Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) after elective hip, knee and shoulder arthroplasty: protocol for a prospective cohort study

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.

Global mapping of institutional and hospital-based (Level II-IV) arthroplasty registries: a scoping review

PURPOSE

Four joint arthroplasty registries (JARs) levels exist based on the recorded data type. Level I JARs are national registries that record primary data. Hospital or institutional JARs (Level II-IV) document further data (patient-reported outcomes, demographic, radiographic). A worldwide list of Level II-IV JARs must be created to effectively assess and categorize these data.

METHODS

Our study is a systematic scoping review that followed the PRISMA guidelines and included 648 studies. Based on their publications, the study aimed to map the existing Level II-IV JARs worldwide. The secondary aim was to record their lifetime, publications' number and frequency and recognise differences with national JARs.

RESULTS

One hundred five Level II-IV JARs were identified. Forty-eight hospital-based, 45 institutional, and 12 regional JARs. Fifty JARs were found in America, 39 in Europe, nine in Asia, six in Oceania and one in Africa. They have published 485 cohorts, 91 case-series, 49 case-control, nine cross-sectional studies, eight registry protocols and six randomized trials. Most cohort studies were retrospective. Twenty-three per cent of papers studied patient-reported outcomes, 21.45% surgical complications, 13.73% postoperative clinical and 5.25% radiographic outcomes, and 11.88% were survival analyses. Forty-four JARs have published only one paper. Level I JARs primarily publish implant revision risk annual reports, while Level IV JARs collect comprehensive data to conduct retrospective cohort studies.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study mapping all Level II-IV JARs worldwide. Most JARs are found in Europe and America, reporting on retrospective cohorts, but only a few report on studies systematically.

Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty Demonstrate Less Improvement and Significantly Higher Rates of Worsening Compared to Primaries

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) provide the patient's perspective following total hip arthroplasty (THA), although differences between primary THA (pTHA) and revision THA (rTHA) remain unclear. Thus, we compared the Minimal Clinically Important Difference for Improvement (MCID-I) and Worsening (MCID-W) in pTHA and rTHA patients.

METHODS

Data from 2,159 patients (1,995 pTHAs/164 rTHAs) who had completed Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Physical Function Short Form (HOOS-PS), Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function Short Form 10a (PF10a), PROMIS Global-Mental, or PROMIS Global-Physical questionnaires were analyzed. The PROMs and MCID-I/MCID-W rates were compared using statistical tests and multivariate logistic regressions.

RESULTS

Compared to the pTHA group, the rTHA group had lower rates of improvement and higher rates of worsening for almost all PROMs, including HOOS-PS (MCID-I: 54 versus 84%, P < .001; MCID-W: 24 versus 4.4%, P < .001), PF10a (MCID-I: 44 versus 73%, P < .001; MCID-W: 22 versus 5.9%, P < .001), PROMIS Global-Mental (MCID-W: 42 versus 28%, P < .001), and PROMIS Global-Physical (MCID-I: 41 versus 68%, P < .001; MCID-W: 26 versus 11%, P < .001). Odds ratios supported rates of worsening following revision for the HOOS-PS (Odds Ratio (OR): 8.25, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 5.62 to 12.4, P < .001), PF10a (OR: 8.34, 95% CI: 5.63 to 12.6, P < .001), PROMIS Global-Mental (OR: 2.16, 95% CI: 1.41 to 3.34, P < .001), and PROMIS Global-Physical (OR: 3.69, 95% CI: 2.46 to 5.62, P < .001).

CONCLUSION

Patients reported higher rates of worsening and lower rates of improvement following rTHA than pTHA, with significantly less score improvement and lower postoperative scores for all PROMs after revision. Most patients reported improvements following pTHA, with few worsening postoperatively.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative study.

Identifying patient subgroups with different trends of patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) after elective knee arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly being used to assess the effectiveness of elective total knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, little is known about how PROMs scores change over time in these patients. The aim of this study was to identify the trajectories of quality of life and joint functioning, and their associated demographic and clinical features in patients undergoing elective TKA.

METHODS

A prospective, cohort study was conducted, in which PROMs questionnaires (Euro Quality 5 Dimensions 3L, EQ-5D-3L, and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Patient Satisfaction, KOOS-PS) were administered to patients at a single center undergoing elective TKA before surgery, and at 6 and 12 months after surgery. Latent class growth mixture models were used to analyze the patterns of change in PROMs scores over time. Multinomial logistic regression was used to investigate the association between patient characteristics and PROMs trajectories.

RESULTS

A total of 564 patients were included in the study. The analysis highlighted differential patterns of improvement after TKA. Three distinct PROMs trajectories were identified for each PROMs questionnaire, with one trajectory indicating the most favorable outcome. Female gender appears to be associated with a presentation to surgery with worse perceived quality of life and joint function than males, but also more rapid improvement after surgery. Having an ASA score greater than 3 is instead associated with a worse functional recovery after TKA.

CONCLUSION

The results suggest three main PROMs trajectories in patients undergoing elective TKA. Most patients reported improved quality of life and joint functioning at 6 months, which then stabilized. However, other subgroups showed more varied trajectories. Further research is needed to confirm these findings and to explore the potential clinical implications of these results.

Total Hip Replacement: Psychometric Validation of the Italian Version of Forgotten Joint Score (FJS-12)

BACKGROUND

One million Total Hip Replacements (THA) are thought to be performed annually. To measure prosthesis awareness throughout daily activities, the FJS-12 patient-reported outcome scale was developed. This article's goal is to undertake a psychometric validation of the Italian FJS-12 among a sample of related THA patients.

METHODS

Between January and July 2019, data from 44 patients were retrieved. The participants were required to complete the Italian version of FJS-12 and of the WOMAC at preoperative follow-up, after two weeks, 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively.

RESULTS

The Pearson correlation coefficient between the FJS-12 and WOMAC was 0.287 (p = 0.002) at preoperative follow-up, r = 0.702 (p < 0.001) at 1 month, r = 0.516 (p < 0.001) at 3 months and r = 0.585 (p < 0.001) at 6 months. The ceiling effect surpassed the acceptable range (15%) for FJS-12 in 1 month (25.5%) and WOMAC in 6 months follow-up (27.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

The psychometric validation of the Italian version of this score for THA was executed with acceptable results. FJS-12 and WOMAC reported no ceiling and floor effects. Therefore, to distinguish between patients who had good or exceptional results following UKA, the FJS-12 could be a reliable score. Under the first four months, FJS-12 had a smaller ceiling effect than WOMAC. It is recommended to use this score in clinical research concerning the outcomes of THA.

Patient reported outcomes measures (PROMs) trajectories after elective hip arthroplasty: a latent class and growth mixture analysis

Background

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are an extensively used tool to assess and improve the quality of healthcare services. PROMs can be related to individual demographic and clinical characteristics in patients undergoing hip arthroplasty (HA). The aim of this study is to identify distinct subgroups of patients with unique trajectories of PROMS scores and to determine patients’ features associated with these subgroups.

Methods

We conducted a prospective, cohort study in which PROMs questionnaires (Euro Quality 5 Dimensions 3L, EQ-5D-3L, Euro-Quality-Visual-Analytic-Score, EQ-VAS, Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, HOOS-PS) were administered to patients undergoing elective HA pre-operatively, and at 6 and 12 months after surgery. For each measure, latent class growth analysis and growth mixture models were used to identify subgroups of patients with distinct trajectories of scores. Demografic and clinical predictors of the latent classes in growth mixture model were identified using a 3-step approach.

Results

We found three distinct trajectories for each PROM score. These trajectories indicated a response heterogeneity to the HA among the patients (n = 991). Patient’s gender, ASA score, and obesity were significantly associated with different PROMs trajectories.

Conclusions

We identified three distinct trajectories for each of the three PROMs indicators. Several demographic and clinical characteristics are associated with the different trajectories of PROMs at 6 and 12 months after HA and could be used to identify groups of patients with different outcomes following HA surgery. These findings underline the importance of patient-centered care, supporting the usefulness of integrating PROMs data alongside routinely collected healthcare records for guiding clinical care and maximizing patients’ positive outcomes.

Trial registration: Protocol version (1.0) and trial registration data are available on the platform www.clinicaltrial.gov with the identifier NCT03790267, posted on December 31, 2018.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s41687-022-00503-5.

Computer-Assisted Surgery Enables Beginner Surgeons, Under Expert Guidance, to Achieve Long-Term Clinical Results not Inferior to Those of a Skilled Surgeon in Knee Arthroplasty

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to determine whether the use of a surgical navigation system in total knee replacement (TKR) enables beginner and intermediate surgeons to achieve clinical PROM outcomes as good as those conducted by expert surgeons in the long term.

METHODS

We enrolled 100 consecutive patients whose total navigated knee arthroplasty (TKA) was performed in our institution from 2008 to 2010. According to the principal surgeon's surgical experience, the patients were divided into three groups: (1) beginner surgeons, with no more than 30 previous knee replacement performances, (2) intermediate surgeons, with more than 30 but not more than 300, and (3) expert surgeons, with more than 300 knee replacements. Demographic data collected on the cohort included gender, laterality, age, and body mass index (BMI). The outcome measures assessed were Forgotten Joint Score (FJS), implant positioning, limb alignment, and prosthesis survival rate. A margin of equivalence of ± 18.5 points in the FJS scale was prespecified in terms of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) to compare the FJS results obtained in the long period between the groups of interest.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up was 11.10 ± 0.78, 10.86 ± 0.66, and 11.30 ± 0.74 years, respectively, for each of the groups. The long-term FJS mean score was 80.86 ± 21.88, 81.36 ± 23.87, and 90.48 ± 14.65 for each group. The statistical analysis proved noninferiority and equivalence in terms of the FJS results reported in the long term by patients in Groups 1 or 2 compared to those in Group 3. More specifically, it has been proved that the mean difference between groups is within the interval of equivalence defined in terms of the MCID. The overall prostheses survival rate was 93.7%.

CONCLUSION

Navigated assisted TKA, under expert guidance, can be as effective when performed by beginner or intermediate surgeons as performed by senior surgeons regarding the accuracy of implant positioning, limb alignment, and long-term clinical outcome.

A continuous PREMs and PROMs Observatory for elective hip and knee arthroplasty: study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Scholars, healthcare practitioners and policymakers have increasingly focused their attention on patient-centredness. Patient-reported metrics support patient-driven improvement actions in healthcare systems. Despite the great interest, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are still not extensively collected in many countries and not integrated with the collection of patient-reported experience measures (PREMs). This protocol describes the methodology behind an innovative observatory implemented in Tuscany, Italy, aiming at continuously and longitudinally collecting PROMs and PREMs for elective hip and knee total replacement.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The Observatory is digital. Enrolled patients are invited via SMS or email to online questionnaires, which include the Oxford Hip Score or the Oxford Knee Score. Data are real-time reported to healthcare professionals and managers in a raw format, anonymised and aggregated on a web platform. The data will be used to investigate the relationship between the PROMs trend and patients' characteristics, surgical procedure, hospital characteristics, and PREMs. Indicators using patient data will be computed, and they will integrate the healthcare performance evaluation system adopted in Tuscany.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The data protection officers of local healthcare organisations and the regional privacy office framed the initiative referring to the national and regional guidelines that regulate patient surveys. The findings will be reported both in real time and for publication in peer-reviewed journals.

Patient-reported outcomes after hip and knee arthroplasty : results from a large national registry

AIMS

This study aims to describe the pre- and postoperative self-reported health and quality of life from a national cohort of patients undergoing elective total conventional hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in Australia. For context, these data will be compared with patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) data from other international nation-wide registries.

METHODS

Between 2018 to 2020, and nested within a nationwide arthroplasty registry, preoperative and six-month postoperative PROMs were electronically collected from patients before and after elective THA and TKA. There were 5,228 THA and 8,299 TKA preoperative procedures as well as 3,215 THA and 4,982 TKA postoperative procedures available for analysis. Validated PROMs included the EuroQol five-dimension five-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L; range 0 to 100; scored worst-best health), Oxford Hip/Knee Scores (OHS/OKS; range 0 to 48; scored worst-best hip/knee function) and the 12-item Hip/Knee disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS-12/KOOS-12; range 0 to 100; scored best-worst hip/knee health). Additional items included preoperative expectations, patient-perceived improvement, and postoperative satisfaction. Descriptive analyses were undertaken.

RESULTS

For THA and TKA patients respectively, the patient profile was 2,850 (54.5%) and 4,684 (56.4%) female, mean age 66.8 years (SD 10.6) and 67.5 (SD 8.8), and mean BMI 29.9 kg/m2 (SD 7.7) and 32.5 kg/m2 (SD 7.0). The proportion of THA and TKA patients who reported their joint as 'much better' was 2,946 (92.6%) and 4,020 (81.6%) respectively, and the majority of patients were 'satisfied' or 'very satisfied' with their procedure (2,754 (86.5%) and 3,981 (80.8%)). There were 311 (9.7%) of THA patients and 516 (10.5%) of TKA patients who reported 'dissatisfied' or 'very dissatisfied' with their surgery.

CONCLUSION

Large improvements in pain, function, and overall health were evident following primary THA and TKA. Approximately 10% of patients reported dissatisfaction with their surgery. Future analyses will focus on factors contributing to dissatisfaction after arthroplasty. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(6):422-432.

Institutional arthroplasty registry: what is the minimum acceptable dataset to be included in your hospital? Recommendations from a single-country national consensus using the Delphi method

PURPOSE

Institutional arthroplasty registries are very popular nowadays; however, very few efforts have been made in order to standardize the information to be collected, thus limiting the possibility of inter-institutional data interpretation. This manuscript reports the results of a single-country consensus designed to define the minimum standardized dataset to be recorded within an institutional arthroplasty registry.

METHODS

A national consensus was carried out among all members of the Colombian Society of Hip and Knee Surgeons using the Delphi method. Eleven questions and answers comprising every potential domain of an institutional registry of hip and knee arthroplasty were defined. According to the methodology, anonymous voting and multiple discussion rounds were performed. Three levels of agreement were defined: Strong consensus: equal to or greater than 80%, weak consensus between 70 and 79.9%, and no consensus below 70%.

RESULTS

All of the questions reached consensus level. The minimum dataset was defined to include demographic and clinical information, intraoperative and implant details, follow-up and early complications, implant survival, and functional outcome scores, as well as the validation model to assess information quality within the database. Currently, this dataset is being implemented voluntarily by the members of our national society.

DISCUSSION

A national consensus is a feasible method to build homogeneous arthroplasty registries. We recommend such an exercise since it establishes the basis to compare and add data between institutions and the joint analysis of said information in a national registry.