Minimally Clinically Important Difference (MCID) Is a Low Bar

Clinical relevance of patient-reported outcome measures in patients who have undergone total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

In orthopaedic research, it is crucial to determine changes that are statistically significant and clinically meaningful. One approach to accomplish this is by calculating the Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID), the Clinically Important Differences (CID), the Minimum Detectable Change (MDC), the Minimal Important Change (MIC), and the Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) values. These tools assist medical professionals in comprehending the patient's viewpoint, enabling them to establish treatment objectives that align with patients' desires and expectations. The present systematic review investigated the MCID, MIC, CID, MDC, and PASS of the most used PROMs to assess patients who have undergone THA.

METHODS

This systematic review followed the 2020 PRISMA guidelines. Web of Science, Embase, and PubMed were accessed in March 2024 without time constraints or additional filters. All the clinical investigations which evaluated data tools (MCID, MIC, CID, MDC, and PASS) to assess the clinical relevance of PROMs in THA were accessed. Articles in Spanish, Italian, German, and English were eligible. Studies with levels of evidence I to III were eligible.

RESULTS

Data from 100,824 patients were collected. All relevant demographic data were analysed and summarised. In addition, the MCID, MIC, CID, MDC and PASS of the COMI, HOOS, SF-36, OHS, Oxford-12, PROMIS-PF, SF-12, and WOMAC scores for THA were determined.

CONCLUSION

Current evidence recommends to collect MCIDs based on anchors routinely. These values should be used as complementary tools to determine the clinical effectiveness of a treatment instead of solely relying on statistically significant improvements.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, systematic review and meta-analysis.

Several factors predict the achievement of the patient acceptable symptom state and minimal clinically important difference for patient-reported outcome measures following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A systematic review

PURPOSE

To summarize the predictors of the patient acceptable symptom state (PASS), minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and minimal important change (MIC) for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR).

METHODS

MEDLINE, PubMed and Embase were searched from inception to 5 January 2024. The authors adhered to PRISMA/R-AMSTAR guidelines, and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Data on statistical associations between predictive factors and PROMs were extracted. Inverse odds ratios (ORs) and confidence intervals (reverse group comparison) were calculated when appropriate to ensure comparative consistency.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies comprising 21,235 patients (48.1% female) were included (mean age 29.3 years). Eight studies comprising 3857 patients identified predictors of PASS, including lateral extra-articular tenodesis (LET) (OR = 11.08, p = 0.01), hamstring tendon (HT) autografts (OR range: 2.02-2.63, p ≤ 0.011), age over 30 (OR range: 1.37-2.28, p ≤ 0.02), male sex (OR range: 1.03-1.32, p ≤ 0.01) and higher pre-operative PROMs (OR range: 1.04-1.21). Eight studies comprising 18,069 patients identified negative predictors of MCID or MIC, including female sex (OR = 0.93, p = 0.034), absence of HT autografts (OR = 0.70, p < 0.0001), higher pre-operative PROMs (OR = 0.76-0.84, p ≤ 0.01), meniscectomy (OR = 0.67, p = 0.014) and collision sports (OR = 0.02-0.60, p ≤ 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Higher pre-operative PROMs, age over 30, male sex, LETs and HT autografts predicted PASS achievement. Lower pre-operative PROMs, male sex, non-collision sports, and lack of meniscectomies predicted MCID/MIC achievement. This review provides a comprehensive understanding of the predictors of clinically significant post-ACLR outcomes, thus improving clinical decision-making and the management of patient expectations.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV.

High Variability in Standardized Outcome Thresholds of Clinically Important Changes in Shoulder Instability Surgery: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to examine reported MCID and PASS values for PROMs following shoulder instability surgery and assess variability in published values depending on the surgery performed. Secondarily, our aims were to describe the methods used to derive MCID and PASS values in the published literature, including anchor-based, distribution-based, or other approaches, and to assess the frequency of MCID and PASS usage in studies on shoulder instability surgery.

METHODS

A systematic review of MCID and PASS values following Bankart, Latarjet, and Remplissage procedures was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA). The Embase, Pubmed, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases were queried from 1985 to 2023. Inclusion criteria included studies written in English, and studies reporting utilization MCID or PASS for patient reported outcome measures (PROMS) following Latarjet, Bankart, Remplissage approaches for shoulder instability surgery. Extracted data included study population characteristics, intervention characteristics, and outcomes of interest. Continuous data were described using median and range. Categorical variables, including PROMs reported and MCID/PASS methods, were described using percentages. As MCID is a patient-level metric and not a group-level metric, the authors validated that all included studies reported proportions (%) of subjects that met or exceeded the MCID.

RESULTS

A total of 174 records were screened, and 8 studies were included in this review. MCID was the most widely utilized outcome threshold which was reported in all 8 studies, with only 2 studies reporting both the MCID and the PASS. The most widely studied PROMs were the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) (range 5.65-9.6 for distribution MCID, 8.5 anchor MCID, 86 anchor PASS); Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) (range 11.4-12.4 distribution MCID, 82.5-87.5 anchor PASS); visual analog scale (VAS) (range 1.1-1.7 distribution MCID, 1.5-2.5 PASS); Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI) (range 60.7-254.9 distribution MCID, 126.43 anchor MCID, 571-619.5 anchor PASS); and Rowe scores (range 5.6-8.4 distribution MCID, 9.7 anchor MCID). Notably, no studies reported on substantial clinical benefit (SCB) or maximal outcome improvement (MOI).

CONCLUSION

Despite the wide array of available PROMs for assessing shoulder instability surgery outcomes, the availability of clinically significant outcome thresholds such as MCID and PASS remains relatively limited. While MCID has been the most frequently reported metric, there is considerable inter-study variability observed in their values.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Knowing the outcome thresholds such as MCID and PASS of the PROMs frequently used to evaluate the results of glenohumeral stabilization surgery is fundamental, since they allow us to know what is a clinically significant improvement for the patient.

The Fragility Index Is Typically Misinterpreted and of Low Value: Clinical Trials Are Designed to Be Fragile

The Fragility Index (FI) is defined as the number of patients whose outcome would need to change to reverse a statistically significant finding to a nonsignificant finding. The FI is nothing more than a repackaging of statistical significance based on the P value, perpetuating the (1) ignoring of results that are "not" statistically significant; (2) treating results that are statistically significant as certain; and (3) distracting from evaluation of clinical significance. A well-designed trial includes a sample size calculation to determine the minimum number of patients required to observe a difference between study groups (if a difference exists). By including this minimum number, clinical trials are designed to be fragile, yet subsequently criticized as such, leading readers to the incorrect conclusion that the studies are flawed. It's time to move past systematic reviews focused on the FI.

The Association of Preoperative Hip Pain Duration With Delayed Achievement of Clinically Significant Outcomes After Hip Arthroscopic Surgery for Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome

BACKGROUND

Patients with hip pain ≥2 years before hip arthroscopic surgery for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) have been shown to achieve inferior short-term and midterm outcomes compared with patients with a shorter pain duration, although there is limited literature that has evaluated the time to achieve clinically significant outcomes (CSOs) in this population.

PURPOSE

To compare the time to achieve CSOs after hip arthroscopic surgery for FAIS in patients with and without prolonged hip pain and to identify independent predictors of the delayed achievement of CSOs.

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

Patients who underwent primary hip arthroscopic surgery for FAIS between January 2012 and July 2019 with 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL) and Hip Outcome Score-Sports Subscale (HOS-SS) scores were identified. Patients with prolonged hip pain (preoperative duration ≥2 years) were propensity score matched to a control group (preoperative duration <2 years), controlling for age, sex, and body mass index (BMI). The times to achieve the minimal clinically important difference and Patient Acceptable Symptom State were compared between groups using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis. Multivariate Cox regression considering age, sex, BMI, pain duration, activity level, and chondral status was used to identify independent predictors of the delayed achievement of CSOs.

RESULTS

A total of 179 patients with prolonged hip pain were matched to 179 control patients (mean pain duration, 60.5 ± 51.2 vs 9.7 ± 5.1 months, respectively; P < .001) of a similar age, sex, and BMI (P≥ .488) with similar baseline HOS-ADL and HOS-SS scores (P≥ .971). The prolonged hip pain group showed delayed achievement of the minimal clinically important difference and Patient Acceptable Symptom State for both the HOS-ADL and HOS-SS on Kaplan-Meier analysis (P≤ .020). On multivariate Cox regression, hip pain duration ≥2 years was shown to be an independent predictor of the delayed achievement of CSOs, with hazard ratios ranging from 1.32 to 1.65 (P≤ .029). Additional independent predictors of the delayed achievement of CSOs included increasing age, increasing BMI, female sex, self-endorsed weekly participation in physical activity, and high-grade chondral defects (hazard ratio range, 1.01-4.89; P≤ .045).

CONCLUSION

Findings from this study demonstrate that preoperative hip pain duration ≥2 years was an independent predictor of the delayed achievement of CSOs after primary hip arthroscopic surgery for FAIS.

Primary Hip Arthroscopy Is Associated With Earlier Achievement of Substantial Clinical Benefit Compared With Revision Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome

PURPOSE

To compare time to achievement of clinically significant outcomes (CSOs) between patients undergoing primary and revision hip arthroscopy (HA) for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome.

METHODS

Patients undergoing primary and revision HA for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome with complete 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year Hip Outcome Score-Activities of Daily Living (HOS-ADL) and Sport Subscale (HOS-SSS) were identified. Revision patients were propensity matched 1:4 to primary patients with HA, controlling for age, sex, and body mass index (BMI). Time to achievement of minimal clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) were compared alongside cumulative CSO achievement at 6, 12, and 24 months. Hazard ratios (HRs) for predictors of earlier CSO achievement were identified with multivariate Cox regressions.

RESULTS

Fifty patients with revision HA were propensity-matched to 200 patients with primary HA of similar age, sex, and BMI. Patients with primary HA demonstrated a greater prevalence of regular preoperative physical activity (87% vs 59%, P < .001). Patients with primary HA showed significantly greater SCB achievement for HOS-ADL at 6, 12, and 24 months (P < .001) and significantly greater SCB achievement for HOS-SSS at 12 and 24 months (P ≤ .001) compared with patients with revision HA. Patients with primary HA achieved SCB for HOS-ADL (P < .001) and HOS-SSS (P = .015) quicker than patients with revision HA. Predictors of earlier CSO achievement included preoperative PRO score (HR 0.98-1.02, P ≤ 0.007), lower BMI (HR 0.97, P = .038), presence of physical activity (HR 1.51, P = .038), and absence of revision status (HR 0.52-0.56, P ≤ .019).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with primary HA showed a quicker time to SCB achievement for HOS-ADL and HOS-SSS compared with patients with revision HA. Preoperative PRO score, lower BMI, regular physical activity, and primary HA status predicted earlier CSO achievement.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative series.

'Substantial clinical benefit' and 'substantial clinical worsening' cutoff of Vitiligo Impact Scale (VIS)-22 change scores

Patient-centric outcome measures focus on clinically meaningful change in various aspects of disease, including severity, quality of life and psychological distress. The minimal important change (MIC) is a commonly used threshold of patient-reported outcome measures, representing the smallest difference that is considered significant by the patient and/or physician. However, it has been suggested that MIC is too low a bar for determining treatment success, and alternative thresholds such as substantial clinical benefit (SCB) and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) may be preferred.

Patient Acceptable Symptomatic State and Substantial Clinical Benefit Matter Most to Patients and Must Be Reported Correctly

Despite a push for a focus on clinical rather than "statistical" significance and an emphasis on reporting of outcome thresholds such as the patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) and substantial clinical benefit (SCB), the PASS and SCB are rarely reported and, when reported, are often reported incorrectly. Yet, patients require satisfaction (PASS) as a result of our treatments, and patients desire to improve substantially (SCB). Determining whether patients are satisfied and/or substantially improved is simple . . . just ask them. The questions are known as anchor questions. Obviously, different patients have different PASS and SCB thresholds, and reliance on previously published literature for values of these thresholds can result in error-thus, the anchor questions. And, each patient must be assessed individually. Outcome thresholds are not group-level metrics, and they must be reported as the percentage of individuals who achieve the clinically significant outcome. Certain patients, such as athletes, have high baseline function and may demand maximum outcome improvement. In contrast, the minimal clinically important difference is a less-than-ideal measure; patients do not desire "minimal" improvement. Journals must do a better job of publishing patient-reported outcome measures that matter most to patients: satisfaction and substantial benefit.

Preoperative subjective assessment of disease-specific quality of life significantly influenced the likelihood of achieving the minimal clinically important difference after surgical stabilization for recurrent lateral patellar instability

PURPOSE

To evaluate which factors exert a predictive value for not reaching the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in patients who underwent a tailored operative treatment for recurrent lateral patellar dislocation (RLPD).

METHODS

A total of 237 patients (male/female 71/166; 22.4 ± 6.8 years) were included. The Banff Patellofemoral Instability Instrument 2.0 (BPII 2.0) and subjective rating of knee function and pain (numeric analogue scale [NAS]; 0-10) were used to evaluate patients' outcomes from pre- to postoperatively. Gender, age at the time of surgery, body mass index (BMI), nicotine abuse, psychiatric diseases, cartilage status and pathoanatomic risk factors were evaluated as potential predictors for achieving the MCID using univariate logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

The MCID for the BPII 2.0 was calculated at 9.5 points. Although the BPII 2.0 and NAS for knee function and pain improved significantly in the total cohort from pre- to postoperatively (all p < 0.001), 29 patients did not reach the MCID at the final follow-up. The analysis yielded that only the preoperative NAS for function and BPII 2.0 score values were significant predictors for reaching the MCID postoperatively. The optimal threshold was calculated at 7 (NAS function) and 65.2 points (BPII 2.0). Age at the time of surgery should be considered for patients with a preoperative BPII 2.0 score >62.5.

CONCLUSION

The probability of reaching BPII 2.0 MCID postoperatively depends only on the preoperative BPII 2.0 value and subjective rating of knee function, as well as age at the time of surgery for patients undergoing surgical treatment of RLPD. Here, presented results can assist clinicians in advising and presenting patients with potential outcomes following treatment for this often complex and multifactorial pathology.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Editorial Commentary: Bioinductive Collagen Implants Reduce Rotator Cuff Retear, yet Cost-Effectiveness and Improvement in Clinical Outcomes Are Unclear

The estimated health care costs of failed arthroscopic rotator cuff retears (RCRs) performed in the United States represent a huge economic burden of greater than $400 million per 2-year period. Unfortunately, retear rates do not appear to have improved significantly since the 1980s, despite advances in surgical technology and the biomechanics of repair. The failure of these advances to translate into improved clinical results suggests that the limiting step in reducing retear rates is biology rather than the biomechanics of repair. Bioinductive collagen implants (BCIs) are an emerging and potentially useful option for biological augmentation. Recent meta-analysis of preclinical and clinical studies demonstrates that biological augmentation significantly lowers the risk of retear. Retrieval studies from human RCR subjects who underwent treatment with BCI demonstrate cellular incorporation, tissue formation, and maturation, providing a logical basis for a reduction in retear rates as well as small increases in tendon thickness at the footprint. Although BCIs show potential as a possible game-changing solution for reducing failure rates of RCR, concerns remain regarding cost-effectiveness analyses and demonstration of functional outcome improvement.

Artificial Intelligence for Clinically Meaningful Outcome Prediction in Orthopedic Research: Current Applications and Limitations

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) play a critical role in evaluating the success of treatment interventions for musculoskeletal conditions. However, predicting which patients will benefit from treatment interventions is complex and influenced by a multitude of factors. Artificial intelligence (AI) may better anticipate the propensity to achieve clinically meaningful outcomes through leveraging complex predictive analytics that allow for personalized medicine. This article provides a contemporary review of current applications of AI developed to predict clinically significant outcome (CSO) achievement after musculoskeletal treatment interventions.

RECENT FINDINGS

The highest volume of literature exists in the subspecialties of total joint arthroplasty, spine, and sports medicine, with only three studies identified in the remaining orthopedic subspecialties combined. Performance is widely variable across models, with most studies only reporting discrimination as a performance metric. Given the complexity inherent in predictive modeling for this task, including data availability, data handling, model architecture, and outcome selection, studies vary widely in their methodology and results. Importantly, the majority of studies have not been externally validated or demonstrate important methodological limitations, precluding their implementation into clinical settings. A substantial body of literature has accumulated demonstrating variable internal validity, limited scope, and low potential for clinical deployment. The majority of studies attempt to predict the MCID-the lowest bar of clinical achievement. Though a small proportion of models demonstrate promise and highlight the utility of AI, important methodological limitations need to be addressed moving forward to leverage AI-based applications for clinical deployment.

Defining the Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) for PROMIS After Total Ankle Replacement

BACKGROUND

Although patient-reported outcomes (PROs), such as the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS), are a key element of evaluating success after total ankle replacement (TAR), many do not explicitly state a key factor of postoperative success: is the patient satisfied with their outcome after TAR? The patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) represents the symptom threshold beyond which patients consider themselves well. This study aimed to establish the PROMIS thresholds for the PASS in a primary cohort of TAR patients.

METHODS

This single-institution study included 127 primary TAR patients with preoperative and 2-year postoperative PROMIS scores. At 2 years postoperatively, patients answered 2 PASS anchor questions (Satisfaction, Delighted-Terrible scale) with Likert-scale responses. PASS thresholds with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated from PROMIS scores using an anchor-based method. Using a bootstrapping technique with 1,000 iterations, the Youden index was calculated to determine the best specificity and sensitivity coordinates to maximize their combination. Finally, preoperative variables associated with the likelihood of achieving the PASS were assessed.

RESULTS

There was a strong association between PASS thresholds and PROMIS domains, especially Pain Interference (PASS threshold of <56.0, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [AUC] = 0.940), Pain Intensity (<48.4, AUC = 0.936), and Physical Function (>44.7, AUC = 0.883). The likelihood of achieving the PASS was not affected by age, race, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class, body mass index, or severity of ankle deformity. Patients with worse preoperative Physical Function and Global Mental Health scores were less likely to meet the PASS threshold for Physical Function postoperatively (p = 0.028 and 0.041).

CONCLUSIONS

The ability to reach the PASS after TAR was most strongly associated with postoperative PROMIS pain scores. However, PASS thresholds were generally poorer than population means. This demonstrates that patients do not need to reach normal pain or physical function levels to have an acceptable symptom state after TAR.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Clinically Significant Outcome Scores in Orthopaedic Sports Medicine Shoulder and Knee Surgery Are Increasing in Prevalence but Often Reported Incorrectly

PURPOSE

To study the prevalence and quality of application of minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit (SCB), patient-acceptable symptomatic state (PASS), and maximum outcome improvement (MOI), reported in the orthopaedic sports medicine knee and shoulder literature in recent years and to bring awareness of proper use of such metrics.

METHODS

A literature review of all shoulder and knee articles published from the American Journal of Sports Medicine (AJSM), Journal of Shoulder and Elbow Surgery (JSES), and Arthroscopy from 2016 to 2020 was performed, specifically investigating whether MCID, SCB, PASS, or MOI were used or reported. Additionally, the way these metrics were reported and interpreted was recorded.

RESULTS

Out of 5,039 studies, 889 shoulder and knee studies met the inclusion criteria. Overall, 16.7% reported either MCID, PASS, or SCB. MCID was the most reported across all 3 journals. MCID was reported 12.4% of the time throughout the 5 years. PASS was reported 3.2% and SCB 1.1% of the time over the 5 years. MOI was not reported by any of the journals during this period. There was a statistically significant increase in MCID reporting in 2 of the 3 journals over the 5-year course, Arthroscopy (P = .02) and AJSM (P = .05). There was no statistically significant increase in PASS or SCB reporting rates in all 3 journals. Only 39.1% of studies reported MCID correctly (i.e., defined as the number of individual patients meeting MCID/total patients in the study).

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows an increasing trend in the use of clinically significant outcome metrics, such as MCID, for interpretation of patient-reported outcomes; however, these individual metrics are often not being used on the individual level and subsequently not reported accurately. We recommend determining whether the specific metric met the threshold per individual patient and then reporting those as a percentage of the sample population to achieve the full potential of these metrics and translate them accurately across various studies.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

As the usage of clinically significant outcome metrics rises, so does the need for accurate reporting. These findings will encourage future studies to follow a more standardized format.

Editorial Commentary: The Minimal Clinically Important Difference Is Less Important Than It Sounds: Patients Seek to Achieve Substantial Clinical Benefits and Not Minimally Perceptible Improvements When They Undergo Arthroscopic Surgery

The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is a frequently reported metric for describing within-patient improvement in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). It was originally defined by Jaeschke et al. as "the smallest difference in score in the domain of interest which patients perceive as beneficial and which would mandate, in the absence of troublesome side effects and excessive cost, a change in the patient's management." The latter part of this statement is often omitted, and this results in a loss of the originally intended value through lack of sufficient clinical importance to change management. Other pitfalls in the use of the MCID include that they are population- and condition-specific. As such, MCIDs lack external validity and cannot easily be extrapolated from one study to another. Furthermore, broadly different values can be obtained depending on the calculation method used. This makes the MCID an unhelpful metric when seeking to understand the true efficacy of a given intervention. The Food and Drug Administration recommends anchor-based methodologies (which take into account patient perception), over distribution-based methods (which are purely statistical and do not account for clinical meaningfulness to patients). Regardless, it should be noted that even anchor-based methodologies are susceptible to statistical bias, and measures are apt to be influenced by the regression to mean phenomena, where the value of the preintervention scores and their relationship to postintervention scores can bias estimates of the MCID. Finally, when using MCIDs, one must consider that they are a low bar. This means that patients do not undergo treatment to achieve minimally perceptible clinical improvements; instead, they undergo treatment with the hope of achieving substantial clinical benefit or a patient acceptable symptom state, and so these are more appropriate individual-level metrics to consider when evaluating clinically meaningful outcomes of treatment.

Perspective on Intradiscal Therapies for Lumbar Discogenic Pain: State of the Science, Knowledge Gaps, and Imperatives for Clinical Adoption

Specific clinical diagnostic criteria have established a consensus for defining patients with lumbar discogenic pain. However, if conservative medical management fails, these patients have few treatment options short of surgery involving discectomy often coupled with fusion or arthroplasty. There is a rapidly-emerging research effort to fill this treatment gap with intradiscal therapies that can be delivered minimally-invasively via fluoroscopically guided injection without altering the normal anatomy of the affected vertebral motion segment. Viable candidate products to date have included mesenchymal stromal cells, platelet-rich plasma, nucleus pulposus structural allograft, and other cell-based compositions. The objective of these products is to repair, supplement, and restore the damaged intervertebral disc as well as retard further degeneration. In doing so, the intervention is meant to eliminate the source of discogenic pain and avoid surgery. Methodologically rigorous studies are rare, however, and based on the best clinical evidence, the safety as well as the magnitude and duration of clinical efficacy remain difficult to estimate. Further, we summarize the US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) guidance regarding the interpretation of the minimal manipulation and homologous use criteria, which is central to designating these products as a tissue or as a drug/device/biologic. We also provide perspectives on the core evidence and knowledge gaps associated with intradiscal therapies, propose imperatives for evaluating effectiveness of these treatments and highlight several new technologies on the horizon.

Editorial Commentary: Pedicled Quadriceps Tendon Autograft for Medial Patellofemoral Ligament Reconstruction Eradicates Risk of Saphenous Nerve Injury Seen With Gracilis Autograft. Allograft, When Available, Also Shows Excellent Outcomes

Comparing a pedicled single-limbed quadriceps tendon (QT) autograft to a matched gracilis autograft (GT) group with bone tunnel anchors for patellar instability, the QT group showed similar outcome yet markedly improved complication rates involving the saphenous nerve and no anterior knee pain. These findings are reassuring for the QT usage as an option to GT autograft. Multiple systematic reviews have clearly shown that allograft medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction has similar outcomes to autograft and is a viable option. As we have seen in anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, there has been a march to include the QT into ligament reconstruction of the knee. The evidence is cumulating to support its use for medial patellofemoral complex reconstruction. As we await the verdict of Fulkerson's proposed double-bundle medial patellofemoral ligament and medial quadriceps tendon femoral ligament reconstruction, it appears that either QT autograft or GT allograft will be the go-to procedures of choice. Regardless the type of graft or type of patellar attachment, make sure the femoral side of the medial patellofemoral complex graft gets the most attention.

Establishing the Minimally Important Difference for the KOOS-Joint Replacement and PROMIS Global-10 in Patients After Total Knee Arthroplasty

Background

Despite the overall prevalence and success of total knee arthroplasty (TKA), a significant portion of patients are dissatisfied with their outcomes.

Purpose

To assess the responsiveness and determine the minimally important difference (MID) of 2 patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs)-the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Joint Replacement (KOOS-JR) and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Global-10 (PROMIS 10)-in patients after TKA.

Study Design

Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 3.

Methods

Included were patients who underwent TKA from August 2015 through August 2019 and completed baseline and postoperative KOOS-JR and PROMIS 10 surveys. The PROMIS 10 consists of 2 domains: physical health and mental health. Estimates for the reliable change index (RCI) and MID, using anchor-based and distribution-based methods, were calculated for each PROM. Regression modeling was used to determine whether patient and clinical factors predicted MID thresholds or MID achievement.

Results

A total of 1315 patients were included. Distribution-based MIDs, calculated using various methods from baseline scores, ranged from 19.3 to 31 for the KOOS-JR, and the RCI was 4.38. Of these patients, 293 (22.3%) demonstrated small or moderate improvement, and this cohort was included in the calculation of anchor-based MIDs. The anchor-based MIDs were 16.9 and 24.3 at 3-month and 1-year follow-up, respectively, and 66% of patients achieved the MID at 12 months. Higher preoperative PROM score, male sex, non-White race, and current smoker status were predictive of failing to achieve the anchor-based MID for KOOS-JR at 1 year postoperatively (P < .05). Higher preoperative PROM score and any 90-day adverse event predicted lower thresholds of important change in anchor-based MIDs. Higher baseline PROM scores, younger age, male sex, non-White ethnicity, higher American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, preoperative narcotics use, not smoking, and longer hospital stay were all associated with lower odds of achieving the MID on the KOOS-JR or either of the PROMIS 10 subscales.

Conclusion

The study results demonstrated relevant values for interpretation of the KOOS-JR and PROMIS 10. While patient demographics did not accurately predict which patients would achieve the MID, some potential factors predicting successful patient-reported outcomes after TKA were identified.

The Use of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Clinical Practice and Clinical Decision Making

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are highly effective measures of quality of care and outcomes that matter to patients regarding their physical, mental, and social health. While PROMs have played a notable role in research and registry reporting, they are also useful as clinical tools. Real-time PROM collection can be integrated into routine clinical care with immediate access to scores within the electronic health record. This can be integral when discussing treatment options and using decision aids. PROM scores can also be useful for postoperative monitoring. Various approaches to quantifying clinical efficacy have been developed, including the minimal clinically important difference, the substantial clinical benefit, and the patient acceptable symptom state (PASS). As the patient experience and patient-reported outcome measurement of health-related outcomes become increasingly emphasized in patient-centered, high value care, so too will the importance of methods to gauge clinical benefit using these instruments for improved clinical decision-making.

Minimum 10-Year Clinical Outcomes and Survivorship of Meniscal Allograft Transplantation With Fresh-Frozen Allografts Using the Bridge-in-Slot Technique

BACKGROUND

Meniscal allograft transplantation (MAT) has been shown to provide clinical benefits in patients with symptomatic meniscal deficiency in the short term and midterm. There is, however, a paucity of data regarding long-term outcomes after MAT using fresh-frozen allografts and the bridge-in-slot technique.

PURPOSE

To report clinical outcomes and revision rates after primary MAT with fresh-frozen allografts and the bridge-in-slot technique in a large case series of patients at a 10-year minimum follow-up.

STUDY DESIGN

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

A retrospective review of prospectively collected data was performed on patients undergoing primary MAT between 2001 and 2012. Lysholm, International Knee Documentation Committee subjective form, and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score subscales were collected preoperatively and at 1-, 2-, 5-, and minimum 10-year follow-ups. Cox proportional hazards modeling was used to identify variables associated with reoperation and failure, defined as revision MAT or conversion to arthroplasty. Reoperation was defined as a subsequent surgical intervention on the transplanted meniscus, including partial or total meniscectomy, meniscal repair, or failure as defined in the previous sentence.

RESULTS

A total of 174 patients undergoing MAT met the inclusion criteria and were followed for a mean of 12.7 ± 2.7 years (range, 10.0-21.0 years). The mean age at surgery was 28.3 ± 10.1 years. The patients were predominantly female (n = 92; 53%), and medial MAT was the most commonly performed procedure (n = 91; 52%). Concomitant procedures were performed in 115 patients (66%), with the most common procedure being osteochondral allograft transplantation (n = 59; 34%). Patients demonstrated statistically significant postoperative improvements at all time points for all patient-reported outcome measures (P≤ .0001). A total of 65 patients (37%) underwent a meniscal reoperation at a mean time of 6.6 ± 5.5 years (range, 0.3-16.7 years) postoperatively. A total of 40 patients (23%) met the criteria for failure at a mean time of 7.3 ± 5.0 years (range, 1.0-17.4 years) after MAT, with 22 of these patients having undergone a previous meniscal reoperation. At the final follow-up, 13 patients (7%) had undergone revision MAT and 27 (15%) had converted to arthroplasty. The MAT survival rates free of meniscal reoperation and failure were 73% and 85% at 10 years and 60% and 72% at 15 years, respectively. At the time of the final follow-up, 86% of patients reported that they were satisfied with their overall postoperative condition.

CONCLUSION

Primary MAT demonstrates efficacy and durability with high rates of patient satisfaction at a minimum 10-year follow-up. Patients should be counseled that although reoperation rates may approach 40% at 15 years, rates of overall revision MAT and conversion to arthroplasty remain low at long-term follow-up.

Patients Maintain Clinically Significant Outcomes at 5-Year Follow-Up after Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

To assess 5-year outcomes and survival rate of hip arthroscopy (HA) for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) and to determine achievement rates of clinically significant outcomes.

METHODS

Three databases were searched around the following terms: hip arthroscopy, FAIS, and 5-year follow-up. Articles available in English, presenting original data, and reporting minimum 5-year follow-up after primary HA using either patient reported outcomes (PROs) or conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA) and/or revision surgery were included. Quality assessment was completed using MINORS assessment, and relative agreement was calculated using Cohen's kappa.

RESULTS

Fifteen articles were included. MINORS assessment ranged from 11-22, with excellent (k=0.842) inter-rater reliability between reviewers. 2080 patients were included at a follow-up range of 60.0-84 months. Labral repair was the most commonly performed procedure (range: 8.0%-100%). All studies included PROs and all reported statistically significant improvement (p<0.05) at the 5-year timepoint. The most frequent PRO reported was modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) (n=8). Nine studies reported on clinically significant outcome achievement, with mHHS being the most common (n=8). The rate of achieving minimal clinically important difference (MCID) ranged from 64-100%, patient-acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) ranged from 45-87.4%, and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) ranged from 35.3-66%. Conversion to THA and revision surgery varied across studies, with ranges of 0.0%-17.9% (duration: 28.8-87.1 months) and 1.3%-26.7% (duration: 14.8-83.7 months), respectively. The most common definition of failure was conversion to THA or revision (n=7). Increased age (n=5) and greater joint degeneration (n=4) were the most common predictors of clinical failure.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopy for FAIS demonstrate significant improvement at 5-year follow-up, with maintained rates of achievement of MCID, PASS, and SCB. Survival rate of HA at 5-years is overall high, with ranges of 0.0-17.9% and 1.3-26.7% % conversion to THA or revision surgery, respectively. Across studies, increased age and greater joint degeneration were the most common cited predictors of clinical failure.

Return-to-Sport Outcomes After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Surgical Treatment May Be Improved by Attention to Modifiable Factors and Consideration of Nonmodifiable Factors

Today, we who treat athletes are able to effect immediate, significant improvement in anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) patient outcomes, regardless of surgical technique, by careful determination of when an athlete is ready to return to sport. "Prehabiliation," bracing, time after surgery to various rehabilitation activities, time after surgery until return to sport, functional testing, strength testing including limb symmetry indices, psychological readiness, age, gender, and type of sport are all factors influencing successful return to sport after ACL injury and treatment. Age and gender are not modifiable, and for some athletes, type of sport may be nonnegotiable. However, each of these factors could be thoughtfully considered before returning an athlete to sport after ACL treatment. All the other factors listed above, from prehab to bracing to strength to psychological readiness, may be modifiable.