Purpose: The aim of this article was to highlight various terminologies and methods of calculation of minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and summarize MCID values of frequently used patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) evaluating total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Materials and methods: PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched through May 2019. Of 71 articles identified, 18 articles matched and underwent a comprehensive analysis for terminologies used to indicate clinical significance, method of calculation, and reported MCID values. Results: MCID was the most common terminology (67% studies) and anchor-based methods were most commonly employed (67% studies) to calculate it. The analytical methods used to calculate and the estimated values of MCID for clinical use are highly variable. MCID values reported for WOMAC scores are 20.5 to 36.0, 17.6 to 33.0 and 12.9 to 25.0 for pain, function and stiffness sub-scales, respectively, and 4.7 to 10.0 for OKS. Conclusion There was lack of standardization in the methodology employed to calculate MCID in the available studies. MCID values reported in this review could be used for patients undergoing TKA, although caution is advised in their interpretation and application.

Background: Our purpose was to evaluate a custom reverse total shoulder arthroplasty glenoid baseplate for severe glenoid deficiency, emphasizing the challenges with this approach, including short-term clinical and radiographic outcomes and complications. Methods: This was a single-institution, retrospective series of 29 patients between January 2017 and December 2022 for whom a custom glenoid component was created for extensive glenoid bone loss. Patients were evaluated preoperatively and at intervals for up to 5 years. All received preoperative physical examinations, plain radiographs, and computed tomography (CT). Intra- and postoperative complications are reported. Results: Of 29 patients, delays resulted in only undergoing surgery, and in three of those, the implant did not match the glenoid. For those three, the time from CT scan to implantation averaged 7.6 months (range, 6.1–10.7 months), compared with 5.5 months (range, 2–8.6 months) for those whose implants fit. In patients with at least 2-year follow-up (n=9), no failures occurred. Significant improvements were observed in all patient-reported outcome measures in those nine patients (American Shoulder and Elbow Score, P<0.01; Simple Shoulder Test, P=0.02; Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation, P<0.01; Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder Index, P<0.01). Range of motion improved for forward flexion and abduction (P=0.03 for both) and internal rotation up the back (P=0.02). Pain and satisfaction also improved (P<0.01 for both). Conclusions Prolonged time (>6 months) from CT scan to device implantation resulted in bone loss that rendered the implants unusable. Satisfactory short-term radiographic and clinical follow-up can be achieved with a well-fitting device.Level of evidence: III.