Appropriateness of hip osteoarthritis management in clinical practice compared with the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) criteria

Agreement of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Appropriate Use Criteria With Treatment Recommendations From Arthroplasty Surgeons

Background

The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) for Surgical Management of Osteoarthritis of the Knee (2016) and Management of Osteoarthritis of the Hip (2017) are intended to provide treatment recommendations for osteoarthritis (OA). This study examined the agreement of AUC appropriateness classifications with arthroplasty surgeon recommendations for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and total hip arthroplasty (THA).

Methods

The cohort included 558 OA patients (397 knee, 161 hip) referred to a specialty arthroplasty clinic. Surgeons completed the online AAOS AUC patient profiles to generate appropriateness ratings. Surgeons' recommendations for treatment were recorded. We performed univariate and bivariate analyses to evaluate relationships between AUC appropriateness and surgeon recommendations.

Results

The knee OA AUC classified TKA as "appropriate" for 309 (77.8%) of the 397 knee OA patients. Surgeons recommended TKA for 123 (31.0%), resulting in 46.8% (n = 186) higher rate of "appropriate" classification by AUC than TKA recommendation by surgeons. Weighted Cohen's κ demonstrated slight agreement (κ = 0.06, 95% confidence interval: 0.04, 0.09) between AUC appropriateness and surgeon TKA recommendation. The hip OA AUC classified THA as "appropriate" for 98 (60.9%) of the 161 hip OA patients. Surgeons recommended THA for 76 (47.2%), resulting in 13.7% (n = 22) higher rate of "appropriate" classification by AUC than THA recommendation by surgeons. Weighted Cohen's κ demonstrated moderate agreement (κ = 0.47, 95% confidence interval: 0.37, 0.57) between the AUC appropriateness classification and the surgeon's THA recommendation.

Conclusions

AAOS AUC guidelines indicated surgical appropriateness significantly more than arthroplasty surgeons. AUC agreed slightly with surgeons for TKA and moderately for THA.

The diagnostic value of blood sample NGS in patients with early periprosthetic joint infection after total hip arthroplasty

The diagnostic value of next-generation sequencing (NGS) of blood samples from patients with periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after total hip arthroplasty (THA) was evaluated by comparing it with drainage fluid NGS and bacterial culture. The study was designed as a retrospective diagnostic test. Thirty-six infected patients were diagnosed with PJI according to the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria and 57 volunteers were included in our study. NGS and bacterial culture were chosen to detect PJI after THA. Blood samples and drainage fluid were collected for NGS, and the drainage fluid, which was collected at the same time as the NGS drainage fluid sample, was used for bacterial culture. The primary outcomes of interest were sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy. In the infection group, 31 patients showed positive results by blood sample NGS, 33 patients showed positive results by drainage fluid NGS, and 17 patients showed positive bacterial culture results. In the control group, the results of 2 blood sample NGS, 16 drainage fluid NGS, and 3 bacterial cultures were positive. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the blood sample were 0.86, 0.96, and 0.92, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the drainage fluid samples were 0.92, 0.72, and 0.80, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of bacterial culture were 0.47, 0.95, and 0.79, respectively. The study demonstrated that both the sensitivity and specificity of NGS were higher than those of bacterial culture, regardless of the kind of sample. Compared with drainage fluid NGS, the sensitivity of blood sample NGS was slightly lower (0.86 vs 0.92), but blood sample NGS showed higher specificity (0.96 vs 0.72). In total, the diagnostic value of blood sample NGS was superior to that of drainage fluid NGS and bacterial culture. The majority of infected patients could be identified by blood sample NGS. Moreover, because of its high specificity, blood sample NGS can not only detect infectious bacteria but also distinguish infectious from non-infectious bacteria, which is dramatically different from using drainage fluid NGS.

Instruments to assess appropriateness of hip and knee arthroplasty: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To assess criteria and psychometric properties of instruments for assessing appropriateness of elective joint arthroplasty (JA) for adults with primary hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA).

METHODS

A systematic review guided by Cochrane methods and PRISMA guidelines. Studies were searched in five databases. Eligible articles include all study designs developing, testing, and/or using an instrument to assess JA appropriateness. Two independent reviewers screened and extracted data. Instruments were compared with Hawker et al. JA consensus criteria. Psychometric properties of instruments were described and appraised guided by Fitzpatrick's and COSMIN approaches.

RESULTS

Of 55 instruments included, none met all Hawker et al. JA consensus criteria. Criteria the most met were pain (n = 50), function (n = 49), quality of life (n = 33), and radiography (n = 24). Criteria the least met were clinical evidence of OA (n = 18), expectations (n = 15), readiness for surgery (n = 11), conservative treatments (n = 8), and patient/surgeon agree benefits outweigh risks (n = 0). Instrument by Arden et al. met the most criteria (6 of 9). The most tested psychometric properties were appropriateness (n = 55), face/content validity (n = 55), predictive validity (n = 29), construct validity and feasibility (n = 24). The least tested psychometric properties were intra-rater reliability (n = 3), internal consistency (n = 5), and inter-rater reliability (n = 13). Instruments by Gutacker et al. and Osborne et al. met the most psychometric properties (4 of 10).

CONCLUSION

Most instruments included traditional criteria for assessing JA appropriateness but did not include a trial of conservative treatments or shared decision-making elements. There was limited evidence on psychometric properties.