not limited to, small intestinal submucosa (SIS), dermis, and pericardium \[3\]. Studies to date include both prospective and retrospective in animal and human models, and include Restore, a porcine-derived SIS by DePuy Orthopaedics, GraftJacket, a human-derived, non-cross-linked dermis graft by Wright Medical Technology, and Zimmer Collagen Repair, a cross-linked porcine derived dermal graft made by Zimmer. Restore studies have shown no benefit and some even an increase in repair failure with recommendations not to use to augment repair. GraftJacket studies have shown a reduction in graft failure; however, several of the Restore and GraftJacket studies are limited by a lack of a control cohort. The Zimmer graft studies have conflicting results with both an improvement and no improvement in failure rates of repair. The prior studies listed are all in vivo; however, the majority are not randomized trials and thus do not have a control with which to compare data. In addition, some trials include open repairs. A lack of prospective, randomized, controlled, in vivo trials exist that evaluate the ability of the ECM scaffold graft augmentation in large to massive arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs to decrease the failure rate. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of using the Arthroflex (A-FLEX) graft to augment large to massive arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs in vivo and decrease repair failures in a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. By undergoing serial US examinations at follow-ups, we also intend to evaluate when during the postoperative period the failure of the repair occurs.

Interventions

PROCEDUREArthroFLEX ECM scaffold graft

In patients receiving a graft, thru mini open technique the lateral portal incision will be extended vertically approximately 5-6 cm. A standard, deltoid-splitting, mini-open approach will then be performed, leaving the deltoid attachment to the acromion intact. For arthroscopic technique same method of fixation will be used below. The dermis graft will be sized and cut so as to cover the entire repair site in both medial-lateral and anterior-posterior dimensions.

PROCEDUREControl

This group will undergo rotator cuff repair surgery, but will not receive the ECM scaffold graft.

BIOLOGICALAlternative Treatment Group

Patients who meet pre-op inclusion criteria where a repair cannot be accomplished due to intraoperative findings will remain in the study. This group will be analyzed separately and still follow study procedures.

Sponsors

LifeNet Health
CollaboratorINDUSTRY
The Cleveland Clinic
CollaboratorOTHER
Gregory Gilot
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE (Subject)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Patients with a large (2.5-5 cm) to massive (\>5 cm) rotator cuff tear who will be undergoing open or arthroscopic repair. The cuff tear size will be determined on either pre-operative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), or ultrasound (US), or intra-operative measurements, or computerized tomography (CT). * Patients who are willing and able to provide written informed consent for their involvement in the study. * Patients who meet criteria for RCR surgery * Patients older than 18 years of age

Exclusion criteria

* Those with a known sensitivity to materials of porcine origin. * Patients with addiction to illegal drugs, solvents or alcohol who are actively using or have previously attempted and failed a treatment program. * Patients with bacteremia, a systemic infection, or infection of the surgical site. * All those who are prisoners. * Patients who are pregnant or nursing. * All those with a condition that may limit a patient's ability to finalize the study or that may cause an undue risk to the patient's health and well-being.

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Tendon HealingAs assessed 1 year postoperatively.Success as defined by tendon healing after rotator cuff repair, as indicated based on MRI
Comparison of Healing by MRI vs USAs assessed 1 year postoperatively.Comparison of tendon healing will be assessed using US imaging modalities versus MRI (Success as defined by tendon healing after rotator cuff repair, as indicated based on US)
Progress of Tendon HealingAs assessed at 6 weeks postoperatively.Progress of tendon healing based on US will be used as predictive data for 1 year success (based on primary outcome) (Success as defined by tendon healing after rotator cuff repair, as indicated based on US)

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Patient Outcomes: Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV)PreoperativeThe SSV is defined as a patient's subjective shoulder assessment expressed as a percentage of an entirely normal shoulder, which would score 100%. Scores range from 0 to 100. The higher the score, the better the outcome.
Patient Outcomes: Constant Score (CS)PreoperativeC Constant and A Murley. This scoring system consists of four variables that are used to assess the function of the shoulder. The right and left shoulders are assessed separately. The subjective variables are pain and ADL (sleep, work, recreation / sport) which give a total of 35 points. Constant subjective scale goes from 0 to 35. The higher the score, the better the outcome.
Patient Outcomes: The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeon Shoulder Score (ASES)PreoperativeThe ASES is standardized form for assessment of the shoulder. The patient self-evaluation section form contains visual analog scales for pain and activities of daily living questionnaire. The activities of daily living questionnaire is marked on a four-point ordinal scale that can be converted to a cumulative activities of daily living index. A shoulder score can be derived from the visual analogue scale score for pain (50%) and the cumulative activities of daily living score (50%). Scores range from 0 to 100. The higher the score, the better the outcome.
The Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey (VR-12) (Mental Component Score)PreoperativeThe Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey (VR-12) was designed to replicate much of the behavior of the Veterans RAND 36 Item Health Survey (VR-36) with a reduced number of questions. The results of the VR-12 are summarized as two scores - a Mental Component Score (MCS) and a Physical Component Score (PCS). These summary scores range from 0 to 100. The higher the score, the better the outcome.
The Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey (VR-12) (Physical Component Score)PreoperativeThe Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey (VR-12) was designed to replicate much of the behavior of the Veterans RAND 36 Item Health Survey (VR-36) with a reduced number of questions. The results of the VR-12 are summarized as two scores - a Mental Component Score (MCS) and a Physical Component Score (PCS). These summary scores range from 0 to 100. The higher the score, the better the outcome.
Patient Outcomes: The Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC)PreoperativeA disease-specific quality of life measurement tool for patients with rotator cuff disease. Patients will respond to by marking a scale with ranges between none and extreme. Information collected includes physical symptoms, such as pain and weakness levels in the shoulder, the impact of the patient's shoulder injury on their sports/recreational activities, work (inside or outside of the home), lifestyle/activities of daily living (ADL), and its emotional impact, such as frustration level, depression, and any worry/concern a patient might be about how their injury might affect their occupation. Total final WORC scores range from 0% to 100%. The higher the score, the better the outcome.
Patient Outcomes: Measurement of Shoulder Activity LevelPreoperativeThis activity scale was developed using established principles: item generation, item reduction, pretesting, and reliability and validity testing. The activity rating is a numerical sum of scores for five activities rated on a five-point frequency scale from never performed (0 points) to daily (4 points). Patients were scored on the following criteria: carrying an object 8 lb or heavier by hand, handling objects overhead, weight training with arms, swinging motion (i.e., hitting tennis or golf ball), and lifting objects 25 lb or heavier. It can be used in conjunction with patient-based measures of shoulder outcome to define patient populations for cohort studies, and to assess activity level as a prognostic factor in patients with shoulder disorders. Scores range from 0 to 20. The higher the score, the better the outcome.

Countries

United States

Participant flow

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Control Treatment Group
Patients randomly assigned into the control group will undergo open or arthroscopic rotator cuff repair using the surgeon's standard practice. No ECM graft will be used. Control: This group will undergo rotator cuff repair surgery, but will not receive the ECM scaffold graft.
4
Treatment Group
Patients randomly assigned into the treatment group will undergo open or arthroscopic rotator cuff repair with A-FLEX graft to augment the repair. ECM scaffold grafts are indicated for the reinforcement of soft tissues repaired by sutures or suture anchors during tendon repair surgery, including rotator cuff. ArthroFLEX ECM scaffold graft: In patients receiving a graft, thru mini open technique the lateral portal incision will be extended vertically approximately 5-6 cm. A standard, deltoid-splitting, mini-open approach will then be performed, leaving the deltoid attachment to the acromion intact. For arthroscopic technique same method of fixation will be used below. The dermis graft will be sized and cut so as to cover the entire repair site in both medial-lateral and anterior-posterior dimensions.
3
Alternative Treatment Group
Patients who meet pre-op inclusion criteria where a repair cannot be accomplished due to intraoperative findings will remain in the study. This group will be analyzed separately and still follow study procedures. Alternative Treatment Group: Patients who meet pre-op inclusion criteria where a repair cannot be accomplished due to intraoperative findings will remain in the study. This group will be analyzed separately and still follow study procedures.
1
Total8

Withdrawals & dropouts

PeriodReasonFG000FG001FG002
Overall StudyLost to Follow-up010

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicAlternative Treatment GroupTotalControl Treatment GroupTreatment Group
Age, Categorical
<=18 years
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Age, Categorical
>=65 years
1 Participants2 Participants1 Participants0 Participants
Age, Categorical
Between 18 and 65 years
0 Participants6 Participants3 Participants3 Participants
Age, Continuous76.00 Years63.12 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 6.22
60.25 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 4.57
62.66 Years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 2.08
American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Physical Status Classification System
ASA 1
0 Participants2 Participants2 Participants0 Participants
American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Physical Status Classification System
ASA 2
1 Participants4 Participants0 Participants3 Participants
American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Physical Status Classification System
ASA 3
0 Participants2 Participants2 Participants0 Participants
Body Mass Index23.21 Kg/m^230.43 Kg/m^2
STANDARD_DEVIATION 4.77
31.36 Kg/m^2
STANDARD_DEVIATION 2.75
31.59 Kg/m^2
STANDARD_DEVIATION 6.21
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Hispanic or Latino
0 Participants3 Participants2 Participants1 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Not Hispanic or Latino
1 Participants5 Participants2 Participants2 Participants
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
American Indian or Alaska Native
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Asian
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Black or African American
0 Participants1 Participants0 Participants1 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
More than one race
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
Unknown or Not Reported
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race (NIH/OMB)
White
1 Participants7 Participants4 Participants2 Participants
Region of Enrollment
United States
1 participants8 participants4 participants3 participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
1 Participants3 Participants0 Participants2 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
0 Participants5 Participants4 Participants1 Participants
Smoking Status
Former Smoker
1 Participants3 Participants0 Participants2 Participants
Smoking Status
Never Smoked
0 Participants5 Participants4 Participants1 Participants
Smoking Status
Smoker
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
EG001
affected / at risk
EG002
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
0 / 40 / 30 / 1
other
Total, other adverse events
3 / 41 / 31 / 1
serious
Total, serious adverse events
0 / 40 / 30 / 1

Outcome results

Primary

Comparison of Healing by MRI vs US

Comparison of tendon healing will be assessed using US imaging modalities versus MRI (Success as defined by tendon healing after rotator cuff repair, as indicated based on US)

Time frame: As assessed 1 year postoperatively.

ArmMeasureValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Control Treatment GroupComparison of Healing by MRI vs US0 Participants
Treatment GroupComparison of Healing by MRI vs US3 Participants
Alternative Treatment GroupComparison of Healing by MRI vs US1 Participants
Primary

Progress of Tendon Healing

Progress of tendon healing based on US will be used as predictive data for 1 year success (based on primary outcome) (Success as defined by tendon healing after rotator cuff repair, as indicated based on US)

Time frame: As assessed at 9 months postoperatively.

ArmMeasureValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Control Treatment GroupProgress of Tendon Healing0 Participants
Treatment GroupProgress of Tendon Healing3 Participants
Alternative Treatment GroupProgress of Tendon Healing1 Participants
Primary

Progress of Tendon Healing

Progress of tendon healing based on US will be used as predictive data for 1 year success (based on primary outcome) (Success as defined by tendon healing after rotator cuff repair, as indicated based on US)

Time frame: As assessed at 6 months postoperatively.

Population: Ultrasound was not performed in one patient of the control group

ArmMeasureValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Control Treatment GroupProgress of Tendon Healing3 Participants
Treatment GroupProgress of Tendon Healing3 Participants
Alternative Treatment GroupProgress of Tendon Healing1 Participants
Primary

Progress of Tendon Healing

Progress of tendon healing based on US will be used as predictive data for 1 year success (based on primary outcome) (Success as defined by tendon healing after rotator cuff repair, as indicated based on US)

Time frame: As assessed at 3 months postoperatively.

Population: Ultrasound was not performed in 2 patients of the control group

ArmMeasureValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Control Treatment GroupProgress of Tendon Healing1 Participants
Treatment GroupProgress of Tendon Healing3 Participants
Alternative Treatment GroupProgress of Tendon Healing1 Participants
Primary

Progress of Tendon Healing

Progress of tendon healing based on US will be used as predictive data for 1 year success (based on primary outcome) (Success as defined by tendon healing after rotator cuff repair, as indicated based on US)

Time frame: As assessed at 6 weeks postoperatively.

Population: Ultrasound was not performed in one patient of the control group

ArmMeasureValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Control Treatment GroupProgress of Tendon Healing3 Participants
Treatment GroupProgress of Tendon Healing3 Participants
Alternative Treatment GroupProgress of Tendon Healing1 Participants
Primary

Tendon Healing

Success as defined by tendon healing after rotator cuff repair, as indicated based on MRI

Time frame: As assessed 1 year postoperatively.

ArmMeasureValue (COUNT_OF_PARTICIPANTS)
Control Treatment GroupTendon Healing0 Participants
Treatment GroupTendon Healing3 Participants
Alternative Treatment GroupTendon Healing1 Participants
Secondary

Patient Outcomes: Constant Score (CS)

C Constant and A Murley. This scoring system consists of four variables that are used to assess the function of the shoulder. The right and left shoulders are assessed separately. The subjective variables are pain and ADL (sleep, work, recreation / sport) which give a total of 35 points. Constant subjective scale goes from 0 to 35. The higher the score, the better the outcome.

Time frame: 1 year after surgery

Population: One patient in the control group did not complete the survey

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Control Treatment GroupPatient Outcomes: Constant Score (CS)20.33 Units on a scaleStandard Deviation 4.5
Treatment GroupPatient Outcomes: Constant Score (CS)15.66 Units on a scaleStandard Deviation 4.5
Alternative Treatment GroupPatient Outcomes: Constant Score (CS)15.00 Units on a scale
Secondary

Patient Outcomes: Constant Score (CS)

C Constant and A Murley. This scoring system consists of four variables that are used to assess the function of the shoulder. The right and left shoulders are assessed separately. The subjective variables are pain and ADL (sleep, work, recreation / sport) which give a total of 35 points. Constant subjective scale goes from 0 to 35. The higher the score, the better the outcome.

Time frame: 9 months after surgery

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Control Treatment GroupPatient Outcomes: Constant Score (CS)21.00 Units on a scaleStandard Deviation 6.97
Treatment GroupPatient Outcomes: Constant Score (CS)20.33 Units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.57
Alternative Treatment GroupPatient Outcomes: Constant Score (CS)14.00 Units on a scale
Secondary

Patient Outcomes: Constant Score (CS)

C Constant and A Murley. This scoring system consists of four variables that are used to assess the function of the shoulder. The right and left shoulders are assessed separately. The subjective variables are pain and ADL (sleep, work, recreation / sport) which give a total of 35 points. Constant subjective scale goes from 0 to 35. The higher the score, the better the outcome.

Time frame: 6 months after surgery

Population: One patient in the control group did not complete the survey

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Control Treatment GroupPatient Outcomes: Constant Score (CS)18.00 Units on a scaleStandard Deviation 5.56
Treatment GroupPatient Outcomes: Constant Score (CS)21.33 Units on a scaleStandard Deviation 4.16
Alternative Treatment GroupPatient Outcomes: Constant Score (CS)27.00 Units on a scale
Secondary

Patient Outcomes: Constant Score (CS)

C Constant and A Murley. This scoring system consists of four variables that are used to assess the function of the shoulder. The right and left shoulders are assessed separately. The subjective variables are pain and ADL (sleep, work, recreation / sport) which give a total of 35 points. Constant subjective scale goes from 0 to 35. The higher the score, the better the outcome.

Time frame: 3 months after surgery

Population: The patient in the alternative group did not complete the survey

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Control Treatment GroupPatient Outcomes: Constant Score (CS)20.00 Units on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.55
Treatment GroupPatient Outcomes: Constant Score (CS)18.00 Units on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.46
Secondary

Patient Outcomes: Constant Score (CS)

C Constant and A Murley. This scoring system consists of four variables that are used to assess the function of the shoulder. The right and left shoulders are assessed separately. The subjective variables are pain and ADL (sleep, work, recreation / sport) which give a total of 35 points. Constant subjective scale goes from 0 to 35. The higher the score, the better the outcome.

Time frame: 6 weeks after surgery

Population: One patient in the control group did not complete the survey

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Control Treatment GroupPatient Outcomes: Constant Score (CS)18.33 Units on a scaleStandard Deviation 0.57
Treatment GroupPatient Outcomes: Constant Score (CS)15.00 Units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.64
Alternative Treatment GroupPatient Outcomes: Constant Score (CS)13.00 Units on a scale
Secondary

Patient Outcomes: Constant Score (CS)

C Constant and A Murley. This scoring system consists of four variables that are used to assess the function of the shoulder. The right and left shoulders are assessed separately. The subjective variables are pain and ADL (sleep, work, recreation / sport) which give a total of 35 points. Constant subjective scale goes from 0 to 35. The higher the score, the better the outcome.

Time frame: Preoperative

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Control Treatment GroupPatient Outcomes: Constant Score (CS)12.75 Units on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.59
Treatment GroupPatient Outcomes: Constant Score (CS)10.66 Units on a scaleStandard Deviation 6.65
Alternative Treatment GroupPatient Outcomes: Constant Score (CS)9.00 Units on a scale
Secondary

Patient Outcomes: Measurement of Shoulder Activity Level

This activity scale was developed using established principles: item generation, item reduction, pretesting, and reliability and validity testing. The activity rating is a numerical sum of scores for five activities rated on a five-point frequency scale from never performed (0 points) to daily (4 points). Patients were scored on the following criteria: carrying an object 8 lb or heavier by hand, handling objects overhead, weight training with arms, swinging motion (i.e., hitting tennis or golf ball), and lifting objects 25 lb or heavier. It can be used in conjunction with patient-based measures of shoulder outcome to define patient populations for cohort studies, and to assess activity level as a prognostic factor in patients with shoulder disorders. Scores range from 0 to 20. The higher the score, the better the outcome.

Time frame: 9 months after surgery

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Control Treatment GroupPatient Outcomes: Measurement of Shoulder Activity Level7.50 Units on a scaleStandard Deviation 6.55
Treatment GroupPatient Outcomes: Measurement of Shoulder Activity Level12.00 Units on a scaleStandard Deviation 4
Alternative Treatment GroupPatient Outcomes: Measurement of Shoulder Activity Level2.00 Units on a scale
Secondary

Patient Outcomes: Measurement of Shoulder Activity Level

This activity scale was developed using established principles: item generation, item reduction, pretesting, and reliability and validity testing. The activity rating is a numerical sum of scores for five activities rated on a five-point frequency scale from never performed (0 points) to daily (4 points). Patients were scored on the following criteria: carrying an object 8 lb or heavier by hand, handling objects overhead, weight training with arms, swinging motion (i.e., hitting tennis or golf ball), and lifting objects 25 lb or heavier. It can be used in conjunction with patient-based measures of shoulder outcome to define patient populations for cohort studies, and to assess activity level as a prognostic factor in patients with shoulder disorders. Scores range from 0 to 20. The higher the score, the better the outcome.

Time frame: Preoperative

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Control Treatment GroupPatient Outcomes: Measurement of Shoulder Activity Level4.75 Units on a scaleStandard Deviation 5.25
Treatment GroupPatient Outcomes: Measurement of Shoulder Activity Level2.00 Units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.64
Alternative Treatment GroupPatient Outcomes: Measurement of Shoulder Activity Level3.00 Units on a scale
Secondary

Patient Outcomes: Measurement of Shoulder Activity Level

This activity scale was developed using established principles: item generation, item reduction, pretesting, and reliability and validity testing. The activity rating is a numerical sum of scores for five activities rated on a five-point frequency scale from never performed (0 points) to daily (4 points). Patients were scored on the following criteria: carrying an object 8 lb or heavier by hand, handling objects overhead, weight training with arms, swinging motion (i.e., hitting tennis or golf ball), and lifting objects 25 lb or heavier. It can be used in conjunction with patient-based measures of shoulder outcome to define patient populations for cohort studies, and to assess activity level as a prognostic factor in patients with shoulder disorders. Scores range from 0 to 20. The higher the score, the better the outcome.

Time frame: 6 weeks after surgery

Population: One patient in the treatment group did not complete the survey

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Control Treatment GroupPatient Outcomes: Measurement of Shoulder Activity Level2.25 Units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.7
Treatment GroupPatient Outcomes: Measurement of Shoulder Activity Level8.50 Units on a scaleStandard Deviation 12.02
Alternative Treatment GroupPatient Outcomes: Measurement of Shoulder Activity Level14.00 Units on a scale
Secondary

Patient Outcomes: Measurement of Shoulder Activity Level

This activity scale was developed using established principles: item generation, item reduction, pretesting, and reliability and validity testing. The activity rating is a numerical sum of scores for five activities rated on a five-point frequency scale from never performed (0 points) to daily (4 points). Patients were scored on the following criteria: carrying an object 8 lb or heavier by hand, handling objects overhead, weight training with arms, swinging motion (i.e., hitting tennis or golf ball), and lifting objects 25 lb or heavier. It can be used in conjunction with patient-based measures of shoulder outcome to define patient populations for cohort studies, and to assess activity level as a prognostic factor in patients with shoulder disorders. Scores range from 0 to 20. The higher the score, the better the outcome.

Time frame: 3 months after surgery

Population: The patient in the alternative group did not complete the survey

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Control Treatment GroupPatient Outcomes: Measurement of Shoulder Activity Level8.25 Units on a scaleStandard Deviation 6.65
Treatment GroupPatient Outcomes: Measurement of Shoulder Activity Level4.66 Units on a scaleStandard Deviation 7.23
Secondary

Patient Outcomes: Measurement of Shoulder Activity Level

This activity scale was developed using established principles: item generation, item reduction, pretesting, and reliability and validity testing. The activity rating is a numerical sum of scores for five activities rated on a five-point frequency scale from never performed (0 points) to daily (4 points). Patients were scored on the following criteria: carrying an object 8 lb or heavier by hand, handling objects overhead, weight training with arms, swinging motion (i.e., hitting tennis or golf ball), and lifting objects 25 lb or heavier. It can be used in conjunction with patient-based measures of shoulder outcome to define patient populations for cohort studies, and to assess activity level as a prognostic factor in patients with shoulder disorders. Scores range from 0 to 20. The higher the score, the better the outcome.

Time frame: 6 months after surgery

Population: One patient in the control group did not complete the survey

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Control Treatment GroupPatient Outcomes: Measurement of Shoulder Activity Level10.66 Units on a scaleStandard Deviation 8.14
Treatment GroupPatient Outcomes: Measurement of Shoulder Activity Level10.66 Units on a scaleStandard Deviation 9.01
Alternative Treatment GroupPatient Outcomes: Measurement of Shoulder Activity Level9.00 Units on a scale
Secondary

Patient Outcomes: Measurement of Shoulder Activity Level

This activity scale was developed using established principles: item generation, item reduction, pretesting, and reliability and validity testing. The activity rating is a numerical sum of scores for five activities rated on a five-point frequency scale from never performed (0 points) to daily (4 points). Patients were scored on the following criteria: carrying an object 8 lb or heavier by hand, handling objects overhead, weight training with arms, swinging motion (i.e., hitting tennis or golf ball), and lifting objects 25 lb or heavier. It can be used in conjunction with patient-based measures of shoulder outcome to define patient populations for cohort studies, and to assess activity level as a prognostic factor in patients with shoulder disorders. Scores range from 0 to 20. The higher the score, the better the outcome.

Time frame: 1 year after surgery

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Control Treatment GroupPatient Outcomes: Measurement of Shoulder Activity Level12.50 Units on a scaleStandard Deviation 5.8
Treatment GroupPatient Outcomes: Measurement of Shoulder Activity Level11.33 Units on a scaleStandard Deviation 8.5
Alternative Treatment GroupPatient Outcomes: Measurement of Shoulder Activity Level0.00 Units on a scale
Secondary

Patient Outcomes: Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV)

The SSV is defined as a patient's subjective shoulder assessment expressed as a percentage of an entirely normal shoulder, which would score 100%. Scores range from 0 to 100. The higher the score, the better the outcome.

Time frame: 3 months after surgery

Population: The patient in the alternative group did not complete the survey

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Control Treatment GroupPatient Outcomes: Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV)76.25 percentage of entirely normal shoulderStandard Deviation 12.5
Treatment GroupPatient Outcomes: Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV)78.33 percentage of entirely normal shoulderStandard Deviation 12.58
Secondary

Patient Outcomes: Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV)

The SSV is defined as a patient's subjective shoulder assessment expressed as a percentage of an entirely normal shoulder, which would score 100%. Scores range from 0 to 100. The higher the score, the better the outcome.

Time frame: 1 year after surgery

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Control Treatment GroupPatient Outcomes: Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV)85.75 percentage of entirely normal shoulderStandard Deviation 14.56
Treatment GroupPatient Outcomes: Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV)91.66 percentage of entirely normal shoulderStandard Deviation 2.88
Alternative Treatment GroupPatient Outcomes: Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV)75.00 percentage of entirely normal shoulder
Secondary

Patient Outcomes: Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV)

The SSV is defined as a patient's subjective shoulder assessment expressed as a percentage of an entirely normal shoulder, which would score 100%. Scores range from 0 to 100. The higher the score, the better the outcome.

Time frame: 9 months after surgery

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Control Treatment GroupPatient Outcomes: Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV)72.50 percentage of entirely normal shoulderStandard Deviation 26.29
Treatment GroupPatient Outcomes: Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV)83.33 percentage of entirely normal shoulderStandard Deviation 15.27
Alternative Treatment GroupPatient Outcomes: Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV)80.00 percentage of entirely normal shoulder
Secondary

Patient Outcomes: Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV)

The SSV is defined as a patient's subjective shoulder assessment expressed as a percentage of an entirely normal shoulder, which would score 100%. Scores range from 0 to 100. The higher the score, the better the outcome.

Time frame: 6 months after surgery

Population: One patient in the control group and another in the treatment group did not complete the survey

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Control Treatment GroupPatient Outcomes: Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV)71.66 percentage of entirely normal shoulderStandard Deviation 22.54
Treatment GroupPatient Outcomes: Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV)82.50 percentage of entirely normal shoulderStandard Deviation 10.6
Alternative Treatment GroupPatient Outcomes: Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV)75.00 percentage of entirely normal shoulder
Secondary

Patient Outcomes: Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV)

The SSV is defined as a patient's subjective shoulder assessment expressed as a percentage of an entirely normal shoulder, which would score 100%. Scores range from 0 to 100. The higher the score, the better the outcome.

Time frame: 6 weeks after surgery

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Control Treatment GroupPatient Outcomes: Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV)57.75 percentage of entirely normal shoulderStandard Deviation 40.08
Treatment GroupPatient Outcomes: Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV)60.00 percentage of entirely normal shoulderStandard Deviation 20
Alternative Treatment GroupPatient Outcomes: Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV)40.00 percentage of entirely normal shoulder
Secondary

Patient Outcomes: Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV)

The SSV is defined as a patient's subjective shoulder assessment expressed as a percentage of an entirely normal shoulder, which would score 100%. Scores range from 0 to 100. The higher the score, the better the outcome.

Time frame: Preoperative

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Control Treatment GroupPatient Outcomes: Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV)32.50 percentage of entirely normal shoulderStandard Deviation 5
Treatment GroupPatient Outcomes: Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV)36.66 percentage of entirely normal shoulderStandard Deviation 15.27
Alternative Treatment GroupPatient Outcomes: Subjective Shoulder Value (SSV)20.00 percentage of entirely normal shoulder
Secondary

Patient Outcomes: The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeon Shoulder Score (ASES)

The ASES is standardized form for assessment of the shoulder. The patient self-evaluation section form contains visual analog scales for pain and activities of daily living questionnaire. The activities of daily living questionnaire is marked on a four-point ordinal scale that can be converted to a cumulative activities of daily living index. A shoulder score can be derived from the visual analogue scale score for pain (50%) and the cumulative activities of daily living score (50%). Scores range from 0 to 100. The higher the score, the better the outcome.

Time frame: Preoperative

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Control Treatment GroupPatient Outcomes: The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeon Shoulder Score (ASES)50.75 Units on a scaleStandard Deviation 20.15
Treatment GroupPatient Outcomes: The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeon Shoulder Score (ASES)37.66 Units on a scaleStandard Deviation 15.69
Alternative Treatment GroupPatient Outcomes: The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeon Shoulder Score (ASES)52.00 Units on a scale
Secondary

Patient Outcomes: The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeon Shoulder Score (ASES)

The ASES is standardized form for assessment of the shoulder. The patient self-evaluation section form contains visual analog scales for pain and activities of daily living questionnaire. The activities of daily living questionnaire is marked on a four-point ordinal scale that can be converted to a cumulative activities of daily living index. A shoulder score can be derived from the visual analogue scale score for pain (50%) and the cumulative activities of daily living score (50%). Scores range from 0 to 100. The higher the score, the better the outcome.

Time frame: 6 weeks after surgery

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Control Treatment GroupPatient Outcomes: The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeon Shoulder Score (ASES)58.25 Units on a scaleStandard Deviation 20.2
Treatment GroupPatient Outcomes: The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeon Shoulder Score (ASES)58.66 Units on a scaleStandard Deviation 21
Alternative Treatment GroupPatient Outcomes: The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeon Shoulder Score (ASES)45.00 Units on a scale
Secondary

Patient Outcomes: The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeon Shoulder Score (ASES)

The ASES is standardized form for assessment of the shoulder. The patient self-evaluation section form contains visual analog scales for pain and activities of daily living questionnaire. The activities of daily living questionnaire is marked on a four-point ordinal scale that can be converted to a cumulative activities of daily living index. A shoulder score can be derived from the visual analogue scale score for pain (50%) and the cumulative activities of daily living score (50%). Scores range from 0 to 100. The higher the score, the better the outcome.

Time frame: 3 months after surgery

Population: One patient in the control group and another in the alternative group did not complete the survey

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Control Treatment GroupPatient Outcomes: The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeon Shoulder Score (ASES)66.66 Units on a scaleStandard Deviation 21.38
Treatment GroupPatient Outcomes: The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeon Shoulder Score (ASES)74.00 Units on a scaleStandard Deviation 19.05
Secondary

Patient Outcomes: The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeon Shoulder Score (ASES)

The ASES is standardized form for assessment of the shoulder. The patient self-evaluation section form contains visual analog scales for pain and activities of daily living questionnaire. The activities of daily living questionnaire is marked on a four-point ordinal scale that can be converted to a cumulative activities of daily living index. A shoulder score can be derived from the visual analogue scale score for pain (50%) and the cumulative activities of daily living score (50%). Scores range from 0 to 100. The higher the score, the better the outcome.

Time frame: 6 months after surgery

Population: One patient in the control group and another in the alternative group did not complete the survey

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Control Treatment GroupPatient Outcomes: The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeon Shoulder Score (ASES)73.00 Units on a scaleStandard Deviation 26.51
Treatment GroupPatient Outcomes: The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeon Shoulder Score (ASES)77.00 Units on a scaleStandard Deviation 16.52
Secondary

Patient Outcomes: The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeon Shoulder Score (ASES)

The ASES is standardized form for assessment of the shoulder. The patient self-evaluation section form contains visual analog scales for pain and activities of daily living questionnaire. The activities of daily living questionnaire is marked on a four-point ordinal scale that can be converted to a cumulative activities of daily living index. A shoulder score can be derived from the visual analogue scale score for pain (50%) and the cumulative activities of daily living score (50%). Scores range from 0 to 100. The higher the score, the better the outcome.

Time frame: 9 months after surgery

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Control Treatment GroupPatient Outcomes: The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeon Shoulder Score (ASES)82.75 Units on a scaleStandard Deviation 21.96
Treatment GroupPatient Outcomes: The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeon Shoulder Score (ASES)77.66 Units on a scaleStandard Deviation 7.5
Alternative Treatment GroupPatient Outcomes: The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeon Shoulder Score (ASES)60.00 Units on a scale
Secondary

Patient Outcomes: The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeon Shoulder Score (ASES)

The ASES is standardized form for assessment of the shoulder. The patient self-evaluation section form contains visual analog scales for pain and activities of daily living questionnaire. The activities of daily living questionnaire is marked on a four-point ordinal scale that can be converted to a cumulative activities of daily living index. A shoulder score can be derived from the visual analogue scale score for pain (50%) and the cumulative activities of daily living score (50%). Scores range from 0 to 100. The higher the score, the better the outcome.

Time frame: 1 year after surgery

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Control Treatment GroupPatient Outcomes: The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeon Shoulder Score (ASES)85.00 Units on a scaleStandard Deviation 15.03
Treatment GroupPatient Outcomes: The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeon Shoulder Score (ASES)88.00 Units on a scaleStandard Deviation 6.55
Alternative Treatment GroupPatient Outcomes: The American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeon Shoulder Score (ASES)55.00 Units on a scale
Secondary

Patient Outcomes: The Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC)

A disease-specific quality of life measurement tool for patients with rotator cuff disease. Patients will respond to by marking a scale with ranges between none and extreme. Information collected includes physical symptoms, such as pain and weakness levels in the shoulder, the impact of the patient's shoulder injury on their sports/recreational activities, work (inside or outside of the home), lifestyle/activities of daily living (ADL), and its emotional impact, such as frustration level, depression, and any worry/concern a patient might be about how their injury might affect their occupation. Total final WORC scores range from 0% to 100%. The higher the score, the better the outcome.

Time frame: 1 year after surgery

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Control Treatment GroupPatient Outcomes: The Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC)91.50 Percentage of highest functional levelStandard Deviation 15.02
Treatment GroupPatient Outcomes: The Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC)94.33 Percentage of highest functional levelStandard Deviation 7.37
Alternative Treatment GroupPatient Outcomes: The Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC)41.00 Percentage of highest functional level
Secondary

Patient Outcomes: The Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC)

A disease-specific quality of life measurement tool for patients with rotator cuff disease. Patients will respond to by marking a scale with ranges between none and extreme. Information collected includes physical symptoms, such as pain and weakness levels in the shoulder, the impact of the patient's shoulder injury on their sports/recreational activities, work (inside or outside of the home), lifestyle/activities of daily living (ADL), and its emotional impact, such as frustration level, depression, and any worry/concern a patient might be about how their injury might affect their occupation. Total final WORC scores range from 0% to 100%. The higher the score, the better the outcome.

Time frame: 9 months after surgery

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Control Treatment GroupPatient Outcomes: The Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC)71.50 Percentage of highest functional levelStandard Deviation 24.2
Treatment GroupPatient Outcomes: The Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC)86.00 Percentage of highest functional levelStandard Deviation 7
Alternative Treatment GroupPatient Outcomes: The Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC)54.00 Percentage of highest functional level
Secondary

Patient Outcomes: The Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC)

A disease-specific quality of life measurement tool for patients with rotator cuff disease. Patients will respond to by marking a scale with ranges between none and extreme. Information collected includes physical symptoms, such as pain and weakness levels in the shoulder, the impact of the patient's shoulder injury on their sports/recreational activities, work (inside or outside of the home), lifestyle/activities of daily living (ADL), and its emotional impact, such as frustration level, depression, and any worry/concern a patient might be about how their injury might affect their occupation. Total final WORC scores range from 0% to 100%. The higher the score, the better the outcome.

Time frame: 6 months after surgery

Population: One patient in the control group and another in the alternative group did not complete the survey

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Control Treatment GroupPatient Outcomes: The Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC)65.33 Percentage of highest functional levelStandard Deviation 26.57
Treatment GroupPatient Outcomes: The Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC)78.00 Percentage of highest functional levelStandard Deviation 18.38
Secondary

Patient Outcomes: The Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC)

A disease-specific quality of life measurement tool for patients with rotator cuff disease. Patients will respond to by marking a scale with ranges between none and extreme. Information collected includes physical symptoms, such as pain and weakness levels in the shoulder, the impact of the patient's shoulder injury on their sports/recreational activities, work (inside or outside of the home), lifestyle/activities of daily living (ADL), and its emotional impact, such as frustration level, depression, and any worry/concern a patient might be about how their injury might affect their occupation. Total final WORC scores range from 0% to 100%. The higher the score, the better the outcome.

Time frame: 3 months after surgery

Population: The patient in the alternative group did not complete the survey

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Control Treatment GroupPatient Outcomes: The Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC)64.25 Percentage of highest functional levelStandard Deviation 17.3
Treatment GroupPatient Outcomes: The Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC)65.00 Percentage of highest functional levelStandard Deviation 30.64
Secondary

Patient Outcomes: The Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC)

A disease-specific quality of life measurement tool for patients with rotator cuff disease. Patients will respond to by marking a scale with ranges between none and extreme. Information collected includes physical symptoms, such as pain and weakness levels in the shoulder, the impact of the patient's shoulder injury on their sports/recreational activities, work (inside or outside of the home), lifestyle/activities of daily living (ADL), and its emotional impact, such as frustration level, depression, and any worry/concern a patient might be about how their injury might affect their occupation. Total final WORC scores range from 0% to 100%. The higher the score, the better the outcome.

Time frame: 6 weeks after surgery

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Control Treatment GroupPatient Outcomes: The Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC)63.50 Percentage of highest functional levelStandard Deviation 14.34
Treatment GroupPatient Outcomes: The Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC)53.66 Percentage of highest functional levelStandard Deviation 25.92
Alternative Treatment GroupPatient Outcomes: The Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC)26.00 Percentage of highest functional level
Secondary

Patient Outcomes: The Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC)

A disease-specific quality of life measurement tool for patients with rotator cuff disease. Patients will respond to by marking a scale with ranges between none and extreme. Information collected includes physical symptoms, such as pain and weakness levels in the shoulder, the impact of the patient's shoulder injury on their sports/recreational activities, work (inside or outside of the home), lifestyle/activities of daily living (ADL), and its emotional impact, such as frustration level, depression, and any worry/concern a patient might be about how their injury might affect their occupation. Total final WORC scores range from 0% to 100%. The higher the score, the better the outcome.

Time frame: Preoperative

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Control Treatment GroupPatient Outcomes: The Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC)34.25 Percentage of highest functional levelStandard Deviation 19.61
Treatment GroupPatient Outcomes: The Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC)30.00 Percentage of highest functional levelStandard Deviation 11.26
Alternative Treatment GroupPatient Outcomes: The Western Ontario Rotator Cuff Index (WORC)20.00 Percentage of highest functional level
Secondary

The Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey (VR-12) (Mental Component Score)

The Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey (VR-12) was designed to replicate much of the behavior of the Veterans RAND 36 Item Health Survey (VR-36) with a reduced number of questions. The results of the VR-12 are summarized as two scores - a Mental Component Score (MCS) and a Physical Component Score (PCS). These summary scores range from 0 to 100. The higher the score, the better the outcome.

Time frame: 1 year after surgery

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Control Treatment GroupThe Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey (VR-12) (Mental Component Score)37.25 Units on a scaleStandard Deviation 9.77
Treatment GroupThe Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey (VR-12) (Mental Component Score)33.66 Units on a scaleStandard Deviation 9.07
Alternative Treatment GroupThe Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey (VR-12) (Mental Component Score)53.00 Units on a scale
Secondary

The Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey (VR-12) (Mental Component Score)

The Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey (VR-12) was designed to replicate much of the behavior of the Veterans RAND 36 Item Health Survey (VR-36) with a reduced number of questions. The results of the VR-12 are summarized as two scores - a Mental Component Score (MCS) and a Physical Component Score (PCS). These summary scores range from 0 to 100. The higher the score, the better the outcome.

Time frame: Preoperative

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Control Treatment GroupThe Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey (VR-12) (Mental Component Score)43.50 Units on a scaleStandard Deviation 8.34
Treatment GroupThe Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey (VR-12) (Mental Component Score)37.66 Units on a scaleStandard Deviation 19.85
Alternative Treatment GroupThe Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey (VR-12) (Mental Component Score)53.00 Units on a scale
Secondary

The Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey (VR-12) (Mental Component Score)

The Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey (VR-12) was designed to replicate much of the behavior of the Veterans RAND 36 Item Health Survey (VR-36) with a reduced number of questions. The results of the VR-12 are summarized as two scores - a Mental Component Score (MCS) and a Physical Component Score (PCS). These summary scores range from 0 to 100. The higher the score, the better the outcome.

Time frame: 6 weeks after surgery

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Control Treatment GroupThe Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey (VR-12) (Mental Component Score)48.00 Units on a scaleStandard Deviation 7.34
Treatment GroupThe Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey (VR-12) (Mental Component Score)31.33 Units on a scaleStandard Deviation 4.5
Alternative Treatment GroupThe Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey (VR-12) (Mental Component Score)59.00 Units on a scale
Secondary

The Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey (VR-12) (Mental Component Score)

The Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey (VR-12) was designed to replicate much of the behavior of the Veterans RAND 36 Item Health Survey (VR-36) with a reduced number of questions. The results of the VR-12 are summarized as two scores - a Mental Component Score (MCS) and a Physical Component Score (PCS). These summary scores range from 0 to 100. The higher the score, the better the outcome.

Time frame: 3 months after surgery

Population: One patient in the treatment group and another in the alternative group did not complete the survey

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Control Treatment GroupThe Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey (VR-12) (Mental Component Score)37.75 Units on a scaleStandard Deviation 5.67
Treatment GroupThe Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey (VR-12) (Mental Component Score)38.50 Units on a scaleStandard Deviation 2.12
Secondary

The Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey (VR-12) (Mental Component Score)

The Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey (VR-12) was designed to replicate much of the behavior of the Veterans RAND 36 Item Health Survey (VR-36) with a reduced number of questions. The results of the VR-12 are summarized as two scores - a Mental Component Score (MCS) and a Physical Component Score (PCS). These summary scores range from 0 to 100. The higher the score, the better the outcome.

Time frame: 6 months after surgery

Population: One patient in the control group did not complete the survey

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Control Treatment GroupThe Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey (VR-12) (Mental Component Score)47.00 Units on a scaleStandard Deviation 9.84
Treatment GroupThe Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey (VR-12) (Mental Component Score)33.66 Units on a scaleStandard Deviation 11.84
Alternative Treatment GroupThe Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey (VR-12) (Mental Component Score)41.00 Units on a scale
Secondary

The Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey (VR-12) (Mental Component Score)

The Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey (VR-12) was designed to replicate much of the behavior of the Veterans RAND 36 Item Health Survey (VR-36) with a reduced number of questions. The results of the VR-12 are summarized as two scores - a Mental Component Score (MCS) and a Physical Component Score (PCS). These summary scores range from 0 to 100. The higher the score, the better the outcome.

Time frame: 9 months after surgery

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Control Treatment GroupThe Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey (VR-12) (Mental Component Score)40.25 Units on a scaleStandard Deviation 9.5
Treatment GroupThe Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey (VR-12) (Mental Component Score)33.33 Units on a scaleStandard Deviation 5.85
Alternative Treatment GroupThe Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey (VR-12) (Mental Component Score)47.00 Units on a scale
Secondary

The Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey (VR-12) (Physical Component Score)

The Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey (VR-12) was designed to replicate much of the behavior of the Veterans RAND 36 Item Health Survey (VR-36) with a reduced number of questions. The results of the VR-12 are summarized as two scores - a Mental Component Score (MCS) and a Physical Component Score (PCS). These summary scores range from 0 to 100. The higher the score, the better the outcome.

Time frame: Preoperative

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Control Treatment GroupThe Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey (VR-12) (Physical Component Score)42.50 Units on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.1
Treatment GroupThe Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey (VR-12) (Physical Component Score)39.33 Units on a scaleStandard Deviation 6.5
Alternative Treatment GroupThe Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey (VR-12) (Physical Component Score)38.00 Units on a scale
Secondary

The Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey (VR-12) (Physical Component Score)

The Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey (VR-12) was designed to replicate much of the behavior of the Veterans RAND 36 Item Health Survey (VR-36) with a reduced number of questions. The results of the VR-12 are summarized as two scores - a Mental Component Score (MCS) and a Physical Component Score (PCS). These summary scores range from 0 to 100. The higher the score, the better the outcome.

Time frame: 6 weeks after surgery

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Control Treatment GroupThe Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey (VR-12) (Physical Component Score)43.00 Units on a scaleStandard Deviation 6.68
Treatment GroupThe Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey (VR-12) (Physical Component Score)43.33 Units on a scaleStandard Deviation 4.16
Alternative Treatment GroupThe Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey (VR-12) (Physical Component Score)37.00 Units on a scale
Secondary

The Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey (VR-12) (Physical Component Score)

The Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey (VR-12) was designed to replicate much of the behavior of the Veterans RAND 36 Item Health Survey (VR-36) with a reduced number of questions. The results of the VR-12 are summarized as two scores - a Mental Component Score (MCS) and a Physical Component Score (PCS). These summary scores range from 0 to 100. The higher the score, the better the outcome.

Time frame: 3 months after surgery

Population: One patient in the treatment group and another in the alternative group did not complete the survey

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Control Treatment GroupThe Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey (VR-12) (Physical Component Score)52.50 Units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.29
Treatment GroupThe Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey (VR-12) (Physical Component Score)45.50 Units on a scaleStandard Deviation 12.02
Secondary

The Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey (VR-12) (Physical Component Score)

The Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey (VR-12) was designed to replicate much of the behavior of the Veterans RAND 36 Item Health Survey (VR-36) with a reduced number of questions. The results of the VR-12 are summarized as two scores - a Mental Component Score (MCS) and a Physical Component Score (PCS). These summary scores range from 0 to 100. The higher the score, the better the outcome.

Time frame: 6 months after surgery

Population: One patient in the control group did not complete the survey

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Control Treatment GroupThe Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey (VR-12) (Physical Component Score)48.66 Units on a scaleStandard Deviation 9.6
Treatment GroupThe Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey (VR-12) (Physical Component Score)50.00 Units on a scaleStandard Deviation 8.71
Alternative Treatment GroupThe Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey (VR-12) (Physical Component Score)49.00 Units on a scale
Secondary

The Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey (VR-12) (Physical Component Score)

The Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey (VR-12) was designed to replicate much of the behavior of the Veterans RAND 36 Item Health Survey (VR-36) with a reduced number of questions. The results of the VR-12 are summarized as two scores - a Mental Component Score (MCS) and a Physical Component Score (PCS). These summary scores range from 0 to 100. The higher the score, the better the outcome.

Time frame: 9 months after surgery

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Control Treatment GroupThe Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey (VR-12) (Physical Component Score)53.00 Units on a scaleStandard Deviation 8.71
Treatment GroupThe Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey (VR-12) (Physical Component Score)50.66 Units on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.78
Alternative Treatment GroupThe Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey (VR-12) (Physical Component Score)48.00 Units on a scale
Secondary

The Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey (VR-12) (Physical Component Score)

The Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey (VR-12) was designed to replicate much of the behavior of the Veterans RAND 36 Item Health Survey (VR-36) with a reduced number of questions. The results of the VR-12 are summarized as two scores - a Mental Component Score (MCS) and a Physical Component Score (PCS). These summary scores range from 0 to 100. The higher the score, the better the outcome.

Time frame: 1 year after surgery

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Control Treatment GroupThe Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey (VR-12) (Physical Component Score)57.25 Units on a scaleStandard Deviation 3.5
Treatment GroupThe Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey (VR-12) (Physical Component Score)54.33 Units on a scaleStandard Deviation 8.38
Alternative Treatment GroupThe Veterans RAND 12 Item Health Survey (VR-12) (Physical Component Score)37.00 Units on a scale

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026