Defining patient acceptable symptom state thresholds for commonly used patient reported outcomes measures in general orthopedic practice

Determining Appropriateness of Total Joint Arthroplasty for Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis: A Patient-Centred Conceptual Model

INTRODUCTION

Total joint arthroplasty (TJA) for osteoarthritis is one of several treatment options with benefits and harms that patients value differently. However, the process for determining TJA appropriateness does not sufficiently acknowledge patient perspectives. The aim of this paper is to propose an evidence-informed patient-centred conceptual model for elective TJA appropriateness for hip and knee osteoarthritis.

METHODS

Our interprofessional team developed a conceptual model for determining the appropriateness of adults considering elective TJA. The model was informed by a review of the evidence, a qualitative study we conducted with adults who underwent TJA for osteoarthritis to determine barriers and facilitators to the use of appropriateness criteria, and the research and clinical experience of team members.

RESULTS

Appropriateness is providing health services (e.g., TJA) with net benefits to the right patient at the right time. The proposed Patient-centred Elective TJA Appropriateness Conceptual Model involves three key steps. First, assess adults with osteoarthritis to determine eligibility for TJA. Second, acknowledge the patient's informed preferences including their expectations and goals. Third, explore and support their mental and physical readiness for TJA. Given that osteoarthritis is a chronic condition, these steps can be revisited over time with patients.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Our proposed conceptual model reconceptualises the appropriateness of TJA to be more patient-centred. Hence, this approach has the potential to be a more inclusive approach and ensure patients undergoing TJA are eligible, ready to proceed, and achieve what matters most to them. Future research is needed to test and validate the model.

Defining Patient-relevant Thresholds and Change Scores for the HOOS JR and KOOS JR Anchored on the Patient-acceptable Symptom State Question

BACKGROUND

When evaluating the results of clinical research studies, readers need to know that patients perceive effect sizes, not p values. Knowing the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) and the patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) threshold for patient-reported outcome measures helps us to ascertain whether our interventions result in improvements that are large enough for patients to care about, and whether our treatments alleviate patient symptoms sufficiently. Prior studies have developed the MCID and PASS threshold for the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement (HOOS JR) and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement (KOOS JR) anchored on satisfaction with surgery, but to our knowledge, neither the MCID nor the PASS thresholds for these instruments anchored on a single-item PASS question have been described.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) What are the MCID (defined here as the HOOS/KOOS JR change score associated with achieving PASS) and PASS threshold for the HOOS JR and KOOS JR anchored on patient responses to the single-item PASS instrument? (2) How do patient demographic factors such as age, gender, and BMI correlate with MCID and PASS thresholds using the single-item PASS instrument?

METHODS

Between July 2020 and September 2021, a total of 10,970 patients underwent one primary unilateral THA or TKA and completed at least one of the three surveys (preoperative HOOS or KOOS JR, 1-year postoperative HOOS or KOOS JR, and 1-year postoperative single-item anchor) at one large, academic medical center. Of those, only patients with data for all three surveys were eligible, leaving 13% (1465 total; 783 THAs and 682 TKAs) for analysis. Despite this low percentage, the overall sample size was large, and there was little difference between completers and noncompleters in terms of demographics or baseline patient-reported outcome measure scores. Patients undergoing bilateral total joint arthroplasty or revision total joint arthroplasty and those without all three surveys at 1 year of follow-up were excluded. A receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, leveraging a 1-year, single-item PASS (that is, "Do you consider that your current state is satisfactory?" with possible answers of "yes" or "no") as the anchor was then used to establish the MCID and PASS thresholds among the 783 included patients who underwent primary unilateral THA and 682 patients who underwent primary unilateral TKA. We also explored the associations of age at the time of surgery (younger than 65 years or 65 years and older), gender (men or women), BMI (< 30 or ≥ 30 kg/m 2 ), and baseline Patient-Reported Outcome Measure Information System-10 physical and mental component scores (< 50 or ≥ 50) for each of the MCID and PASS thresholds through stratified analyses.

RESULTS

For the HOOS JR, the MCID associated with the PASS was 23 (95% CI 18 to 31), with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.75, and the PASS threshold was 81 (95% CI 77 to 85), with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.81. For the KOOS JR, the MCID was 16 (95% CI 14 to 18), with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.75, and the PASS threshold was 71 (95% CI 66 to 73) with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.84. Stratified analyses indicated higher change scores and PASS threshold for younger men undergoing THA and higher PASS thresholds for older women undergoing TKA.

CONCLUSION

Here, we demonstrated the utility of a single patient-centered anchor question, raising the question as to whether simply collecting a postoperative PASS is an easier way to measure success than collecting preoperative and postoperative patient-reported outcome measures and then calculating MCIDs and the substantial clinical benefit.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

Preoperative Thresholds of Pain and Function to Achieve a Minimal Important Change and Patient Acceptable Symptom State After Proximal Interphalangeal Joint Arthroplasty

PURPOSE

There is ongoing discussion about the level of symptoms patients with proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint osteoarthritis should have to undergo surgery. The aims of our study were to determine the minimal important change (MIC) and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) for PIP joint range of motion (ROM), and define clinically relevant thresholds of preoperative pain and function at which patients have the greatest chance to achieve a MIC and PASS in these outcomes 1 year after PIP arthroplasty.

METHODS

We analyzed registry data that included patients with PIP joint osteoarthritis who underwent an arthroplasty for this condition and had a 1-year follow-up. Patients indicated pain on a numeric rating scale (0-10) and completed the brief Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire (MHQ). Active total PIP ROM was measured. The preoperative thresholds, predictive of achieving the MIC and PASS for each outcome measure of pain, function, and ROM, were determined using receiver operating characteristics curves.

RESULTS

We included 196 patients who experienced a relevant improvement in ROM (= MIC) when there was an increase by ≥8° compared with the ROM preoperatively. Patients were satisfied with their postoperative ROM (= PASS) if they achieved PIP mobility of at least 66°. Pain at rest and during activities was predictive for achieving a MIC but not a PASS. Due to an insufficient area under the curve for the brief MHQ and ROM, their baseline values cannot predict the postoperative achievement of MIC or PASS. We suggest that patients with preoperative pain at rest ≥4.5 or pain during activities ≥5.5 have the greatest chance of achieving a subjectively relevant change 1 year after surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

The determined thresholds may support surgeons in the preoperative process of deciding for or against a surgical intervention and explain the probability of achieving sufficient postoperative symptom relief for the patient.

TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic I.

Exploring visual pain trajectories in neck pain patients, using clinical course, SMS-based patterns, and patient characteristics: a cohort study

Background

The dynamic nature of neck pain has so far been identified through longitudinal studies with frequent measures, a method which is time-consuming and impractical. Pictures illustrating different courses of pain may be an alternative solution, usable in both clinical work and research, but it is unknown how well they capture the clinical course. The aim of this study was to explore and describe self-reported visual trajectories in terms of details of patients’ prospectively reported clinical course, their SMS-based pattern classification of neck pain, and patient’s characteristics.

Methods

Prospective cohort study including 888 neck pain patients from chiropractic practice, responding to weekly SMS-questions about pain intensity for 1 year from 2015 to 2017. Patients were classified into one of three clinical course patterns using definitions based on previously published descriptors. At 1-year follow-up, patients selected a visual trajectory that best represented their retrospective 1-year course of pain: single episode, episodic, mild ongoing, fluctuating and severe ongoing.

Results

The visual trajectories generally resembled the 1-year clinical course characteristics on group level, but there were large individual variations. Patients selecting Episodic and Mild ongoing visual trajectories were similar on most parameters. The visual trajectories generally resembled more the clinical course of the last quarter.

Discussion

The visual trajectories reflected the descriptors of the clinical course of pain captured by weekly SMS measures on a group level and formed groups of patients that differed on symptoms and characteristics. However, there were large variations in symptoms and characteristics within, as well as overlap between, each visual trajectory. In particular, patients with mild pain seemed predisposed to recall bias. Although the visual trajectories and SMS-based classifications appear related, visual trajectories likely capture more elements of the pain experience than just the course of pain. Therefore, they cannot be seen as a proxy for SMS-tracking of pain over 1 year.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12998-022-00443-3.

The Proximal Humerus Outcome Score at One Year (POSY) Predicts Which Patients Have Poor Functional Outcomes Following Operative Fixation of Proximal Humerus Fractures

Background: The ability to predict long-term outcomes following surgical fixation of proximal humerus fractures would help identify patients at risk of poor functional outcomes. The purpose of this study was to develop a simple score based on preoperative data that can accurately predict functional outcomes for patients following operative management of proximal humerus fractures.

Methods: Over a 12-year period, all proximal humerus fractures surgically treated with a locked proximal humerus plate at a single institution were enrolled in a prospective database. Inclusion criteria in this analysis were any patient with a minimum of a one-year functional outcome score. Patients were assigned to the poor outcome cohort if their Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) score at that time point was greater than 10 points above the mean DASH score. Logistic regression was used to build a predictive formula for cohort membership using p < 0.15 and an area under the receiver operator characteristic curve (AUROC) value was calculated to define the overall predictive capacity.

Results: A total of 165 patients with an average age of 60.91±13.5 years met the inclusion criteria, with 47 (28.5%) patients assigned to the poor outcome group and 118 (71.5%) patients assigned to the good outcome group. Older age (p = 0.088), BMI (p = 0.019), age-adjusted CCI (p = 0.001), non-Caucasian race (p = 0.017), no college degree (p < 0.0005), unemployed (p < 0.0005), and worker’s compensation case (p = 0.002) were found to be significant predictors of poorer outcome and were used to create a final formula through logistic regression which predicted the probability of a poor outcome (Nagelkerke R Square = 0.403; Hosmer and Lemeshow = 0.902; AUROC = 0.839 [CI: 0.762-0.917]). Once each patient was assigned a score, cutoff values were defined that divided the cohort into three groups. High-risk patients had a score above 50%, and 19 (73.1%) of these patients had a poor outcome.

Conclusions: The POSY score is a tool that can predict the functional outcome at one year or greater following surgical intervention for a proximal humerus fracture. Patients who score above 50% are considered at high risk for a poor functional outcome. In the era of value-based care, the POSY score may be used to direct resource utilization while improving outcomes.

High Pain Catastrophizing Scale Predicts Lower Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in the Foot and Ankle Patient

BACKGROUND

Postoperative outcomes may be affected by the patient's preoperative morbidity. It is hypothesized that patient's pain catastrophization prior to foot and ankle surgery may affect their patient-reported outcomes. Methods: This study prospectively assessed a consecutive cohort of 46 patients undergoing foot and ankle reconstruction to describe the relationship between Pain Catastrophizing Scale (PCS) and patient-reported outcomes measured by 12-item Short Form Health Survey and Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS).

RESULTS

The 1-year postoperative FAOS pain, activities of daily living, and quality of life scores correlated significantly with all baseline PCS subcategories. We found that the mental domain of the SF-12 had a statistically significant correlation with the rumination and helplessness PCS subcategories.

CONCLUSION

This study showed a significant association between a high preoperative PCS and a worse 1-year FAOS. As such, catastrophization could be screened for and potentially treated preoperatively to improve patient-reported outcomes in elective foot and ankle surgery.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, Level III Evidence.

Do clinical criteria based on PROMIS outcomes identify acceptable symptoms and function for patients with musculoskeletal problems

BACKGROUND

Understanding how symptoms influence patient judgements of their health informs providers where to direct care. Patient reported physical outcomes (physical function, pain interference) and self-efficacy of symptom management (SEsm)) predict a patient's health state (i.e. patient acceptable symptom state (PASS)). However, it's unclear if therapist should consider a psychological outcome like SEsm separately or combine this outcome with other physical outcomes for clinical decisions.

OBJECTIVE

To determine if patient reported outcome information system (PROMIS) SEsm scale when combined with PROMIS physical function or pain interference is able to accurately predict a patient's health state defined by PASS.

METHODS

One hundred ninety-six patients (initial sample (n = 94) and separate sample (n = 102)) were surveyed by phone after care for a musculoskeletal problem. Patients completed PASS, PROMIS physical function, pain interference and SEsm outcomes. Logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios (OR) for determining PASS in the initial sample. Criteria for determining PASS developed from the regression analysis were applied to a separate sample to assess accuracy. Accuracy for PASS status were also assessed at 1-7 days and 45-60 days.

RESULTS

Three combinations including SEsm/pain interference and SEsm/physical function showed significant OR's (<0.1) and varied from 2.5 to 4.2 for predicting PASS status. Criteria to predict PASS in the separate sample at 1-7 days and 45-60 days showed accuracies from 74.5% to 83.6%.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that utilizing SEsm in combination with common physical outcomes used to assess patients with musculoskeletal diagnoses improves prediction of a patient's acceptable level of symptoms and activity.

Development and internal validation of prognostic models for recovery in patients with non-specific neck pain presenting in primary care

OBJECTIVES

Development and internal validation of prognostic models for post-treatment and 1-year recovery in patients with neck pain in primary care.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

Primary care manual therapy practices.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with non-specific neck pain of any duration (n=1193).

INTERVENTION

Usual care manual therapy.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Recovery defined in terms of pain intensity, disability, and global perceived improvement directly post-treatment and at 1-year follow-up.

RESULTS

All post-treatment models exhibited acceptable discriminative performance after derivation (AUC≥0.7). The developed post-treatment disability model exhibited the best overall performance (R²=0.24; IQR, 0.22-0.26), discrimination (AUC=0.75; 95% CI, 0.63-0.84), and calibration (slope 0.92; IQR, 0.91-0.93). After internal validation and penalization, this model retained acceptable discriminative performance (AUC=0.74). The five other models, including those predicting 1-year recovery, did not reach acceptable discriminative performance after internal validation. Baseline pain duration, disability, and pain intensity were consistent predictors across models.

CONCLUSION

A post-treatment prognostic model for disability was successfully developed and internally validated. This model has potential to inform primary care clinicians about a patient's individual prognosis after treatment, but external validation is required before clinical use can be recommended.

How Many Patients Achieve an Acceptable Symptom State After Hip Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome? A Cross-sectional Study Including PASS Cutoff Values for the HAGOS and iHOT-33

Background

Hip arthroscopy is a viable treatment for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS). Clinically relevant improvements in hip function and pain after surgery are often reported, but it is less clear how many patients achieve an acceptable symptom state (Patient Acceptable Symptom State [PASS]).

Purpose

To investigate the proportion of patients who achieved a PASS 12 to 24 months after hip arthroscopy and to determine the cutoff scores of the 2 recommended and valid patient-reported outcome measures (the subscales of the Copenhagen Hip and Groin Outcome Score [HAGOS] and the International Hip Outcome Tool-33 [iHOT-33]) for which patients are most likely to achieve PASS.

Study Design

Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods

Eligible study patients were identified in the Danish Hip Arthroscopy Registry. An electronic questionnaire was used to collect data on PASS, HAGOS, and iHOT-33 12 to 24 months after surgery. PASS was measured using an anchor question. Receiver operating characteristic curve analyses were applied to identify the PASS cutoff values of HAGOS and iHOT-33 scores.

Results

A total of 137 individuals (mean age at surgery, 35.4 ± 9.4 years) were included in the study at a mean follow-up of 18.5 ± 3.2 months after surgery. At follow-up, 64 individuals (46.7%; 95% CI, 38.6-55.1) reported PASS. Higher HAGOS and iHOT-33 values were observed for participants who reported PASS compared with those who did not report PASS (Cohen d ≥ 1.06; P < .001). Cutoff scores for HAGOS subscales (42.5-82.5) and iHOT-33 (67.00) showed excellent to outstanding discriminative ability in predicting PASS (area under the curve, 0.82-0.92).

Conclusion

In total, 46% of individuals having hip arthroscopy for FAIS achieved PASS at 12 to 24 months of follow-up. Patients who achieved PASS had statistically significant and substantially better self-reported hip function compared with those who did not achieve PASS. Cutoff values at HAGOS subscales and iHOT-33 showed excellent to outstanding discriminative ability in predicting patients with PASS.

The Patient Acceptable Symptomatic State in Primary Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: Predictors of Achievement

PURPOSE

To identify thresholds for patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) achievement in a cohort of primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) recipients, and to identify factors predictive of PASS achievement.

METHODS

A prospective clinical registry was queried for primary ACLR patients from January 2014 to April 2017 with serial patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) completion at 6, 12, and 24 months. Exclusion criteria included significant concomitant procedures. Knee-based PROMs included the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) subscores. PASS threshold values were calculated using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves with area under the curve (AUC) analysis. A stepwise multivariate regression identified preoperative and operative predictors of PASS achievement.

RESULTS

A total of 144 primary ACLR patients (30.86 ± 12.78 years, body mass index 25.51 ± 4.64, 41.0% male) were included in the analysis. PASS threshold values were established using ROC curve analysis, all of which exceeded 0.7 on AUC analysis (0.742 to 0.911). Factors impacting odds of PASS achievement in the ACLR cohort included preoperative exercises (odds ratio [OR] 2.95 to 4.74, P = .003 to .038), worker's compensation status (OR 0.25 to 0.28, P = .014 to .033), preoperative scores (OR 1.03 to 1.07, P = .005 to <.001), iliotibial band tenodesis (OR 11.08, P = .010), and anteromedial approach (OR 18.03 to 37.05, P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Factors predictive of PASS achievement in recipients of primary ACLR include functional status (e.g., preoperative exercise, preoperative KOOS Sport/Recreation score), worker's compensation status, technique (e.g., anteromedial) and preoperative PROMs. The results of our study are important in better informing shared decision-making models and improving evidence-based guidelines to optimize patient outcomes.

Can Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System® (PROMIS) measures accurately enhance understanding of acceptable symptoms and functioning in primary care?

BACKGROUND

Value-based healthcare models will require prioritization of the patient's voice in their own care toward better outcomes. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System® (PROMIS) gives patients a voice and leads providers to actionable treatments across a broad range of diagnoses. However, better interpretation of PROMIS measures is needed. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of PROMIS Physical Function (PF), Self-Efficacy for Managing Symptoms (SE), Pain Interference (PI), Fatigue, and Depression measures to discriminate patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) in primary care, determining if that accuracy is stable over time and/or retained when PROMIS score thresholds are set at either ½ or 1 SD worse than the reference population mean.

METHODS

Primary care patients completed the five PROMIS measures and answered the PASS yes/no question at intake (n = 360), 3-14 days follow-up (n = 230), and 45-60 days follow-up (n = 227). Thresholds (optimal, ½ SD, and 1 SD worse than reference values) for PROMIS T-scores associated with PASS were determined through receiver-operator curve analysis. Accuracy was calculated at the three time points for each threshold value. Logistic regression analyses were used to determine combinations of PROMIS measures that best predicted PASS.

RESULTS

PROMIS PF, SE, PI, and Fatigue optimal score thresholds (maximizing sensitivity and specificity) yielded area under the curve values of 0.77-0.85, with accuracies ranging from 71.7% to 79.1%. Accuracy increased minimally (1.9% to 5.5%) from intake to follow-ups. Thresholds of 1 SD worse than the mean for PROMIS PF and PI measures and ½ SD worse for SE and Fatigue overall retained accuracy versus optimal (+ 1.3% to - 3.6%). Regression models retained SE, PI, and Fatigue as independent predictors of PASS, and minimally increased accuracy to 83.1?%.

CONCLUSIONS

This study establishes actionable PROMIS score thresholds that are stable over time and anchored to patient self-reported health status, increasing interpretability of PF, SE, PI, and Fatigue scores. The findings support the use of these PROMIS measures in primary care toward improving provider-patient communication, prioritizing patient concerns, and optimizing clinical decision making.

Editorial Commentary: Defining Improvement After Arthroscopic Meniscal Surgery-How Much of a Difference Does a Difference Make?

Patient-centered metrics including the minimal clinically important difference, substantial clinical benefit, and patient acceptable symptom state have been proposed to determine the clinical significance of patient-reported outcome scores. These values allow clinically meaningfully interpretation of changes in scores such that the degree of improvement (minimal clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit) and satisfaction (patient acceptable symptom state) can be determined. When derived in the same study, these values allow analyses to be approached from the perspective of which patients are likely to respond to treatment and what level of improvement and satisfaction they might attain. Although limited to the sample from which they are derived, these metrics go beyond a mean value of an outcome score to provide a patient-centered perspective that informs the clinical significance of patient-reported outcome scores.

Do Patient Sociodemographic Factors Impact the PROMIS Scores Meeting the Patient-Acceptable Symptom State at the Initial Point of Care in Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Patients?

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcome measures such as the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) allow surgeons to evaluate the most important outcomes to patients, including function, pain, and mental well-being. However, PROMIS does not provide surgeons with insight into whether patients are able to successfully cope with their level of physical and/or mental health limitations in day-to-day life; such understanding can be garnered using the Patient-acceptable Symptom State (PASS). It remains unclear whether or not the PASS status for a given patient and his or her health, as evaluated by PROMIS scores, differs based on sociodemographic factors; if it does, that could have important implications regarding interpretation of outcomes and fair delivery of care.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

In a tertiary-care foot and ankle practice, (1) Is the PASS associated with sociodemographic factors (age, gender, race, ethnicity, and income)? (2) Do PROMIS Physical Function (PF), Pain Interference (PI), and Depression scores differ based on income level? (3) Do PROMIS PF, PI, and Depression thresholds for the PASS differ based on income level?

METHODS

In this retrospective analysis of longitudinally obtained data, all patients with foot and ankle conditions who had new-patient visits (n = 2860) between February 2015 and December 2017 at a single tertiary academic medical center were asked to complete the PROMIS PF, PI, and Depression survey and answer the following single, validated, yes/no PASS question: "Taking into account all the activity you have during your daily life, your level of pain, and also your functional impairment, do you consider that the current state of your foot and ankle is satisfactory?" Of the 2860 new foot and ankle patient visits, 21 patient visits (0.4%) were removed initially because all four outcome measures were not completed. An additional 225 patient visits (8%) were removed because the patient chart did not contain enough information to accurately geocode them; 15 patients visits (0.5%) were removed because the census block group median income data were not available. Lastly, two patient visits (0.1%) were removed because they were duplicates. This left a total of 2597 of 2860 possible patients (91%) in our study sample who had completed all three PROMIS domains and answered the PASS question. Patient sociodemographic factors such as age, gender, race, and ethnicity were recorded. Using census block groups as part of a geocoding method, the income bracket for each patient was recorded. A chi-square analysis was used to determine whether sociodemographic factors were associated with different PASS rates, two-way ANOVA analyses with pairwise comparisons were used to determine if PROMIS scores differed by income bracket, and a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed to determine PASS thresholds for the PROMIS score by income bracket. The minimum clinically important difference (MCID) for PROMIS PF in the literature in foot and ankle patients ranges from about 7.9 to 13.2 using anchor-based approaches and 4.5 to 4.7 using the ½ SD, distribution-based method. The MCID for PROMIS PI in the literature in foot and ankle patients ranges from about 5.5 to 12.4 using anchor-based approaches and about 4.1 to 4.3 using the ½ SD, distribution-based method. Both were considered when evaluating our findings. Such MCID cutoffs for PROMIS Depression are not as well established in the foot and ankle literature. Significance was set a priori at p < 0.05.

RESULTS

The only sociodemographic factor associated with differences in the proportion of patients achieving PASS was age (15% [312 of 2036] of patients aged 18-64 years versus 11% [60 of 561] of patients aged ≥ 65 years; p = 0.006). PROMIS PF (45 ± 10 for the ≥ USD 100,000 bracket versus 40 ± 10 for the ≤ USD 24,999 bracket, mean difference 5 [95% CI 3 to 7]; p < 0.001), PI (57 ± 8 for ≥ USD 100,000 versus 63 ± 7 for ≤ USD 24,999, mean difference -6 [95% CI -7 to -4]; p < 0.001), and Depression (46 ± 8 for the ≥ USD 100,000 bracket versus 51 ± 11 for ≤ USD 24,999, mean difference -5 [95% CI -7 to -3]; p < 0.001) scores were better for patients in the highest income bracket compared with those in the lowest income bracket. For PROMIS PF, the difference falls within the score change range deemed clinically important when using a ½ SD, distribution-based approach but not when using an anchor-based approach; however, the score difference for PROMIS PI falls within the score change range deemed clinically important for both approaches. The PASS threshold of the PROMIS PF for the highest income bracket was near the mean for the US population (49), while the PASS threshold of the PROMIS PF for the lowest income bracket was more than one SD below the US population mean (39). Similarly, the PASS threshold of the PROMIS PI differed by 6 points when the lowest and highest income brackets were compared. PROMIS Depression was unable to discriminate the PASS.

CONCLUSIONS

Discussions about functional and pain goals may need to be a greater focus of clinic encounters in the elderly population to ensure that patients understand the risks and benefits of given treatment options at their advanced age. Further, when using PASS in clinical encounters to evaluate patient satisfaction and the ability to cope at different symptom and functionality levels, surgeons should consider income status and its relationship to PASS. This knowledge may help surgeons approach patients with a better idea of patient expectations and which level of symptoms and functionality is satisfactory; this information can assist in ensuring that each patient's health goal is included in shared decision-making discussions. A better understanding of why patients with different income levels are satisfied and able to cope at different symptom and functionality levels is warranted and may best be accomplished using an epidemiologic survey approach.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, diagnostic study.

Clinical thresholds of symptoms for deciding on surgery for trapeziometacarpal osteoarthritis

The severity of preoperative symptoms at which patients are likely to achieve a minimal important change and patient acceptable symptom state after surgery may help the decision to perform surgery for trapeziometacarpal osteoarthritis. The study objective was to define these thresholds for pain at rest and during activities as well as for the brief Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire. One hundred and fifty-one patients were examined before surgery and 3, 6 and 12 months after surgery. The minimal important change after surgery was 1.9, 3.9 and 16 scores for pain at rest, pain during activities and the brief Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire, respectively. The respective patient acceptable symptom state values were 1.5, 2.5 and 70 after surgery. Our results show that patients with baseline pain values between 3.5 and 5.5 at rest, between 6.5 and 7.5 during activities and a presurgery brief Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire score of about 47, have the greatest chance of achieving a relevant symptom change and an acceptable symptom state. The information from this study may help surgeons in deciding the surgical indications and help patients in their expectation in symptom relief after surgery. Level of evidence: IV.

Predictive Factors and Duration to Return to Sport After Isolated Meniscectomy

Background:

Return to sport (RTS) after meniscectomy is an important metric for young, active patients. However, the impact of the duration from surgery to RTS on clinical outcomes is not fully understood and is not reflected in outcome scores.

Purpose:

To establish when patients RTS after meniscectomy and to determine predictive measures for the ability to return to their preinjury activity.

Study Design:

Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3.

Methods:

All patients undergoing meniscectomy between 2016 and 2017 from a single institution were assessed for inclusion. RTS, type of activity, and level of function upon returning were obtained. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID), substantial clinical benefit, and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) were calculated for the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) and International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) questionnaire using anchor-based and distribution-based approaches. Preoperative knee-specific and generic quality-of-life scores were analyzed to determine their predictive power of RTS. A multivariate logistical analysis was also performed to determine which demographic variables corresponded to RTS.

Results:

Overall, 94 patients (mean age, 51.0 ± 11.1 years) who underwent meniscectomy participated in sports within 6 months of surgery. Of these patients, 76.6% returned to sport without permanent restrictions at a mean of 8.6 ± 6.9 weeks postoperatively. RTS rates for low-, medium-, and high-intensity activities were 75.0%, 70.0%, and 82.5%, respectively. RTS was associated with achieving the PASS for the KOOS–Physical Function short form (PS), KOOS-Pain, and KOOS-Sports (P = .004, P = .007, and P = .006, respectively) but not for the IKDC questionnaire (P = .3). Achieving the MCID was associated with RTS for the KOOS-Sports, KOOS-Pain, and IKDC questionnaire (P < .001, P = .03, and P = .001, respectively). There was no preoperative or intraoperative variable that was predictive of RTS. Preoperative KOOS-PS scores ≥37.8 (area under the curve = 76.3%) and KOOS-Pain scores ≥51.4 (area under the curve = 72.5%) were predictive of RTS.

Conclusion:

Approximately 77% of patients returned to sport after meniscectomy at a mean of 2 months postoperatively. The level of activity intensity did not significantly alter the rate of RTS. Higher preoperative scores on the KOOS-PS and KOOS-Pain were predictive of RTS. Identifying these factors allows physicians to counsel patients on expected outcomes after meniscectomy.

Preoperative and Intraoperative Predictors of Long-Term Acceptable Knee Function and Osteoarthritis After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: An Analysis Based on 2 Randomized Controlled Trials

PURPOSE

To determine preoperative predictors of long-term acceptable knee function and the development of osteoarthritis (OA) in long-term follow-up after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.

METHODS

This study is a long-term follow-up of 2 previous randomized controlled trials that included 193 patients who underwent unilateral ACL reconstruction with ipsilateral hamstring tendon or patellar tendon autografts. Patients who suffered multiligament injuries, major meniscal injuries, chondral lesions requiring surgical treatment, or had a previous ACL reconstruction were excluded. Patient demographics, preoperative clinical assessments, and intraoperative findings were used to create stepwise multivariable regression models to determine the patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) in the International Knee Documentation Committee and the development of OA defined as a Kellgren-Lawrence grade ≥2. Knee laxity measurements, hop performance, patient-reported outcome, and concomitant injuries were determined as variables.

RESULTS

A total of 147 patients (63.7% men) were eligible for inclusion, with a mean follow-up of 16.4 ± 1.3 years. The patients were an average age of 27.9 ± 8.3 years at the time of ACL reconstruction. One-half of the cohort reported an International Knee Documentation Committee evaluation system score above the PASS cutoff. The presence of a concomitant injury at operation (odds ratio [OR], 2.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.10-6.21; P = .030) and greater preoperative anteroposterior laxity (OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.05-3.35; P = .034) increased the likelihood of achieving a PASS. A longer period between ACL injury and reconstruction (OR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.02-5.00; P = .046) and older age at reconstruction (OR, 2.28; 95% CI, 1.34-3.86; P = .0023) increased the odds of developing OA at follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who were older at the time of ACL reconstruction and had waited >1 year between the injury and reconstruction ran an increased risk of having OA 16 years after reconstruction. One in 2 patients reported acceptable long-term knee function, but no risk factor for poorer subjective knee function was identified. Patients who had a minor concomitant injury and increased preoperative anteroposterior knee laxity had increased odds of reporting an acceptable long-term knee function.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II; prospective comparative study.

Minimal important change and patient acceptable symptom state for patients after proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty

Our aim was to determine the minimal important change and patient acceptable symptom state for pain and the brief Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire in patients 1 year after proximal interphalangeaI joint arthroplasty. We analysed data of 100 patients from our prospective registry. The minimal important change and patient acceptable symptom state were determined with anchor-based methods, and patients with better or worse baseline status were examined. The minimal important change for pain at rest and during activities, and the brief Michigan Hand Outcomes Questionnaire was -1.2, -2.8 and 18, respectively, with corresponding patient acceptable symptom state values of 1.5, 2.5 and 64. Patients with higher baseline symptoms rated more severe postoperative symptoms as acceptable, whereas patients with lower baseline symptoms were only satisfied with a low level of pain and high level of hand function. The minimal important change and patient acceptable symptom state are useful estimates for patient outcomes and study results. Level of evidence: IV.

Determining Success or Failure After Foot and Ankle Surgery Using Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) and Patient Reported Outcome Information System (PROMIS)

BACKGROUND

As the role of generic patient-reported outcomes (PROs) expands, important questions remain about their interpretation. In particular, how the Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Instrumentation System (PROMIS) t score values correlate with the patients' perception of success or failure (S/F) of their surgery is unknown. The purposes of this study were to characterize the association of PROMIS t scores, the patients' perception of their symptoms (patient acceptable symptom state [PASS]), and determination of S/F after surgery.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study contacted patients after the 4 most common foot and ankle surgeries at a tertiary academic medical center (n = 88). Patient outcome as determined by phone interviews included PASS and patients' judgment of whether their surgery was a S/F. Assessment also included PROMIS physical function (PF), pain interference (PI), and depression (D) scales. The association between S/F and PASS outcomes was evaluated by chi-square analysis. A 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) evaluated the ability of PROMIS to discriminate PASS and/or S/F outcomes. Receiver operator curve (ROC) analysis was used to evaluate the ability of pre- (n = 63) and postoperative (n = 88) PROMIS scores to predict patient outcomes (S/F and PASS). Finally, the proportion of individuals classified by the identified thresholds were evaluated using chi-square analysis.

RESULTS

There was a strong association between PASS and S/F after surgery (chi-square <0.01). Two-way ANOVA demonstrated that PROMIS t scores discriminate whether patients experienced positive or negative outcome for PASS ( P < .001) and S/F ( P < .001). The ROC analysis showed significant accuracy (area under the curve > 0.7) for postoperative but not preoperative PROMIS t scores in determining patient outcome for both PASS and S/F. The proportion of patients classified by applying the ROC analysis thresholds using PROMIS varied from 43.0% to 58.8 % for PASS and S/F.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients who found their symptoms and activity at a satisfactory level (ie, PASS yes) also considered their surgery a success. However, patients who did not consider their symptoms and activity at a satisfactory level did not consistently consider their surgery a failure. PROMIS t scores for physical function and pain demonstrated the ability to discriminate and accurately predict patient outcome after foot and ankle surgery for 43.0% to 58.8% of participants. These data improve the clinical utility of PROMIS scales by suggesting thresholds for positive and negative patient outcomes independent of other factors.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II, prospective comparative series.