Preoperative Patient-Centric Predictors of Postoperative Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Arthroscopic Meniscectomy

The PROPr can be measured using different PROMIS domain item sets

BACKGROUND

The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Preference Score (PROPr) is estimated from descriptive health assessments within the PROMIS framework. The underlying item response theory (IRT) allows researchers to measure PROMIS health domains with any subset of items that are calibrated to this domain. Consequently, this should also be true for the PROPr. We aimed to test this assumption using both an empirical and a simulation approach.

METHODS

Empirically, we estimated 3 PROMIS Pain inference (PI) scores from 3 different item subsets in a sample of n=199 cancer patients: 4 PROMIS-29 items (estimate: θ4), the 2 original PROPr items (θ2), and 10 different items (θ10). We calculated mean differences and agreement between θ4, and θ2 and θ10, respectively, and between their resulting PROPr4, PROPr2, PROPr10, using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Bland-Altman (B-A) plots with 95 %-Limits of Agreement (LoA). For the simulation, we used the IRT-model to calculate all item responses of the entire 7 PROPr domain item banks from the empirically observed PROMIS-29+cognition θ. From these simulated item banks, we chose the 2 original PROPr items per domain to calculate PROPrsim and compared it to PROPr4 again using ICC and B-A plots.

RESULTS

θ4 vs θ10 showed smaller bias (-0.012, 95 %-LoA -0.88;0.85) than θ4 vs θ2 (0.025, 95 %-LoA -0.95;1.00. ICC>0.85 (p<0.001) in both θ-comparisons. PROPr4 vs PROPr10 showed lower bias (0.0012, 95 %-LoA -0.039;0.042) than PROPr4 vs PROPr2 (-0.0029, 95 %-LoA -0.049;0.044). ICC>0.98 (p<0.0001) on both PROPr-comparisons. Mean PROPrsim was larger than mean PROPr4 (0.0228, 95 %-LoA -0.1103; 0.1558) and ICC was 0.95 (95 %CI 0.93; 0.97).

CONCLUSION

Different item subsets can be used to estimate the PROMIS PI for calculation of the PROPr. Reduction to 2 items per domain rather than 4 does not significantly change the PROPr estimate on average. Agreements differ across the spectrum and in individual comparisons.

Preoperative Predictors of Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Arthroscopic Partial Meniscectomy

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effect of patient demographics and injury characteristics on post-arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (post-APM) patient-reported outcomes (PROs). We hypothesize that the presence of high-grade (Kellgren-Lawrence grades 3-4) arthritis at any location of the knee (medial and lateral compartments, patella, trochlea), comorbidities (psychiatric history, chronic pain, diabetes, smoking, body mass index [BMI] ≥ 30), and lower scores on preoperative patient-reported measures (36-Item Short Form Health Survey [SF-36]) would predict poor outcomes after APM. We conducted a single-center prospective study of 92 patients who underwent APM surgery for associated knee pain. General demographic information and PROs were prospectively collected using SF-12, SF-36, and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) surveys presurgery and at 6-month follow-up. Postsurgery outcomes were patient-reported satisfaction (yes/no) and obtaining a patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) on IKDC. Data were analyzed with odds ratios (ORs), binomial logistic regression, and Mann-Whitney U test using IBM SPSS software. Demographic and injury characteristics that were poor prognostic indicators (had a decreased likelihood of obtaining PASS on IKDC postsurgery) included having Medicaid insurance (OR: 0.056; 0.003-1.00), chronic pain (OR: 0.106; 0.013-0.873), acute injury (OR: 0.387; 0.164-0.914), and high-grade (KL grades 3-4) medial compartment arthritis (OR: 0.412; 0.174-0.980), and preoperative SF-36 physical health score (PHS; p = 0.023) and mental health score (MHS; p = 0.006) values less than 47 and 48, respectively. Additionally, former smoking history (OR: 0.271; 0.079-0.928) showed a lower likelihood of being satisfied postsurgery. Not having psychiatric history (OR: 14.925; p < 0.001; increased likelihood of obtaining PASS on IKDC score postsurgery) and not having patellar arthritis (OR: 4.082; p = 0.025; increased likelihood of PASS on IKDC) were positive prognostic indicators. This study identifies predictive factors of poor outcomes post-APM; particularly, it highlights the usefulness of SF-36 surveys prior to APM surgery. Patients with low SF-36 score preoperatively may not find APM acceptable. Additional attention should be put on patient demographics (such as psychiatric history, chronic pain, and insurance type) and injury characteristics (presence of arthritis and acute injury) prior to performing APM. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE:  II.

The Association between the Extent of the Osteoarthritic Meniscus Degeneration and Cigarette Smoking-A Pilot Study

Background and Objectives: The negative effects of smoking on the musculoskeletal system were presented by many authors, although the relationship between smoking and osteoarthritis remains unclear. The aim of this paper was to investigate the negative effects of smoking on meniscal tissue in osteoarthritic knees by microscopic examination, by adapting the Bonar scoring system and its modifications. Materials and Methods: The study involved 34 patients with varus knees, from whom 65 samples of knee menisci were obtained. The mean age in the studied group was 65.385 years. The smoking status of the patients concluded that there were 13 smokers and 21 nonsmokers. Results: Among smokers, the mean classical Bonar score was 8.42 and the mean modified Bonar score was 6.65, while nonsmokers were characterized by scores of 8.51 and 7.35, respectively. There was a statistically significant negative correlation between the number of cigarettes and the collagen in the medial meniscus (p = 0.0197). Moreover, in the medial meniscus, the modified Bonar score correlated negatively with the number of cigarettes (p = 0.0180). Similarly, such a correlation was observed between the number of cigarettes and the modified Bonar score in the lateral meniscus (p = 0.04571). Furthermore, no correlation was identified between the number of cigarettes and the classical Bonar score in the lateral meniscus. There was a statistically significant difference in the collagen variable value between the smokers and nonsmokers groups (p = 0.04525). Conclusions: The microscopic investigation showed no differences in the menisci of smokers and nonsmokers, except for the collagen, which was more organized in smokers. Moreover, the modified Bonar score was correlated negatively with the number of cigarettes, which supports the role of neovascularization in meniscus pathology under the influence of tobacco smoking.

Pearls and pitfalls of PROMIS clinically significant outcomes in orthopaedic surgery

INTRODUCTION

Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) was developed as a uniform and generalizable PROM system using item response theory and computer adaptive testing. We aimed to assess the utilization of PROMIS for clinically significant outcomes (CSOs) measurements and provide insights into its use in orthopaedic research.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We reviewed PROMIS CSO reports for orthopaedic procedures via PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science from inception to 2022, excluding abstracts and missing measurements. Bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and questionnaire compliance. PROMIS domains, CSO measures, and study populations were described. A meta-analysis compared distribution and anchor-based MCIDs in low-bias (NOS ≥ 7) studies.

RESULTS

Overall, 54 publications from 2016 to 2022 were reviewed. PROMIS CSO studies were observational with increasing publication rates. Evidence-level was II in 10/54, bias low in 51/54, and compliance ≥ 86% in 46/54. Most (28/54) analysed lower extremity procedures. PROMIS domains examined Pain Function (PF) in 44/54, Pain Interference (PI) in 36/54, and Depression (D) in 18/54. Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was reported in 51/54 and calculated based on distribution in 39/51 and anchor in 29/51. Patient acceptable symptom state (PASS), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), and minimal detectable change (MDC) were reported in ≤ 10/54. MCIDs were not significantly greater than MDCs. Anchor-based MCIDs were greater than distribution based MCIDs (standardized mean difference = 0.44, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

PROMIS CSOs are increasingly utilized, especially for lower extremity procedures assessing the PF, PI, and D domains using distribution-based MCID. Using more conservative anchor-based MCIDs and reporting MDCs may strengthen results. Researchers should consider unique pearls and pitfalls when assessing PROMIS CSOs.

Determining the clinical significance of the PROMIS physical function score in the setting of femur fractures

BACKGROUND

To adequately utilize patient reported outcome scores in the clinical setting, accurate determination of a cohort-specific minimal clinically important differences (MCID) is necessary. The purpose of this study was to assess MCID for Patient Reported Outcome Information System Physical Function Scores (PROMIS®) Physical Function (PF) in a sample of patients who have undergone operative fixation for femur fractures.

METHODS

All patients at a single Level 1 trauma center who were treated for operative femur fractures were identified by Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes (27,244, 27,245, 27,506, 27,507). PROMIS PF was collected as part of routine clinical care via computer adaptive testing (CAT). MCID calculations were performed using both anchor-based and distribution-based methods.

RESULTS

A total of 182 patients with 723 score observations were included in the overall distribution-based analysis and 131 patients with 309 score observations were included in the anchor-based analysis. In the overall cohort, the average age was 53.1 (SD 22.3), and 45% of participants were female. MCID for PROMIS PF scores was 5.43 in the distribution-based method and 5.18 in the anchor-based method. Overall scores in the distribution group improved from mean of 27.4 (SD 7.0) at the first postoperative visit to a mean of 36.7 (SD 10.0) at a subsequent follow up visit. Overall scores in the anchor group improved from mean of 26.7 (SD 7.3) at the first postoperative visit to a mean of 37.5 (SD 9.3) at a subsequent follow up visit.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identifies two MCID values (5.18, 5.43) based on two calculation methods for PROMIS physical function scores in the operative femur fracture population. This data could be helpful in targeting postoperative patients who fall below expected norms or in allowing clinical correlation with changes in surgical practice.

A comparison of pain, fatigue, and function between post-COVID-19 condition, fibromyalgia, and chronic fatigue syndrome: a survey study

ABSTRACT

A growing number of individuals report prolonged symptoms following acute Coronavirus-19 (COVID-19) infection, known as post-COVID-19 condition (post-COVID-19). While studies have emerged investigating the symptom sequelae of post-COVID-19, there has been limited investigation into the characterization of pain, fatigue, and function in these individuals, despite initial reports of a clinical phenotype similar to fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS) and chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS)/myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME). This study aimed to characterize multiple symptom domains in individuals reporting post-COVID-19 and compare its clinical phenotype with those with FMS and CFS. A total of 707 individuals with a single or comorbid diagnosis of post-COVID-19, FMS, and/or CFS completed multiple surveys assessing self-reported pain, fatigue, physical and cognitive function, catastrophizing, kinesiophobia, anxiety, depression, dyspnea, and sleep quality. In all 3 diagnoses, elevated pain, fatigue, anxiety, depression, catastrophizing, and kinesiophobia were reported. Physical and cognitive function were similarly impacted among individuals with post-COVID-19, FMS, and CFS; however, individuals with post-COVID-19 reported lower pain and fatigue than FMS and CFS. The comorbid diagnosis of post-COVID-19 with FMS and/or CFS further exacerbated pain, fatigue, and psychological domains when compared with post-COVID-19 alone. In summary, individuals with post-COVID-19 report a symptom phenotype similar to FMS and CFS, negatively impacting cognitive and physical function, but with less severe pain and fatigue overall. These findings may help direct future investigations of the benefit of a biopsychosocial approach to the clinical management of post-COVID-19.

Pre-Visit Digital Messaging Improves Patient-Reported Outcome Measure Participation Prior to the Orthopaedic Ambulatory Visit: Results from a Double-Blinded, Prospective, Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are metrics that assess physical health, mental health, pain, and satisfaction. However, PROM collection in orthopaedic clinics presents numerous logistical and financial challenges. These challenges are reduced when PROMs are completed before clinic encounters, relieving the workflow constraints of in-office PROM collection. The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy of 3 different methods with respect to pre-visit electronic PROM completion.

METHODS

Consecutive adult orthopaedic patients with no previous PROM participation were enrolled. Patients who registered with the electronic medical record (EMR) patient portal (MyChart) and with active e-mail addresses were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 arms: control (no pre-visit messages), MyChart (EMR patient portal pre-visit messages), and e-mail (e-mail pre-visit messages). The primary outcome measure was pre-visit PROM completion rates in orthopaedic patients, and the secondary outcome measures were time to pre-visit PROM form completion and PROM form completion rates according to patient demographic characteristics. By default, the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) forms were available for completion through the portal by 7 days before scheduled visits. Pre-visit messages were sent 7 days prior to the scheduled visit except in the control group, with reminders sent 3 days prior if still not completed. The patients in each arm who completed all assigned forms were labeled as having total PROM completion, and those who completed at least 1 completed form were considered as having partial PROM completion. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess differences in PROM completion rates between study arms. Kruskal-Wallis tests were performed to compare the date of the form completion.

RESULTS

A total of 291 patients were included. The pre-visit total completion rates for assigned PROMs were higher in the MyChart arm (49% of 97 patients; p = 0.005) and the e-mail arm (52% of 100 patients; p = 0.002) in comparison with the control arm (30% of 94 patients). Male patients were more likely than female patients to have partial pre-visit PROM completion (odds ratio [OR], 1.74; p = 0.03), and Caucasian patients were more likely to have partial pre-visit PROM completion than African American patients (OR, 2.28; p = 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Orthopaedic patients receiving either e-mail or patient portal messages demonstrated higher pre-visit PROM completion rates. Pre-visit messaging appears to be a useful strategy for increasing PROM completion rates and limiting the clinical workflow strain imposed by in-clinic PROM administration.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Approximately One Half of Patients Greater Than 40 Years Old Achieve Patient Acceptable Symptomatic State 6 Months After Arthroscopic Partial Meniscectomy

Purpose

The purposes of this study were to 1) calculate the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in a population of patients undergoing arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) based on Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcomes Scores (KOOS), 2) quantify the difference between the proportion of patients reaching MCID based on KOOS versus the proportion who considered surgery to be successful based on a "yes" answer to a patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) question, and 3) calculate the percentage of patients experiencing treatment failure (TF).

Methods

A large, single-institution clinical database was queried for patients undergoing isolated APM (>40 years of age). Data were collected at regular time intervals, including KOOS and PASS outcome measures. Calculation of MCID using a distribution-based model was performed using preoperative KOOS scores as baseline. Comparison of the proportion of patients surpassing MCID was made to the proportion of patients answering "yes" to a tiered PASS question at 6 months after APM. Proportion of patients experiencing TF was calculated using patients who responded "no" to a PASS question and "yes" to a TF question.

Results

Three-hundred and fourteen of 969 patients met inclusion criteria. At 6 months following APM, the percentage of patients meeting or exceeding the MCID for each respective KOOS subscore ranged from 64 to 72% compared to 48% who achieved a PASS (P < .0001 for each subscore). Fourteen percent of patients experienced TF.

Conclusions

Six months after APM, approximately one half of the patients achieved a PASS and 15% experienced TF. The difference between achieving MCID based on each of the KOOS subscores and achieving success via PASS ranged from 16% to 24%. Thirty-eight percent of patients undergoing APM did not fit neatly into overt success or failure categorization.

Level of Evidence

Level III, retrospective cohort study.

What Is the Clinical Benefit of Common Orthopaedic Procedures as Assessed by the PROMIS Versus Other Validated Outcomes Tools?

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), including the Patient-reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS), are increasingly used to measure healthcare value. The minimum clinically important difference (MCID) is a metric that helps clinicians determine whether a statistically detectable improvement in a PROM after surgical care is likely to be large enough to be important to a patient or to justify an intervention that carries risk and cost. There are two major categories of MCID calculation methods, anchor-based and distribution-based. This variability, coupled with heterogeneous surgical cohorts used for existing MCID values, limits their application to clinical care.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

In our study, we sought (1) to determine MCID thresholds and attainment percentages for PROMIS after common orthopaedic procedures using distribution-based methods, (2) to use anchor-based MCID values from published studies as a comparison, and (3) to compare MCID attainment percentages using PROMIS scores to other validated outcomes tools such as the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS) and Knee Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS).

METHODS

This was a retrospective study at two academic medical centers and three community hospitals. The inclusion criteria for this study were patients who were age 18 years or older and who underwent elective THA for osteoarthritis, TKA for osteoarthritis, one-level posterior lumbar fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis or spondylolisthesis, anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty or reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for glenohumeral arthritis or rotator cuff arthropathy, arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, arthroscopic partial meniscectomy, or arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. This yielded 14,003 patients. Patients undergoing revision operations or surgery for nondegenerative pathologies and patients without preoperative PROMs assessments were excluded, leaving 9925 patients who completed preoperative PROMIS assessments and 9478 who completed other preoperative validated outcomes tools (HOOS, KOOS, numerical rating scale for leg pain, numerical rating scale for back pain, and QuickDASH). Approximately 66% (6529 of 9925) of patients had postoperative PROMIS scores (Physical Function, Mental Health, Pain Intensity, Pain Interference, and Upper Extremity) and were included for analysis. PROMIS scores are population normalized with a mean score of 50 ± 10, with most scores falling between 30 to 70. Approximately 74% (7007 of 9478) of patients had postoperative historical assessment scores and were included for analysis. The proportion who reached the MCID was calculated for each procedure cohort at 6 months of follow-up using distribution-based MCID methods, which included a fraction of the SD (1/2 or 1/3 SD) and minimum detectable change (MDC) using statistical significance (such as the MDC 90 from p < 0.1). Previously published anchor-based MCID thresholds from similar procedure cohorts and analogous PROMs were used to calculate the proportion reaching MCID.

RESULTS

Within a given distribution-based method, MCID thresholds for PROMIS assessments were similar across multiple procedures. The MCID threshold ranged between 3.4 and 4.5 points across all procedures using the 1/2 SD method. Except for meniscectomy (3.5 points), the anchor-based PROMIS MCID thresholds (range 4.5 to 8.1 points) were higher than the SD distribution-based MCID values (2.3 to 4.5 points). The difference in MCID thresholds based on the calculation method led to a similar trend in MCID attainment. Using THA as an example, MCID attainment using PROMIS was achieved by 76% of patients using an anchor-based threshold of 7.9 points. However, 82% of THA patients attained MCID using the MDC 95 method (6.1 points), and 88% reached MCID using the 1/2 SD method (3.9 points). Using the HOOS metric (scaled from 0 to 100), 86% of THA patients reached the anchor-based MCID threshold (17.5 points). However, 91% of THA patients attained the MCID using the MDC 90 method (12.5 points), and 93% reached MCID using the 1/2 SD method (8.4 points). In general, the proportion of patients reaching MCID was lower for PROMIS than for other validated outcomes tools; for example, with the 1/2 SD method, 72% of patients who underwent arthroscopic partial meniscectomy reached the MCID on PROMIS Physical Function compared with 86% on KOOS.

CONCLUSION

MCID calculations can provide clinical correlation for PROM scores interpretation. The PROMIS form is increasingly used because of its generalizability across diagnoses. However, we found lower proportions of MCID attainment using PROMIS scores compared with historical PROMs. By using historical proportions of attainment on common orthopaedic procedures and a spectrum of MCID calculation techniques, the PROMIS MCID benchmarks are realizable for common orthopaedic procedures. For clinical practices that routinely collect PROMIS scores in the clinical setting, these results can be used by individual surgeons to evaluate personal practice trends and by healthcare systems to quantify whether clinical care initiatives result in meaningful differences. Furthermore, these MCID thresholds can be used by researchers conducting retrospective outcomes research with PROMIS.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

Risk factors for failure to achieve minimal clinically important difference and significant clinical benefit in PROMIS computer adaptive test domains in patients undergoing rotator cuff repair

BACKGROUND

The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) has emerged as a valid and efficient means of collecting outcomes in patients with rotator cuff tears. The purpose of this study was to establish threshold score changes to determine minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) in PROMIS computer adaptive test (CAT) scores following rotator cuff repair (RCR). Additionally, we sought to identify potential risk factors for failing to achieve MCID and SCB.

METHODS

Patients undergoing arthroscopic RCR were identified over a 24-month period. Only patients who completed both preoperative and postoperative PROMIS CAT assessments were included in this cohort. PROMIS CAT forms for upper extremity physical function (PROMIS-UE), pain interference (PROMIS-PI), and depression (PROMIS-D) were used with a minimum of 1.5-year follow-up. Statistical analysis was performed to determine threshold score changes to determine anchor-based MCID and SCB, as well as risk factors for failure to achieve significant clinical improvement following surgery.

RESULTS

Of 198 eligible patients, 168 (84.8%) were included in analysis. ΔPROMIS-UE values of 5.8 and 9.7 (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.906 and 0.949, respectively) and ΔPROMIS-PI values of -11.4 and -12.9 (AUC = 0.875 and 0.938, respectively) were identified as threshold predictors of MCID and SCB achievement. On average, 81%, 65%, and 55% of patients achieved MCID for PROMIS-UE, PROMIS-PI, and PROMIS-D whereas 71%, 61%, and 38% of patients in the cohort, respectively, achieved SCB. MCID achievement in PROMIS-UE significantly differed according to risk factors, including smoking status (likelihood ratio [LR]: 9.8, P = .037), tear size (LR: 10.4, P < .001), distal clavicle excision (LR: 6.1, P = .005), and prior shoulder surgery (LR: 19.2, P < .001). Factors influencing SCB achievement for PROMIS-UE were smoking status (LR: 9.3, P = .022), tear size (LR: 8.0, P = .039), and prior shoulder surgery (11.9, P < .001). Significantly different rates of MCID and SCB achievement in PROMIS-PI for smoking status (LR: 7.0, P = .030, and LR: 5.2, P = .045) and prior shoulder surgery (LR: 9.1, P = .002, and LR: 7.4, P = .006) were also identified.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The majority of patients showed clinically significant improvements that exceeded the established MCID for PROMIS-UE and PROMIS-PI following RCR. Patients with larger tear sizes, a history of prior shoulder surgery, tobacco users, and those who received concomitant distal clavicle excision were at risk for failing to achieve MCID in PROMIS-UE. Additionally, smokers and patients who underwent prior shoulder surgery demonstrated significantly lower improvements in pain scores following surgery.

Demographic and Clinical Characteristics Associated With the Failure of Nonoperative Management of Uncomplicated Appendicitis in Children: Secondary Analysis of a Nonrandomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

The factors associated with the failure of nonoperative management of appendicitis and the differences in patient-reported outcomes between successful and unsuccessful nonoperative management remain unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate factors associated with the failure of nonoperative management of appendicitis and compare patient-reported outcomes between patients whose treatment succeeded and those whose treatment failed.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This study was a planned subgroup secondary analysis conducted in 10 children's hospitals that included 370 children aged 7 to 17 years with uncomplicated appendicitis enrolled in a prospective, nonrandomized clinical trial between May 1, 2015, and October 31, 2018, with 1-year follow-up comparing nonoperative management with antibiotics vs surgery for uncomplicated appendicitis. Statistical analysis was performed from November 1, 2019, to February 12, 2022.

INTERVENTIONS

Nonoperative management with antibiotics vs surgery.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Failure of nonoperative management and patient-reported outcomes. The relative risk (RR) of failure based on sociodemographic and clinical characteristics was calculated. Patient-reported outcomes were compared based on the success or failure of nonoperative management.

RESULTS

Of 370 patients (34.6% of 1068 total patients; 229 boys [61.9%]; median age, 12.3 years [IQR, 10.0-14.6 years]) enrolled in the nonoperative group, treatment failure occurred for 125 patients (33.8%) at 1 year, with 53 patients (14.3%) undergoing appendectomy during initial hospitalization and 72 patients (19.5%) experiencing delayed treatment failure after hospital discharge. Higher patient-reported pain at presentation was associated with increased risk of in-hospital treatment failure (RR, 2.1 [95% CI, 1.0-4.4]) but not delayed treatment failure (RR, 1.3 [95% CI, 0.7-2.3]) or overall treatment failure at 1 year (RR, 1.5 [95% CI, 1.0-2.2]). Pain duration greater than 24 hours was associated with decreased risk of delayed treatment failure (RR, 0.3 [95% CI, 0.1-1.0]) but not in-hospital treatment failure (RR, 1.2 [95% CI, 0.5-2.7]) or treatment failure at 1 year (RR, 0.7 [95% CI, 0.4-1.2]). There was no increased risk of treatment failure associated with age, white blood cell count, sex, race, ethnicity, primary language, insurance status, transfer status, symptoms at presentation, or imaging results. Health care satisfaction at 30 days and patient-reported, health-related quality of life at 30 days and 1 year were not different. Satisfaction with the decision was higher with successful nonoperative management at 30 days (28.0 vs 27.0; difference, 1.0 [95% CI, 0.01-2.0]) and 1 year (28.1 vs 27.0; difference, 1.1 [95% CI, 0.2-2.0]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This analysis suggests that a higher pain level at presentation was associated with a higher risk of initial failure of nonoperative management and that a longer duration of pain was associated with lower risk of delayed treatment failure. Although satisfaction was high in both groups, satisfaction with the treatment decision was higher among patients with successful nonoperative management at 1 year.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02271932.

Maximum subjective outcome improvement is reported by 3 Months following arthroscopic partial meniscectomy: A systematic review

Purpose

To review patient outcomes in the literature following arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) in order to identify when patients report reaching subjective maximal improvement postoperatively.

Methods

A systematic review of the literature from January 2004 to August 2019 was conducted using PRISMA guidelines to identify articles evaluating patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) up to a minimum of 6 months after APM in patients >18 years old. Studies were excluded if additional interventions were performed such as repairs, ligamentous reconstruction or repair, cartilaginous manipulation, or revision surgery. PROMs were pooled between studies at preoperative, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 year time points. Weighted averages were used within a mixed model method in order to account for the differences in sample size and variance among studies. Significant improvements in PROMs at various time intervals were statistically analyzed using minimal clinically important difference.

Results

A total of 12 studies including 1663 patients who underwent APM were selected for the review. The pooled cohort consisted of 1033 (62%) males and 630 (38%) females. Significant improvements were demonstrated from preoperative scores to 3 months postoperatively in Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score subcategories, Lysholm, and visual analog scale scores while no differences were found for Tegner and International Knee Documentation Committee scores. Although statistically significant improvement in PROMs remained at all postoperative time points compared to preoperative scores, no significant differences were observed after 3 months postoperatively.

Conclusions

Patients undergoing APM had significant mean changes in legacy PROMs by 3 months postoperatively that exceeded given minimal clinically important difference values, without further clinically important improvement reported up to 2 years postoperatively.

Study design

Level III, systematic review.

Editorial Commentary: Preoperative Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Scores Vary Over Time

Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) scores have considerable potential to both streamline the collection of outcome data and provide a common set of metrics to compare and benchmark patient-reported outcomes after orthopaedic procedures. An analysis of PROMIS scores collected at the preoperative clinical visit and the day of surgery found considerable changes in upper- and lower-extremity physical function, pain interference, and depression. These findings suggest that health status may vary between the day of operative consent and the day of surgery. Given the importance of patient-reported outcomes in clinical research, quality assurance, and value-based health care, the potential for large changes in scores leading up to the procedure warrants attention toward the timing of PROMIS administration to ensure that the health status of the patient-and its variation-is accurately captured.

Preoperative Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Computerized Adaptive Testing (PROMIS CAT) Scores Predict Achievement of Minimum Clinically Important Difference Following Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using an Anchor-Based Methodology

PURPOSE

To determine the change in Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Computerized Adaptive Testing (PROMIS CAT) scores for physical function, pain interference, and depression that constitute minimum clinically important difference (MCID) using an anchor-based technique and to identify pre-operative clinical thresholds in anchor-based MCID that predict likelihood of achieving MCID following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.

METHODS

Adult patients aged 18 years or older undergoing ACL reconstruction that completed both preoperative and postoperative PROMIS CAT assessments and an anchor-based questionnaire were identified over a 23-month period. Anchor-based MCID was determined for PROMIS CAT forms for physical function (PROMIS PF CAT), pain interference (PROMIS PI CAT), and depression (PROMIS D CAT).

RESULTS

A total of 137 patients were included for statistical analysis, with pre-operative PROMIS CAT forms completed 27.9 ± 31.2 days before surgery and 492.5 ± 219.9 days postoperatively on average. Statistically significant improvements were observed for all PROMIS CAT domains. PROMIS PF CAT improved from 39.5 ± 8.2 to 55.0 ± 9.7 (P < .0005), PROMIS PI CAT from 59.8 ± 7.2 to 48.2 ± 8.3 (P < .0005), and PROMIS D CAT from 47.9 ± 8.8 to 41.5 ± 8.6 (P < .0005). Anchor-based MCID for each PROMIS CAT form was calculated to be +4.5, -5.4, and -4.1 for PROMIS PF CAT, PROMIS PI CAT, and PROMIS D CAT, respectively. Mean difference between preoperative and postoperative PROMIS CAT scores exceeded MCID for all domains. The percentage of patients achieving MCID for PROMIS PF CAT, PROMIS PI CAT, and PROMIS D CAT was 85%, 72%, and 55%, respectively. After introduction of 95% specificity cutoffs, the percentage of patients achieving MCID for PROMIS PF CAT, PROMIS PI CAT, and PROMIS D CAT increased to 100% (<35.6 cutoff score), 92% (>65.7 cutoff score), and 83% (>57.5 cutoff score), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

According to anchor-based analysis of PROMIS CAT MCID, ACL reconstruction is effective in improving physical function, pain interference, and depression symptoms. In addition, preoperative PROMIS CAT scores can predict the likelihood of achieving MCID postoperatively.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, prognostic case series.

Editorial Commentary: Preoperative Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Scores Predict Which Patients Will Benefit From Arthroscopic Meniscectomy: To Scope or Not to Scope?

Despite its widespread use and low complication rates, arthroscopic meniscectomy has not been uniformly successful in all patients, especially in those with concurrent osteoarthritis. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) is an initiative funded by the National Institutes of Health to develop and validate patient-reported outcomes for clinical research and practice. PROMIS has shown the ability to enhance and standardize measurement of a variety of health domains affecting musculoskeletal function and in discriminating between various orthopaedic procedures through the use of computer adaptive testing. Preoperative PROMIS scores are valid predictors of postoperative minimal clinically important difference in patients undergoing arthroscopic meniscectomy based on preoperative decreased physical function and increased pain interference. PROMIS score cutoffs may be used by arthroscopic surgeons to counsel patients considering arthroscopic meniscectomy.