Defining pseudoparalysis and pseudoparesis: a consensus study

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to establish consensus statements via a modified Delphi process on the definition of shoulder pseudoparalysis and pseudoparesis. A consensus process on the definition of a diagnosis of pseudoparalysis utilizing a modified Delphi technique was conducted, and 26 shoulder/sports surgeons from 11 countries, selected based on their level of expertise in the field, participated in these consensus statements. Consensus was defined as achieving 80%-89% agreement, whereas strong consensus was defined as 90%-99% agreement, and unanimous consensus was indicated by 100% agreement with a proposed statement. Three statements regarding the diagnosis of pseudoparalysis reached strong (>89%) consensus: passive range of motion should be unaffected, the passive range of abduction should not be considered, and diagnosis should be excluded if lidocaine injection produces a substantial improvement in range of motion. Additionally, consensus (>79%) was reached that the active range of external rotation should not be considered for diagnosis, pain as a cause of restricted motion must be excluded, and that distinctions between restricted active flexion and external rotation should be made by range of motion rather than tear characteristics. No consensus could be reached on statements regarding the size, number of tendons or chronicity of cuff tears. Nor was there agreement on the active range of flexion permitted or on the difference between pseudoparalysis and pseudoparesis. A modified Delphi process was utilized to establish consensus on the definition of shoulder pseudoparalysis and pseudoparesis. Unfortunately, almost half of the statements did not reach consensus, and agreement could not be reached across all domains for a unifying definition for the diagnosis of pseudoparalysis in the setting of rotator cuff tears. Furthermore, it was not agreed how or whether pseudoparalysis should be differentiated from pseudoparesis. Based on the lack of a consensus for these terms, studies should report explicitly how these terms are defined when they are used.