Outcome reporting patterns in total knee arthroplasty: A systematic review

Evaluating two implant designs in patients undergoing primary total knee arthroplasty using a novel measure of early optimal recovery: a retrospective observational study

PURPOSE

Quality of care in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) between implants was assessed using a novel composite outcome measure, early optimal recovery (EOR), to indicate ideal clinical outcomes and minimal healthcare resource utilization.

METHODS

Patients that underwent primary TKA in the study group (ATTUNE® Knee System) or control group (LCS® COMPLETE Knee System) were included in this retrospective, single-center study. EOR was defined as no complications, no readmissions, no extra outpatient visits, ≤ 48 h length of hospital stay (LOS), and restored range of motion and pain perception at 3-month follow-up. Multivariate logistic regression was used to compare EOR between the study and control groups. Results were adjusted for differences in baseline characteristics and are presented with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Data were collected from a specialized clinic for elective surgeries in the Netherlands, between January 2017 and December 2020.

RESULTS

A total of 566 patients (62.4% female, mean age 67 years) were included for analysis; 185 patients (32.7%) underwent TKA in the study group. Compared to the control group, patients in the study group had greater probability of achieving EOR (65.8% [95% CI: 55.1-75.2] vs. 38.9% [95% CI: 32.8-45.3]; p < 0.001), a LOS ≤ 48 h (77.2% [95% CI: 67.7-84.5] vs. 61.4% [95% CI: 54.7-67.7]; p < 0.05), and ideal pain perception at 3-month follow-up (93.3% [95% CI: 85.7-97.0] vs. 78.2% [95% CI: 71.0-83.9]; p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The study group was associated with a greater probability of achieving EOR versus the control group, suggesting improved quality of care.

Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) as primary and secondary outcomes in total hip and knee arthroplasty randomized controlled trials: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Significant heterogeneity exists regarding patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) used in total hip (THA) and knee (TKA) arthroplasty randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This study investigates the PROMs used as primary and secondary outcomes in contemporary arthroplasty RCTs.

METHODS

A literature search identified THA and TKA RCTs that were published in top ten impact factor orthopaedic journals from 2017 to 2021. Screening identified 241 trials: 76 THA, 157 TKA, and eight combined. Data were extracted to identify PROMs utilized as either primary or secondary outcomes and the time period of measurement.

RESULTS

Visual Analog Scale (VAS) Pain was the most reported primary PROM in THA (9.2%) and TKA (22.9%) trials. This was followed by Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) Pain (7.9%) and the Harris Hip score (6.6%) in THA trials and NRS Pain (4.5%) and the Knee Society score (4.5%) in TKA trials. Many THA (37.0%) and TKA (52.1%) trials did not clearly specify primary outcome time points. Only pain scales were reported at time points less than one week, while various joint-specific functional outcomes were reported at later time points. As secondary outcomes, the Harris Hip score (28.9%) was most common in THA trials and the Knee Society score (26.1%) was most common in TKA trials. Indeterminate primary or secondary outcomes were reported in 18.2% of studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Contemporary THA and TKA trials exhibit heterogeneity of PROMs as study outcomes after the first postoperative week. Our findings highlight the need for consensus in PROM reporting and better methodological reporting to improve the interpretability of RCT outcomes.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022337255.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of telerehabilitation for musculoskeletal disorders: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Internet-based telerehabilitation could be a valuable option for the treatment of musculoskeletal disorders, with the advantage of providing rehabilitation from anywhere. However, there is no solid and updated evidence demonstrating its effectiveness on relevant clinical and cost outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review aims to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of internet-based telerehabilitation during the recovery of musculoskeletal disorders.

METHODS

Medline, Web of Science, Scopus and Cochrane databases were systematically searched from inception to June 2023. Trials investigating the effects of internet-based telerehabilitation in any musculoskeletal disorder were selected. Nonoriginal articles and grey literature were excluded. Two independent reviewers conducted the study selection and data extraction. Random effect meta-analyses (standardized mean difference) and further sensitivity analyses were performed.

RESULTS

We selected 37 clinical trials (33 randomized and 4 non-randomized) and 5 health economics studies, which included a total of 4,288 participants. Telerehabilitation was more favourable than control treatments in improving all studied clinical outcomes, although the effectiveness varied depending on the type of musculoskeletal disorder. The standard mean differences (SMD) ranged from 0.24 to 0.91. For physical function, the primary outcome, superior effectiveness was found only in people with hip fractures (SMD, 0.87; 95 % CI, 0.34 to 1.41). The effects for joint replacement, osteoarthritis, and spine pain were similar to those of control treatments. However, the favourable outcomes for telerehabilitation became insignificant when compared specifically to face-to-face rehabilitation. Some results displayed publication bias and a lack of robustness, necessitating cautious interpretation. In terms of health economics studies, telerehabilitation was 89.55$ (95 % CI 4.6 to 174.5) cheaper per individual than conventional treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

Telerehabilitation should be considered in the recovery process of musculoskeletal disorders when optimal face-to-face rehabilitation is not feasible. Moreover, telerehabilitation reduces costs and time.

PROSPERO NUMBER

CRD42022322425.

Outcome measures in total hip arthroplasty: have our metrics changed over 15 years?

INTRODUCTION

Consensus has not been reached regarding ideal outcome measures for total hip arthroplasty (THA) clinical evaluation and research. The goal of this review was to analyze the trends in outcome metrics within the THA literature and to discuss the potential impact of instrument heterogeneity on clinical practice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A PubMed search of all manuscripts related to THA from January 2005 to December 2019 was performed. Statistical and linear regression analyses were performed for individual outcome metrics as a proportion of total THA publications over time.

RESULTS

There was a statistically significant increase in studies utilizing outcomes metrics between 2005 and 2019 (15.1-29.5%; P < 0.001; R² = 98.1%). Within the joint-specific subcategory, use of the Harris Hip Score (HHS) significantly decreased from 2005 to 2019 (82.8-57.3%; P < 0.001), use of the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS) significantly increased (0-6.7%; P < 0.001), and the modified HHS significantly increased (0-10.5%; P < 0.001). In the quality of life subcategory, EQ-5D demonstrated a significant increase in usage (0-34.8%; P < 0.001), while Short Form-36 significantly decreased (100% vs. 27.3%; P = 0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

The utilization of outcome-reporting metrics in THA has continued to increase, resulting in added complexity within the literature. The utilization rates of individual instruments have shifted over the past 15 years. Additional study is required to determine which specific instruments are recommended.

Total Knee Arthroplasty Assessments Should Include Strength and Performance-Based Functional Tests to Complement Range-of-Motion and Patient-Reported Outcome Measures

Range of motion (ROM) and pain often define successful recovery after total knee arthroplasty (TKA), but these routine clinical outcomes correlate poorly or not at all to functional capacity after TKA. The purpose of this Perspective is to underscore the importance of muscle strength and performance-based functional tests in addition to knee ROM and patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures to evaluate outcomes after TKA. Specifically: (1) muscle strength is the rate-limiting step for recovery of function after TKA; (2) progressive rehabilitation targeting early quadriceps muscle strengthening improves outcomes and does not compromise ROM after TKA; (3) ROM and PROs fail to fully capture functional limitations after TKA; and (4) performance-based functional tests are critical to evaluate function objectively after TKA. This Perspective also addresses studies that question the need for or benefit of physical therapy after TKA because their conclusions focus only on ROM and PRO measures. Future research is needed to determine the optimal timing, delivery, intensity, and content of physical therapy.

Is rationing of total hip arthroplasty justified? Working to optimize patient accessibility to surgery using long-term patient-reported outcome data

Aims

The aim of this study was to assess medium-term improvements following total hip arthroplasty (THA), and to evaluate what effect different preoperative Oxford Hip Score (OHS) thresholds for treatment may have on patients’ access to THA and outcomes.

Methods

Patients undergoing primary THA at our institution with an OHS both preoperatively and at least four years postoperatively were included. Rationing thresholds were explored to identify possible deprivation of OHS improvement.

Results

Overall, 2,341 patients were included. Mean OHS was 19.7 (SD 8.2) preoperatively and 39.7 (SD 9.8) at latest follow-up. An improvement of at least eight-points, the minimally important change (MIC), was seen in 2,072 patients (88.5%). The mean improvement was 20.0 points (SD 10.5). If a rationing threshold of OHS of 20 points had been enforced, 90.8% of those treated would have achieved the MIC, but only 54.3% of our cohort would have had access to surgery; increasing this threshold to 32 would have enabled 89.5% of those treated to achieve the MIC while only depriving 6.5% of our cohort. The ‘rationed’ group of OHS > 20 had significantly better OHS at latest follow-up (42.6 vs 37.3; p < 0.001), while extending the rationing threshold above 32 showed postoperative scores were more significantly affected by the ceiling effect of the OHS.

Conclusion

The OHS was not designed as a tool to ration healthcare, but if it had been used at our institution for this cohort, applying an OHS threshold of 20 to routine THA access would have excluded nearly half of patients from having a THA; a group in which over 85% had a significant improvement in OHS. Where its use for rationing is deemed necessary, use of a higher threshold may be more appropriate to ensure a better balance between patient access to treatment and chances of achieving good to excellent outcomes. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(3):196–204.