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

MCID achievement in staged bilateral total knee arthroplasty: Are both joints created equal?

BACKGROUND

A notable portion of unilateral total knee arthroplasty (TKA) patients undergo arthroplasty of the contralateral knee. The aims of this study were to describe the Minimal Clinically Important Difference for Improvement (MCID-I) and Worsening (MCID-W) in staged bilateral TKAs (BTKAs) and identify factors associated with these outcomes.

METHODS

Patients with staged BTKA were retrospectively reviewed. Demographics, surgery details, and Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System Physical Function Short Form 10a (PROMIS PF10a) were collected. MCID-I and MCID-W were defined for PROMIS PF10a. Patients were stratified into nine groups based on the MCID achievement of the first and second TKA: (A) MCID-I, MCID- I, (B) MCID-I, Neutral, (C) MCID-I, MCID-W, (D) Neutral, MCID-I, (E) Neutral, Neutral, (F) Neutral, MCID-W, (G) MCID- W, MCID-I, (H) MCID-W, Neutral, (I) MCID-W, MCID-W. Neutral patients did not achieve either MCID-I or MCID-W.

RESULTS

The final cohort consisted of 59 staged BTKA patients. In patients who achieved MCID-I in the first TKA, 39.1% achieved MCID-I again in the second TKA (A), 39.1% were neutral (B), and 21.7% achieved MCID-W (C) in the second TKA. However, 77.8% of those who achieved MCID-W in the first joint (n = 9) went on to achieve MCID-I (G) in the second TKA. Those who achieved MCID-I after both TKAs (A) had a longer staged interval than those who achieved first MCID-I, then MCID-W (C) (15 months vs 8 months, P = 0.0113).

CONCLUSION

In staged BTKA, MCID achievement of the first TKA may not be associated with the outcome of the second TKA.

Comparison of Time and Rate of Achieving Minimal Clinically Important Difference: Robotic Versus Manual Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Robotics in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) continues to increase with the ever-growing demand to use technology in the surgical setting. However, no studies have used minimal clinically important difference (MCID) to compare patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) between robotic UKA (rUKA) and manual UKA (mUKA). This study aimed to compare the rate of achieving MCID for improvement (MCID-I) and worsening (MCID-W) and the time to achieving MCID.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of robotic and manual UKAs performed between 2016 and 2022. Preoperative and postoperative Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Global Physical, PROMIS Physical Function Short-Form 10a (PF-10a), and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Physical Function Short-Form (KOOS-PS) scores were collected. Patients were stratified on reaching MCID-I, MCID-W, or "no notable change" (score between MCID-W and MCID-I). Survival curves with and without interval censoring were used to assess the time to achieving the MCID. Log-rank and weighted log-rank tests were used to compare groups.

RESULTS

A total of 256 UKAs (64 robotic and 192 manual) were analyzed. No differences were observed in the proportion of patients achieving MCID-I or MCID-W across all three PROMs. Similarly, median time to achieving MCID showed no significant differences between rUKA and mUKA for PROMIS Global Physical (3.3 versus 4.9 months, P = 0.44), PROMIS PF-10a (7.7 versus 8.3 months, P = 0.93), and KOOS-PS (3.0 versus 6.0 months, P = 0.055) scores, both with and without interval censoring.

DISCUSSION

This study indicates that rUKA and mUKA exhibit comparable rates of achieving MCID-I and MCID-W, along with similar median time to reach MCID. These findings offer valuable patient-centric insights into the effectiveness of rUKA. Additional studies evaluating the long-term outcomes of rUKA are needed to determine its long-term advantages.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative study.

A Comprehensive Approach to PROMs in Elective Orthopedic Surgery: Comparing Effect Sizes across Patient Subgroups

Background: There is limited knowledge regarding the comparative patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) and effect sizes (ESs) across orthopedic elective surgery. Methods: All patient data between January 2020 and December 2022 were collected, and treatment outcomes assessed as a PROM difference between baseline and one-year follow-up. The cohort was divided into subgroups (hand, elbow, shoulder, spine, hip, knee, and foot/ankle). The PROM ESs were calculated for each patient separately, and patients with ES > 0.5 were considered responders. Results: In total, 7695 patients were operated on. The mean ES across all patient groups was 1.81 (SD 1.41), and the largest ES was observed in shoulder patients and the smallest in hand patients. Overall, shoulder, hip, and knee patients had a larger ES compared to hand, spine, and foot/ankle patients (p < 0.0001). The proportion of positive responders ranged between 91-94% in the knee, shoulder, and hip, and 69-70% in the hand, spine, and foot/ankle subgroups. Conclusions: The ESs are generally high throughout elective orthopedic surgery. However, based on our institutional observations, shoulder, hip, and knee patients experience larger treatment effects compared to hand, spine, and foot/ankle patients, among whom there are also more non-responders. The expected treatment outcomes should be clearly communicated to patients when considering elective surgery. Because of the study limitations, the results should be approached with some caution.

Intra-Articular Platelet-Rich Plasma Injection After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has been considered a promising treatment for musculoskeletal disorders. The effects of PRP on clinical outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) are controversial.

Objective

To compare subjective outcomes and graft maturity in patients undergoing ACLR with and without postoperative intra-articular PRP injection.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This surgeon- and investigator-masked randomized clinical trial included patients treated at a national medical center in China who were aged 16 to 45 years and scheduled to undergo ACLR. Participants were enrolled between March 21, 2021, and August 18, 2022, and followed up for 12 months, with the last participant completing follow-up on August 28, 2023.

Interventions

Participants were randomized 1:1 to the PRP group (n = 60), which received 3 doses of postoperative intra-articular PRP injection at monthly intervals, or to the control group (n = 60), which did not receive postoperative PRP injection. Both groups had the same follow-up schedule.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was the mean score for 4 subscales of the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS4) (range, 0-100, with higher scores indicating better knee function and fewer symptoms) at 12 months postoperatively. Secondary outcomes were patient-reported outcomes, graft maturity (on magnetic resonance imaging), and physical examinations at 3, 6, and 12 months.

Results

Among the 120 randomized participants (mean [SD] age, 29.0 [8.0] years; 84 males [70%]), 114 (95%) were available for the primary outcome analysis. The mean KOOS4 scores at 12 months were 78.3 (SD, 12.0; 95% CI, 75.2-81.4) in the PRP group and 76.8 (SD, 11.9; 95% CI, 73.7-79.9) in the control group (adjusted mean between-group difference, 2.0; 95% CI, -2.3 to 6.3; P = .36). Secondary outcomes were not statistically significantly different between the 2 groups except for sports and recreation level and graft maturity at 6 months. Intervention-related adverse events included pain at the injection site and knee swelling after injection.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this randomized clinical trial among patients undergoing ACLR, the addition of postoperative intra-articular PRP injection did not result in superior improvement of knee symptoms and function at 12 months compared with no postoperative injection. Further studies are required to determine appropriate indications for PRP in musculoskeletal disorders.

Trial Registration

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry Identifier: ChiCTR2000040262.

Clinical Improvement After Lumbar Fusion: Using PROMIS to Assess Recovery Kinetics

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective review of a single institution cohort.

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this study is to identify features that predict delayed achievement of minimum clinically important difference (MCID) following elective lumbar spine fusion using Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) surveys.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Preoperative prediction of delayed recovery following lumbar spine fusion surgery is challenging. While many studies have examined factors impacting the achievement of MCID for patient-reported outcomes in similar cohorts, few studies have assessed predictors of early functional improvement.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed patients undergoing elective one-level posterior lumbar fusion for degenerative pathology. Patients were subdivided into two groups based on achievement of MCID for each respective PROMIS domain either before six months ("early responders") or after six months ("late responders") following surgical intervention. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to determine features associated with odds of achieving distribution-based MCID before or after six months follow up.

RESULTS

147 patients were included. The average age was 64.3±13.0 years. At final follow-up, 57.1% of patients attained MCID for PI and 72.8% for PF. However, 42 patients (49.4%) reached MCID for PI by six months, compared to 44 patients (41.1%) for PF. Patients with severe symptoms had the highest probability of attaining MCID for PI (OR 10.3; P =0.001) and PF (OR 10.4; P =0.001) Preoperative PROMIS symptomology did not predict early achievement of MCID for PI or PF. Patients who received concomitant iliac crest autograft during their lumbar fusion had increased odds of achieving MCID for PI (OR 8.56; P =0.001) before six months.

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrated that the majority of patients achieved MCID following elective one-level lumbar spine fusion at long-term follow-up, although less than half achieved this clinical benchmark for each PROMIS metric by six months. We also found that preoperative impairment was not associated with when patients would achieve MCID. Further prospective investigations are warranted to characterize the trajectory of clinical improvement and identify the risk factors associated with poor outcomes more accurately.

Mental Robustness May Be Associated With Improved Physical Function in Bilateral Total Knee Arthroplasty Patients

BACKGROUND

In accordance with the high incidence of bilateral knee osteoarthritis, many patients have undergone bilateral total knee arthroplasty (BTKA). Whether patients undergo bilateral procedures in a staged or simultaneous fashion, the physical and mental burden of undergoing 2 major orthopedic procedures is considerable. The aims of this study were to (1) investigate differences between minimal clinically important difference (MCID) achievement between staged versus simultaneous BTKA, and (2) identify the patient variables, specifically mental scores, that were associated with MCID achievement in patients undergoing BTKA.

METHODS

Simultaneous and staged BTKA patients within a single health care network from 2016 to 2021 were retrospectively reviewed. Patient demographics, surgery details, and Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System Physical Function Short Forms 10a (PROMIS PF10a), PROMIS Mental scores, and Knee Disability Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores (KOOS) were reviewed. Preoperative and postoperative patient-reported outcome measures were collected before the first total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and after the second TKA, respectively, in staged BTKA patients. The final cohort consisted of 249 patients, with an average age of 66 years (range, 21 to 87), 63% women, and an average body mass index of 32 (range, 20 to 52), at a mean follow-up of 1.1 years (range, 0.5 to 2.4). Multivariate regressions were performed on MCID PF10a and KOOS achievement, as well as whether the BTKA was performed simultaneously versus staged.

RESULTS

A preoperative PROMIS Mental score in the upper 2 quartiles was associated with MCID PF10a achievement in BTKA. Men and surgeries performed at an Academic Medical Center were negatively associated with the achievement of MCID KOOS. Interestingly, those who underwent simultaneous BTKA were less likely to achieve MCID KOOS than those who underwent a staged BTKA.

CONCLUSIONS

Preoperative mental robustness may be positively associated with improved physical function outcome in BTKA patients.

Time to Achieve the Minimal Clinically Important Difference in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: Comparison of Anterior and Posterior Surgical Approaches

BACKGROUND

Controversy remains over outcomes between total hip arthroplasty approaches. This study aimed to compare the time to achieve the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Physical Function Short Form (HOOS-PS) and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Global-Physical for patients who underwent anterior and posterior surgical approaches in primary total hip arthroplasty.

METHODS

Patients from 2018 to 2021 with preoperative and postoperative HOOS-PS or PROMIS Global-Physical questionnaires were grouped by approach. Demographic and MCID achievement rates were compared, and survival curves with and without interval-censoring were used to assess the time to achieve the MCID by approach. Log-rank and weighted log-rank tests were used to compare groups, and Weibull regression analyses were performed to assess potential covariates.

RESULTS

A total of 2,725 patients (1,054 anterior and 1,671 posterior) were analyzed. There were no significant differences in median MCID achievement times for either the HOOS-PS (anterior: 5.9 months, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.6 to 6.4; posterior: 4.4 months, 95% CI: 4.1 to 5.1, P = .65) or the PROMIS Global-Physical (anterior: 4.2 months, 95% CI: 3.5 to 5.3; posterior: 3.5 months, 95% CI: 3.4 to 3.8, P = .08) between approaches. Interval-censoring revealed earlier times of achieving the MCID for both the HOOS-PS (anterior: 1.509 to 1.511 months; posterior: 1.7 to 2.3 months, P = .87) and the PROMIS Global-Physical (anterior: 3.0 to 3.1 weeks; posterior: 2.7 to 3.3 weeks, P = .18) for both surgical approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

The time to achieve the MCID did not differ by surgical approach. Most patients will achieve clinically meaningful improvements in physical function much earlier than previously believed.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, Retrospective Comparative Study.

Social vulnerability adversely affects emergency-department utilization but not patient-reported outcomes after total joint arthroplasty

INTRODUCTION

Multiple studies demonstrate social deprivation is associated with inferior outcomes after total hip (THA) and total knee (TKA) arthroplasty; its effect on patient-reported outcomes is debated. The primary objective of this study evaluated the relationship between social vulnerability and the PROMIS-PF measure in patients undergoing THA and TKA. A secondary aim compared social vulnerability between patients who required increased resource utilization or experienced complications and those who didn't.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective review of 537 patients from March 2020 to February 2022 was performed. The Centers for Disease Control Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) were used to quantify socioeconomic disadvantage. The cohort was split into THA and TKA populations; univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to evaluate primary and secondary outcomes. Statistical significance was assessed at p < 0.05.

RESULTS

48.6% of patients achieved PROMIS-PF MCID at 1-year postoperatively. Higher levels of overall social vulnerability (0.40 vs. 0.28, p = 0.03) were observed in TKA patients returning to the ED within 90-days of discharge. Increased overall SVI (OR = 9.18, p = 0.027) and household characteristics SVI (OR = 9.57, p = 0.015) were independent risk factors for 90-day ED returns after TKA. In THA patients, increased vulnerability in the household type and transportation dimension was observed in patients requiring 90-day ED returns (0.51 vs. 0.37, p = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

Despite an increased risk for 90-day ED returns, patients with increased social vulnerability still obtain good 1-year functional outcomes. Initiatives seeking to mitigate the effect of social deprivation on TJA outcomes should aim to provide safe alternatives to ED care during early recovery.

Does Wound VAC Temporization Offer Patient-Reported Outcomes Similar to Single-Stage Excision Reconstruction After Myxofibrosarcoma Resection?

BACKGROUND

Vacuum-assisted closure (VAC) temporization is a promising technique to achieve local control in aggressive soft tissue sarcomas. Despite its previously reported efficacy, adoption of VAC temporization remains limited, primarily due to the scarce literature on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) supporting its efficacy. This study compared the postoperative PROs after VAC temporization or single-stage (SS) excision and reconstruction for patients undergoing surgical resection for myxofibrosarcoma management.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of myxofibrosarcoma patients who underwent surgical resections at our institution from 2016 to 2022 was performed. Postoperative PROs collected prospectively for those treated with VAC temporization or SS excision/reconstruction were compared using a visual analog scale (VAS) for pain and three Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) questionnaires: Global Health Short-Form Mental (SF Mental), Global Health Short-Form Physical (SF Physical), and Physical Function Short-Form 10a (SF 10a). Absolute and differential (postoperative minus preoperative) scores at the 1-month, 3-month, 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year time points were compared.

RESULTS

The analysis included 79 patients (47 treated with VAC temporization and 32 treated with SS excision/reconstruction). All outcomes were similar between the groups except for physical function 1 year after surgery, in which the differential PROMIS SF 10a scores were higher in the SS group (p = 0.001). All the remaining absolute and differential PROMIS and VAS pain scores were similar between the groups at all time points. Postoperative complications did not differ between the groups.

CONCLUSION

The PROs for physical and mental health, physical function, and pain were similar between the myxofibrosarcoma patients who had VAC temporization and those who had SS excision/reconstruction after surgical resection.

Utility of preoperative comorbidity burden on PROMIS outcomes after lumbar decompression: Cohort matched analysis

The influence of Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) burden on Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) outcomes following lumbar decompression (LD) is limited. The objective of this study is to evaluate CCI burden impact on PROMIS outcomes. Retrospective review of elective LD excluding revision or surgeries for infectious, malignant, or traumatic reasons. Demographics and PROMIS scores collected preoperatively and postoperatively up to 2 years included: PROMIS-Physical Function (PF)/Sleep Disturbance (SD)/Pain Interference (PI)/Anxiety (A), VR-12 Physical/Mental Health Composite scores (VR-12 PCS/MCS)/Oswestry Disability Index (ODI). Patients were divided into two groups based on their preoperative CCI score <3 (mild) or ≥4 (moderate to severe). Descriptive statistical analysis and MCID achievement rate calculations were conducted. A total of 182 patients were included: 93 CCI < 3 and 88 CCI ≥ 4. No significant differences were reported across preoperative PROMIS/legacy PROMs or final follow-up (p > 0.05, all). At 6-weeks, VR-12 PCS and ΔPROM scores indicated improved physician function in the CCI < 3 group (p = 0.020 and p = 0.040, respectively). Significant PROMIS-A ΔPROM score at final post-op was noted for CCI < 3 group (p = 0.026). MCID achievement demonstrated no significant differences for PROMIS outcomes and legacy PROMs. Results demonstrated that PROMIS outcomes were not impacted by a greater baseline comorbidity burden. At 6-weeks, the physical function scores were improved for the lower CCI group, and at final reported less anxiety. Our data suggests that comorbidity burden has a limited effect on PROMIS and legacy outcomes in patients undergoing LD.

Outcomes after Anatomic Double-Bundle Posterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstructions Using Transtibial and Tibial Inlay Techniques

Surgical reconstruction is recommended for symptomatic posterior cruciate ligament (PCL) deficiency. While anatomic double-bundle PCL reconstruction (PCLR) has been reported to be associated with biomechanical and clinical advantages over other methods, there is still debate regarding the optimal technique for tibial positioning and fixation. Based on reported advantages and disadvantages, we employed two tibial fixation techniques, transtibial (TT) and tibial inlay (TI) for anatomic double-bundle PCLR with technique selection based on body mass index, comorbidities, and primary versus revision surgery. This study aimed to compare clinical outcomes following PCLR utilizing either TT or TI techniques to validate relative advantages, disadvantages, and indications for each based on the review of prospectively collected registry data. For 37 patients meeting inclusion criteria, 26 underwent arthroscopic TT PCLR using all-soft- tissue allograft with suspensory fixation in the tibia and 11 patients underwent open TI PCLR using an allograft with calcaneal bone block and screw fixation in the tibia. There were no significant preoperative differences between cohorts. Success rates were 96% for TT and 91% for TI with all successful cases documented to be associated with good-to-excellent posterior stability and range of motion in the knee at the final follow-up. In addition, patient-reported outcome scores were within clinically meaningful ranges for pain, function, and mental health after PCLR in both cohorts, suggesting similarly favorable functional, social, and psychological outcomes. Patient-reported pain scores at 6 months postoperatively were significantly (p = 0.042) lower in the TT cohort, which was the only statistically significant difference in outcomes noted. The results of this study support the use of TT and TI techniques for double-bundle anatomic PCLR in restoring knee stability and patient function when used for the treatment of isolated and multiligamentous PCL injuries. The choice between tibial fixation methods for PCLR can be appropriately based on patient and injury characteristics that optimize respective advantages for each technique.

How Are Age, Gender, and Country Differences Associated With PROMIS Physical Function, Upper Extremity, and Pain Interference Scores?

BACKGROUND

The interpretation of patient-reported outcomes requires appropriate comparison data. Currently, no patient-specific reference data exist for the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function (PF), Upper Extremity (UE), and Pain Interference (PI) scales for individuals 50 years and older.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) Can all PROMIS PF, UE, and PI items be used for valid cross-country comparisons in these domains among the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany? (2) How are age, gender, and country related to PROMIS PF, PROMIS UE, and PROMIS PI scores? (3) What is the relationship of age, gender, and country across individuals with PROMIS PF, PROMIS UE, and PROMIS PI scores ranging from very low to very high?

METHODS

We conducted telephone interviews to collect custom PROMIS PF (22 items), UE (eight items), and PI (eight items) short forms, as well as sociodemographic data (age, gender, work status, and education level), with participants randomly selected from the general population older than 50 years in the United States (n = 900), United Kingdom (n = 905), and Germany (n = 921). We focused on these individuals because of their higher prevalence of surgeries and lower physical functioning. Although response rates varied across countries (14% for the United Kingdom, 22% for Germany, and 12% for the United States), we used existing normative data to ensure demographic alignment with the overall populations of these countries. This helped mitigate potential nonresponder bias and enhance the representativeness and validity of our findings. We investigated differential item functioning to determine whether all items can be used for valid crosscultural comparisons. To answer our second research question, we compared age groups, gender, and countries using median regressions. Using imputation of plausible values and quantile regression, we modeled age-, gender-, and country-specific distributions of PROMIS scores to obtain patient-specific reference values and answer our third research question.

RESULTS

All items from the PROMIS PF, UE, and PI measures were valid for across-country comparisons. We found clinically meaningful associations of age, gender, and country with PROMIS PF, UE, and PI scores. With age, PROMIS PF scores decreased (age ß Median = -0.35 [95% CI -0.40 to -0.31]), and PROMIS UE scores followed a similar trend (age ß Median = -0.38 [95% CI -0.45 to -0.32]). This means that a 10-year increase in age corresponded to a decline in approximately 3.5 points for the PROMIS PF score-a value that is approximately the minimum clinically important difference (MCID). Concurrently, we observed a modest increase in PROMIS PI scores with age, reaching half the MCID after 20 years. Women in all countries scored higher than men on the PROMIS PI and 1 MCID lower on the PROMIS PF and UE. Additionally, there were higher T-scores for the United States than for the United Kingdom across all domains. The difference in scores ranged from 1.21 points for the PROMIS PF to a more pronounced 3.83 points for the PROMIS UE. Participants from the United States exhibited up to half an MCID lower T-scores than their German counterparts for the PROMIS PF and PROMIS PI. In individuals with high levels of physical function, with each 10-year increase in age, there could be a decrease of up to 4 points in PROMIS PF scores. Across all levels of upper extremity function, women reported lower PROMIS UE scores than men by an average of 5 points.

CONCLUSION

Our study provides age-, gender-, and country-specific reference values for PROMIS PF, UE, and PI scores, which can be used by clinicians, researchers, and healthcare policymakers to better interpret patient-reported outcomes and provide more personalized care. These findings are particularly relevant for those collecting patient-reported outcomes in their clinical routine and researchers conducting multinational studies. We provide an internet application ( www.common-metrics.org/PROMIS_PF_and_PI_Reference_scores.php ) for user-friendly accessibility in order to perform age, gender, and country conversions of PROMIS scores. Population reference values can also serve as comparators to data collected with other PROMIS short forms or computerized adaptive tests.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II, diagnostic study.

Intersurgeon Variability of Minimal Clinically Important Difference for Worsening Achievement Rates After Total Joint Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Using the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System, we sought to evaluate surgeon performance variability via minimal clinically important difference for worsening (MCID-W) achievement rates in primary and revision total knee and hip arthroplasty.

METHODS

This retrospective study analyzed 3,496 primary total hip arthroplasty (THA), 4,622 primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA), 592 revision THA, and 569 revision TKA patients. Patient factors collected included demographics, comorbidities, and Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System physical function short form 10a scores. Surgeon factors collected included caseload, years of experience, and fellowship training. The MCID-W rate was calculated as the percent of patients in each surgeon's cohort who achieved MCID-W. Distribution was presented via a histogram with associated average, standard deviation, range, and interquartile range (IQR). Linear regressions were performed to evaluate the potential correlation between surgeon- and patient-level factors with MCID-W rate.

RESULTS

The average MCID-W rates of the surgeons represented in the primary THA and TKA cohorts were 12.7 ± 9.2% (range, 0 to 35.3%; IQR, 6.7 to 15.5%) and 18.0 ± 8.2% (range, 0 to 36%; IQR, 14.3 to 22.0%). The average MCID-W rates among the revision THA and TKA surgeons were 36.0 ± 22.2% (range, 9.1 to 90%; IQR, 25.0 to 41.4%) and 21.2 ± 7.7% (range, 8.1 to 37.0%; IQR, 16.6 to 25.4%). Strong correlations were not found between patient- or surgeon-level factors and MCID-W rate of the surgeon.

CONCLUSION

We demonstrated variance in MCID-W achievement rates across surgeons in both primary and revision joint arthroplasty, independent of patient- or surgeon-level factors.

Robotic-Assisted Total Knee Arthroplasty Can Increase Frequency of Achieving Target Limb Alignment in Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty for Preoperative Valgus Deformity

Background

Robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) has been shown to reduce the number of alignment outliers and to improve component positioning compared to manual TKA (mTKA). The primary purpose of this investigation was to compare the frequency of achieving target postoperative limb alignment and component positioning for rTKA vs mTKA.

Methods

A retrospective comparative study was performed on 250 patients undergoing primary TKA by 2 fellowship-trained arthroplasty surgeons. Surgeon A performed predominantly rTKA (103 cases) with the ROSA system (Zimmer Biomet, Warsaw, IN) and less frequently mTKA (44 cases) with conventional instrumentation. Surgeon B performed only mTKA (103 cases). Target limb alignment for surgeon A was 0° for all cases and for surgeon B was 2° varus for varus knees and 0° for valgus knees. Radiographic measurements were determined by 2 reviewers. Target zone was set at ± 2 degrees from the predefined target.

Results

When comparing rTKA to mTKA performed by different surgeons, there were no differences in the percentage within the target zone (57.28% vs 53.40%, P = .575), but rTKA did result in a greater percentage for cases with preoperative valgus (71.42% vs 44.12%, P = .031). Patient-reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Global-10 physical scores were statistically higher at both 3 (P = .016) and 6 months (P = .001) postoperatively for rTKA compared to mTKA performed by different surgeons.

Conclusions

Although experienced surgeons can achieve target limb alignment correction with similar frequency when comparing rTKA to mTKA for all cases, rTKA may achieve target limb alignment with more accuracy for preoperative valgus deformity.

Level of Evidence

Retrospective Cohort Study, Level III.

Longitudinal Predictors of PROMIS Satisfaction With Social Roles and Activities After Shoulder and Knee Sports Orthopaedic Surgery in United States Military Servicemembers: An Observational Study

Background

Satisfaction with social roles and activities is an important outcome for postsurgical rehabilitation and quality of life but not commonly assessed.

Purpose

To evaluate longitudinal patterns of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Satisfaction with Social Roles and Activities measure, including how it relates to other biopsychosocial factors, before and up to 6 months after sports-related orthopaedic surgery.

Study Design

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

Methods

Participants (N = 223) who underwent knee and shoulder sports orthopaedic surgeries between August 2016 and October 2020 completed PROMIS computer-adaptive testing item banks and pain-related measures before surgery and at 6-week, 3-month, and 6-month follow-ups. In a generalized additive mixed model, covariates included time point; peripheral nerve block; the PROMIS Anxiety, Sleep Disturbance, and Pain Behavior measures; and previous 24-hour pain intensity. Patient-reported outcomes were modeled as nonlinear (smoothed) effects.

Results

The linear (estimate, 2.06; 95% CI, 0.77-3.35; P = .002) and quadratic (estimate, 2.93; 95% CI, 1.78-4.08; P < .001) effects of time, as well the nonlinear effects of PROMIS Anxiety (P < .001), PROMIS Sleep Disturbance (P < .001), PROMIS Pain Behavior (P < .001), and pain intensity (P = .02), were significantly associated with PROMIS Satisfaction with Social Roles and Activities. The cubic effect of time (P = .06) and peripheral nerve block (P = .28) were not. The proportion of patients with a 0.5-SD improvement in the primary outcome increased from 23% at 6 weeks to 52% by 6 months postsurgery, whereas those reporting worsening PROMIS Satisfaction with Social Roles and Activities decreased from 30% at 6 weeks to 13% at 6 months.

Conclusion

The PROMIS Satisfaction with Social Roles and Activities measure was found to be related to additional domains of function (eg, mental health, behavioral, pain) associated with postsurgical rehabilitation.

Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) of upper extremity PROMIS scores following arthroscopic rotator cuff repairs

PURPOSE

To calculate and determine what factors are associated with achieving the Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) and the Substantial Clinical Benefit (SCB) of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Upper Extremity Computer Adaptive Testing v2.0 (UE), Pain Interference (P-Interference), and Pain Intensity (P-Intensity) in patients undergoing arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (aRCR).

METHODS

The change in PROMIS scores representing the optimal cutoff for a ROC curve with an area under the curve analysis was used to calculate the anchor-based MCID and SCB. To assess the responsiveness of each PROM, effect sizes and standardized response means (SRM) were calculated. To identify factors associated with attaining the MCID and SCB, univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed.

RESULTS

A total of 323 patients with an average age of 59.9 ± 9.5 were enrolled in this study, of which, 187/323 [57.9%] were male and 136/323 [42.1%] were female. The anchor-based MCID for PROMIS UE, P-Interference, and P-Intensity was: 9.0, 7.5, and 11.2, respectively. The respective SCB was 10.9, 9.3, and 12.7. Effect size and SRM were: PROMIS UE (1.4, 1.3), P-Interference (1.8, 1.5), and P-Intensity (2.3, 2.0). Lower preoperative P-Intensity scores (p = 0.02), dominant arm involvement (p = 0.03), and concomitant biceps tenodesis (p = 0.03) were associated with patients achieving the SCB for PROMIS UE.

CONCLUSION

A large responsiveness for each of the PROMIS instruments due to the majority of patients reporting great improvement after aRCR and a small standard deviation across all outcome measures was shown in our study. Lower preoperative P-Intensity scores and concomitant biceps tenodesis were associated with higher odds of achieving the SCB for PROMIS UE. The knowledge of MCID and SCB values for PROMIS instruments will allow the surgeon to determine whether the improvements in the PROMIS scores after aRCR are clinically meaningful.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

There are Considerable Inconsistencies Among Minimum Clinically Important Differences in TKA: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are frequently used to assess the impact of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) on patients. However, mere statistical comparison of PROMs is not sufficient to assess the value of TKA to the patient, especially given the risk profile of arthroplasty. Evaluation of treatment effect sizes is important to support the use of an intervention; this is often quantified with the minimum clinically important difference (MCID). MCIDs are unique to specific PROMs, as they vary by calculation methodology and study population. Therefore, a systematic review of calculated MCID values, their respective ranges, and assessment of their applications is important to guide and encourage their use as a critical measure of effect size in TKA outcomes research.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

In this systematic review of MCID calculations and reporting in primary TKA, we asked: (1) What are the most frequently reported PROM MCIDs and their reported ranges in TKA? (2) What proportion of studies report distribution- versus anchor-based MCID values? (3) What are the most common methods by which these MCID values are derived for anchor-based values? (4) What are the most common derivation methods for distribution-based values? (5) How do the reported medians and corresponding interquartile ranges (IQR) compare between calculation methods for each PROM?

METHODS

Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, a systematic review was conducted using the PubMed, EMBASE, and MEDLINE databases from inception through March 2022 for TKA articles reporting an MCID value for any PROMs. Two independent reviewers screened articles for eligibility, including any article that calculated new MCID values for PROMs after primary TKA, and extracted these data for analysis. Overall, 576 articles were identified, 38 of which were included in the final analysis. These studies had a total of 710,128 patients with a median age of 67.7 years and median BMI of 30.9 kg/m 2 . Women made up more than 50% of patients in most studies, and the median follow-up period was 17 months (range 0.25 to 72 months). The overall risk of bias was assessed as moderate using the Jadad criteria for one randomized controlled trial (3 of 5 ideal global score) and the modified Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies criteria for comparative studies (mean 17.2 ± 1.8) and noncomparative studies (mean 9.6 ± 1.3). There were 49 unique PROMs for which 233 MCIDs were reported. Calculated values were classified as anchor-based, distribution-based, or not reported. MCID values for each PROM, MCID calculation method, number of patients, and study demographics were extracted from each study. Anchor-based and distribution-based MCIDs were compared for each unique PROM using a Wilcoxon rank sum test given non-normal distribution of values.

RESULTS

The WOMAC Function and Pain subscores were the most frequently reported MCID value, comprising 9% (22 of 233) and 9% (22 of 233), respectively. The composite Oxford Knee Score (OKS) was the next most frequently reported (9% [21 of 233]), followed by the WOMAC composite score (6% [13 of 233]). The median anchor-based values for WOMAC Function and Pain subscores were 23 (IQR 16 to 33) and 25 (IQR 14 to 31), while the median distribution-based values were 11 (IQR 10.8 to 11) and 22 (IQR 17 to 23), respectively. The median anchor-based MCID value for the OKS was 6 (IQR 4 to 7), while the distribution-based value was 7 (IQR 5 to 10). Thirty-nine percent (15 of 38) used an anchor-based method to calculate a new MCID, while 32% (12 of 38) used a distribution-based technique. Twenty-nine percent of studies (11 of 38) calculated MCID values using both methods. For studies reporting an anchor-based calculation method, a question assessing patient satisfaction, pain relief, or quality of life along a five-point Likert scale was the most commonly used anchor (40% [16 of 40]), followed by a receiver operating characteristic curve estimation (25% [10 of 40]). For studies using distribution-based calculations, all articles used a measure of study population variance in their derivation of the MCID, with the most common method reported as one-half the standard deviation of the difference between preoperative and postoperative PROM scores (45% [14 of 31]). Most reported median MCID values (15 of 19) did not differ by calculation method for each unique PROM (p > 0.05) apart from the WOMAC Function component score and the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Pain and Activities of Daily Living subscores.

CONCLUSION

Despite variability of MCIDs for each PROM, there is consistency in the methodology by which MCID values have been derived in published studies. Additionally, there is a consensus about MCID values regardless of calculation method across most of the PROMs we evaluated.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Given their importance to treatment selection and patient safety, authors and journals should report MCID values with greater consistency. We recommend using a 7-point increase as the MCID for the OKS, consistent with the median reported anchor-based value derived from several high-quality studies with large patient groups that used anchor-based approaches for MCID calculation, which we believe are most appropriate for most applications in clinical research. Likewise, we recommend using a 10-point to 15-point increase for the MCID of composite WOMAC, as the median value was 12 (IQR 10 to 17) with no difference between calculation methods. We recommend use of median reported values for WOMAC function and pain subscores: 21 (IQR 15 to 33) and 23 (IQR 13 to 29), respectively.