Relevant treatment outcomes for individuals aged 60 and older with massive rotator cuff tears: a qualitative study with 16 patients
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2025.43474Keywords:
Dependence perception, Pain, Patient-reported outcomes, Qualitative research, Rotator cuff, ShoulderAbstract
Background and purpose: Qualitative research on individuals with massive rotator cuff tears (MRCT) is scarce. This study aims to identify the perceptions, concerns, and treatment outcomes relevant to individuals with MRCT of the shoulder, as expected before treatment or experienced afterward.
Methods: A qualitative study was designed using a hermeneutic phenomenological methodology. Purposive sampling was employed to identify potentially eligible patients (diagnosed with MRCT and aged 60–85 years) in the trauma and orthopedic outpatient clinics of 3 hospitals in Spain. The study employed 2 segmentation criteria: type of treatment and timing (before/after treatment). 16 interviews were conducted to capture the patients’ perspective: 9 were semi-structured and 7 were in-depth. Interpretative phenomenological analysis was used, and triangulation was performed by 3 researchers with diverse backgrounds.
Results: The mean age of participants (10 women and 6 men) was 71 years, with most having their dominant limb affected. The analysis revealed 4 themes (13 subthemes): MRCT impact on daily living (shoulder-derived functional limitation, pain, and emotional disturbance); treatment outcomes (recovering independence, pain relief, and social participation); clinical management (communication with health professionals, duration of the diagnostic/therapeutic process, and participation in decision-making); and characteristics of the individual (sex, work, and comorbidity). Special unmet needs were identified for women, with more prolonged diagnostic and therapeutic processes while bearing most household responsibilities.
Conclusion: Recovering independence and pain relief were the principal outcomes from the perspective of patients with MRCT, and social participation and emotional well-being were closely linked. Measuring these outcomes could improve shared decision-making, while addressing systemic barriers to enhance patient participation.
Downloads
References
Luime J, Koes B, Hendriksen I, Burdorf A, Verhagen A, Miedema H, et al. Prevalence and incidence of shoulder pain in the general population; a systematic review. Scand J Rheumatol 2004; 33: 73-81. doi: 10.1080/03009740310004667. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/03009740310004667
Bedi A, Dines J, Warren R F, Dines D M. Massive tears of the rotator cuff. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2010; 92: 1894. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.I.01531. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.I.01531
Habermeyer P, Krieter C, Tang K, Lichtenberg S, Magosch P. A new arthroscopic classification of articular-sided supraspinatus footprint lesions: a prospective comparison with Snyder’s and Ellman’s classification. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2008; 17: 909-13. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2008.06.007. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2008.06.007
Sellers T R, Abdelfattah A, Frankle M A. Massive rotator cuff tear: when to consider reverse shoulder arthroplasty. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 2018; 11: 131-140. doi: 10.1007/s12178-018-9467-2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12178-018-9467-2
Fernández Fairén M, Llopis R, Rodríguez A. [Spanish arthroplasty register]. Rev Esp Cir Ortop Traumatol 2014; 58: 325-6. doi: 10.1016/j.recot.2014.07.001. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.recote.2014.07.006
Vidal C, Lira M J, de Marinis R, Liendo R, Contreras J J. Increasing incidence of rotator cuff surgery: a nationwide registry study in Chile. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2021; 22: 1052. doi: 10.1186/s12891-021-04938-7. PMID: 34930197. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-021-04938-7
Page M J, Huang H, Verhagen A P, Gagnier J J, Buchbinder R. Outcome reporting in randomized trials for shoulder disorders: literature review to inform the development of a core outcome set. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2018; 70: 252-9. doi: 10.1002/acr.23254. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.23254
Schmidt S, Ferrer M, González M, González N, Valderas J M, Alonso J, et al. Evaluation of shoulder-specific patient-reported outcome measures: a systematic and standardized comparison of available evidence. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2014; 23: 434-44. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2013.09.029. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2013.09.029
Aldon-Villegas R, Ridao-Fernández C, Torres-Enamorado D, Chamorro-Moriana G. How to assess shoulder functionality: a systematic review of existing validated outcome measures. Diagnostics (Basel) 2021; 11: 845. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics11050845. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics11050845
Hollinshead R M, Mohtadi N G, Vande Guchte R A, Wadey V M. Two 6-year follow-up studies of large and massive rotator cuff tears: comparison of outcome measures. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2000; 9: 373-81. doi: 10.1067/mse.2000.108389. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1067/mse.2000.108389
Razmjou H, Stratford P, Holtby R. A shortened version of the Western Ontario rotator cuff disability index: development and measurement properties. Physiother Can 2012; 64: 135-44. doi: 10.3138/ptc.2010-51. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3138/ptc.2010-51
Sabo M T, LeBlanc J, Hildebrand K A. Patient gender and rotator cuff surgery: are there differences in outcome? BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2021; 22: 838. doi: 10.1186/s12891-021-04701-y. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-021-04701-y
Page M J, O’Connor D A, Malek M, Haas R, Beaton D, Huang H, et al. Patients’ experience of shoulder disorders: a systematic review of qualitative studies for the OMERACT Shoulder Core Domain Set. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2019; kez046. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kez046. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/kez046
Gillespie M A, Mącznik A, Wassinger C A, Sole G. Rotator cuff-related paIn: patients’ understanding and experiences. Musculoskelet Sci Pract 2017; 30: 64-71. doi: 10.1016/j.msksp.2017.05.009. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.msksp.2017.05.009
Minns Lowe C J, Moser J, Barker K. Living with a symptomatic rotator cuff tear “bad days, bad nights”: a qualitative study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2014; 15: 228. doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-15-228. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-15-228
Barry M J, Edgman-Levitan S. Shared decision making: pinnacle of patient-centered care. N Engl J Med 2012; 366: 780-1. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1109283. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1109283
Green J, Thorogood N. Qualitative methods for health research. 4th ed. London: SAGE Publications; 2018.
Creswell J W. Plano Clark V L. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. 3rd ed. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications; 2017.
Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care 2007; 19: 349-57. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzm042. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzm042
Malterud K, Siersma V D, Guassora A D. Sample size in qualitative interview studies: guided by information power. Qual Health Res 2016; 26: 1753-60. doi: 10.1177/1049732315617444. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315617444
Page M J, Huang H, Verhagen A P, Buchbinder R, Gagnier J J. Identifying a core set of outcome domains to measure in clinical trials for shoulder disorders: a modified Delphi study. RMD Open 2016; 2:e000380. doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2016-000380. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/rmdopen-2016-000380
Arroll B. Questionnaires for depression and anxiety: two screening questions may be helpful. BMJ 2001; 323: 168-9. PMID: 11484726.
Dawson J, Rogers K, Fitzpatrick R, Carr A. The Oxford shoulder score revisited. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2009; 129: 119-23. doi: 10.1007/s00402-007-0549-7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-007-0549-7
Constant C R, Gerber C, Emery R J H, Søjbjerg J O, Gohlke F, Boileau P. A review of the Constant score: modifications and guidelines for its use. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2008; 17: 355-61. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2007.06.022. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2007.06.022
Smith J A, Osborn M. Interpretative phenomenological analysis. In: Qualitative psychology: a practical guide to research methods. London: SAGE Publications; 2008. p. 53-80.
Klem N-R, Bunzli S, Smith A, Shields N. Demystifying qualitative research for musculoskeletal practitioners Part 5: Rigor in qualitative research. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2022; 52: 60-2. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2022.10487. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2022.10487
Ardebol J, Ghayyad K, Hwang S, Pak T, Menendez M E, Denard P J. Patient-reported outcome tools and baseline scores vary by country and region for arthroscopic repair of massive rotator cuff tears: a systematic review. JSES Rev Rep Tech 2023; 3: 312-17. doi: 10.1016/j.xrrt.2023.05.008. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xrrt.2023.05.008
Karjalainen T V, Jain N B, Page C M, Lähdeoja T A, Johnston R V, Salamh P, et al. Subacromial decompression surgery for rotator cuff disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2019; 1: CD005619. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005619.pub3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005619.pub3
Whittle S, Buchbinder R. Rotator cuff disease. Ann Intern Med 2015; 162: ITC1-ITC16. doi: 10.7326/AITC201501060. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7326/AITC201501060
Audigé L, Flury M, Müller A M, Durchholz H. Complications associated with arthroscopic rotator cuff tear repair: definition of a core event set by Delphi consensus process. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2016; 25: 1907-17. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2016.04.036. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2016.04.036
Jones S, Hanchard N, Hamilton S, Rangan A. A qualitative study of patients’ perceptions and priorities when living with primary frozen shoulder. BMJ Open 2013; 3:e003452. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003452. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003452
Hudak P L, Amadio P C, Bombardier C. Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: the DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand) [corrected]. The Upper Extremity Collaborative Group (UECG). Am J Ind Med 1996; 29: 602-8. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0274(199606)29:6<602::AID-AJIM4>3.0.CO; 2-L. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-0274(199606)29:6<602::AID-AJIM4>3.0.CO;2-L
Daniels S D, Stewart C M, Garvey K D, Brook E M, Higgins L D, Matzkin E G. Sex-based differences in patient-reported outcomes after arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. Orthop J Sports Med 2019; 7: 2325967119881959. doi: 10.1177/2325967119881959. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2325967119881959
Gibson E, LeBlanc J, Sabo M T. Intersection of catastrophizing, gender, and disease severity in preoperative rotator cuff surgical patients: a cross-sectional study. J Shoulder Elbow Surg 2019; 28: 2284-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2019.05.014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jse.2019.05.014
Razmjou H, Holtby R, Myhr T. Gender differences in quality of life and extent of rotator cuff pathology. Arthroscopy 2006; 22: 57-62. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2005.10.014. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2005.10.014
Velardo S, Elliott S. Co-interviewing in qualitative social research: prospects, merits and considerations. Intl J Quali Methods 2021; 20: 16094069211054920. doi: 10.1177/16094069211054920. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069211054920
Redman-MacLaren M L, Api U K, Darius M, Tommbe R, Mafile’o T A, MacLaren D J. Co-interviewing across gender and culture: expanding qualitative research methods in Melanesia. BMC Public Health 2014; 14: 922. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-14-922. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-14-922
Additional Files
Published
How to Cite
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Cristina Barrufet, Víctor Zamora, Catalina Lizano-Barrantes, Carlos Torrens, Andrea Burón, Emilio Calvo, Lluis Peidró, Joan Miquel, Raúl Barco, Montse Ferrer
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
