Minimal inter-surgeon agreement on the diagnosis of pseudoparalysis in patients with massive rotator cuff tears

Abstract

Background: Pseudoparalysis is commonly used to describe patients with severe loss of active elevation associated with advanced rotator cuff disease, but its definition in the literature has been variable. This study aimed to determine how 15 expert shoulder surgeons use the term "pseudoparalysis" when presented with clinical cases and assess clinical agreement on the diagnosis of pseudoparalysis.

Methods: Fifteen expert shoulder surgeons were surveyed regarding 18 patients with magnetic resonance imaging-diagnosed massive rotator cuff tears, restricted active range of motion (ROM), full passive ROM, and without advanced rotator cuff arthropathy (Hamada grade <3). The survey included 18 patient vignettes with key clinical details and a deidentified video demonstrating the physical examination of the patient. For all patients, surgeons were instructed to assume that the patient has a full passive ROM. An anteroposterior radiograph and T2 sequences of the patient's coronal, axial, and sagittal magnetic resonance imaging were also provided. After each case, the surgeons were asked: (1) does the patient have pseudoparalysis, and (2) if so, how severe it is. At the end of the patient vignettes, surgeons were asked to define pseudoparalysis using a checklist with predefined options. Surgeons were also asked if there was a difference between the term pseudoparalysis and pseudoparesis. Fleiss' kappa (κ) correlation coefficient was used to determine intersurgeon agreement.

Results: There was minimal inter-rater agreement on the diagnosis of pseudoparalysis (κ = 0.360) and no agreement on describing the severity of pseudoparalysis (κ = -0.057). Although 80% of surgeons stated that an active glenohumeral elevation less than 90° was a diagnostic feature of pseudoparalysis, there was disagreement on the remaining criteria, leading to no agreement on a set of universal criteria that defines pseudoparalysis. A total of 67% included maintained full passive elevation, 33% included the absence of pain, 67% included elevation causing anterosuperior escape, and 27% included an additional unlisted factor. There was minimal agreement among the 15 surgeons on the diagnostic criteria of pseudoparalysis (κ = 0.092). Finally, 7 surgeons stated that pseudoparalysis and pseudoparesis are identical, whereas 8 surgeons stated that they are 2 different clinical diagnoses.

Conclusion: Among this panel of expert shoulder surgeons, there was a lack of consensus on the definition of pseudoparalysis and minimal agreement on the diagnosis of pseudoparalysis based on clinical scenarios. In addition, half the surgeons believed that pseudoparalysis and pseudoparesis are identical, whereas the other half believed that they represent 2 separate clinical entities. A standardized definition of pseudoparalysis would be of value to facilitate communication and research efforts.

Keywords: Pseudoparalysis; patch augmentation; pseudoparesis; reverse total shoulder arthroplasty; rotator cuff repair; rotator cuff tear; superior capsular reconstruction.