Can a single question replace patient-reported outcomes in the follow-up of elbow arthroplasty? A validation study.

Background: To assess the results after elbow arthroplasty it is essential to gather patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). However, the acquisition of PROMs poses a challenge because of potential low literacy, lengthiness and diversity of questionnaires, and questionnaire fatigue. Instead of a questionnaire, patient-reported outcomes can be collected using a single assessment numeric evaluation (SANE), the subjective elbow value (SEV). The aim of this pilot study is to assess the correlation between the SEV and conventionally used patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) after elbow arthroplasty.

Materials And Methods: The SEV was added to our follow-up system in 2021, consisting of a scale from 0 to 10 in which the patients are asked to rate the overall functionality of their elbow, 0 corresponds to very poor functionality and 10 to a perfectly functional or healthy elbow. All patients who underwent elbow arthroplasty (total or radial head) and responded to the SEV question were retrospectively identified and included. The correlation between the SEV at the final follow-up and the Oxford Elbow Score (OES), and between the SEV and the Quick Disbailities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (quickDASH) score was assessed using Pearson's r.

Results: In total, 82 patients responded to the SEV question and were included in the study, with a median follow-up of 5 years [interquartile range (IQR) 3-7]. Of these patients, 17 (21%) underwent radial head arthroplasty and 65 (79%) total elbow arthroplasty. The Pearson's r for the correlation between SEV and OES was 0.502 (p < 0.001) and between the SEV and the QuickDASH -0.537 (p < 0.001), which correspond to a moderate correlation.

Conclusions: The SEV shows a moderate correlation with conventional PROMs, demonstrating its potential in simplifying the follow-up of elbow arthroplasty, possibly decreasing time, costs, and patients' questionnaire fatigue compared with conventional PROM questionnaires.

Evidence Level: III.