Personalized outcomes for hip and knee replacement: the patients point of view

Prioritization of Adverse Consequences After Total Knee Arthroplasty Contributing to a Poor Response: A Best-Worst Scaling Exercise Among Total Knee Arthroplasty Patients and Knee Specialists

BACKGROUND

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) can have a number of adverse consequences for patients that might contribute to a poor outcome. This study aimed to prioritize these consequences, from the perspective of patients and knee specialists.

METHODS

There were 95 TKA patients and 63 knee specialists who prioritized a set of 29 adverse consequences, based on a previous qualitative study, using a Maximum Difference Scaling method. A hierarchical Bayesian analysis was used to calculate relative importance scores. Differences and agreements between patients versus knee specialists and satisfied versus dissatisfied patients were analyzed using Mann-Whitney-U tests and Kendall's coefficients of concordance.

RESULTS

There were 4 out of 5 items in the top-5 of both patients and knee specialists that were similar, however, the ranking was different. The highest-ranked consequence for patients was: "Inability to do normal activities such as walking, cycling, swimming and heavy household chores", while knee specialists ranked: "No improvement in pain during the day" as the highest. "No improvement in walking" was in the patients' top-5, but was not ranked in the top-5 of knee specialists. For satisfied and dissatisfied patients, the top-5 of consequences was similar.

CONCLUSION

Comparable perspectives were found for patients versus knee specialists and satisfied versus dissatisfied patients on the importance of adverse consequences after TKA. However, when looking in more detail, differences in ranking of specific subitems suggest that patients place slightly more importance on the inability to perform valued activities, while knee specialists prioritize lack of pain relief to a higher degree.

Exploration of adverse consequences of total knee arthroplasty by patients and knee specialists: a qualitative study

Objectives

A successful outcome according to the knee specialist is not a guarantee for treatment success as perceived by patients. In this study, we aimed to explore outcome expectations and experiences of patients with OA before and after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) surgery and knee specialists that might contribute to the negative appraisal of its effect, and differences in views between patients and knee specialists.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews were held in Belgium and the Netherlands. Twenty-five patients (2 without indications for TKA, 11 on the waiting list for TKA and 12 postoperative TKA) and 15 knee specialists (9 orthopaedic surgeons, 1 physician assistant, 1 nurse practitioner and 4 physiotherapists) were interviewed. Conversations were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed using thematic analysis following the grounded theory approach. Separate analyses were conducted for patients and knee specialists.

Results

Patients were focused on the arduous process of getting used to the prosthesis, lingering pain, awareness of the artificial knee and limitations they experience during valued and daily activities, whereas knee specialists put emphasis on surgical failure, unexplained pain, limited walking ability and impairments that limit the physical functioning of patients.

Conclusion

This study provides a comprehensive overview of potential adverse consequences from the perspective of both patients and knee specialists. Improving patients' awareness and expectations of adaptation to the knee prosthesis needs to be considered.

Is There Room for Individual Patient-Specified Preferences in the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Revolution?

Purpose

The study aim was to test the feasibility of collecting qualitative patient-preferred outcomes or goals and the degree of their attainment as an addition to a standardized process for collecting quantitative composite patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) from patients undergoing knee joint replacement.

Methods

Patients of a large Midwestern medical group scheduled to have total replacement of their knee joint have been asked to complete a PROMs survey preoperatively and at 3 and 12 months after surgery since 2014. In March 2020, an open-ended question about their most important preferred outcome was added to the existing questionnaire. The responses for all 3 time periods from the first 6 months of this addition were summarized quantitatively and analyzed by 2 reviewers.

Results

During that 6-month period, 1481 people completed the main survey while 1463 (98.8%) also completed the open-ended question. At baseline, 90.8% of the 590 baseline respondents identified a preferred outcome. If multiple-choice categories had been used, 82.7% of the responses would have lost some or a large amount of their preferred goals' meaning. Of the 144 who completed surveys at both baseline and 3 months, 86.1% reported another outcome in addition to pain relief, while 54.2% reported "Complete or Mostly" achieving their self-identified preferred outcome.

Conclusions

Most people who have joint replacement surgery and respond to a quantitative PROMs survey are willing to report on their other preferred outcomes as well. Adding an open-ended question to PROMs surveys may increase clinician focus on addressing outcomes important to each patient.

Equity-Driven Implementation of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Musculoskeletal Care: Advancing Value for All

ABSTRACT

The clinical use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in musculoskeletal care is expanding, encompassing both individual patient management and population-level applications. However, without thoughtful implementation, we risk introducing or exacerbating disparities in care processes or outcomes. We outline examples of opportunities, challenges, and priorities throughout PROM implementation to equitably advance value-based care at both the patient and population level. Balancing standardization with tailored strategies can enable the large-scale implementation of PROMs while optimizing care processes and outcomes for all patients.

Is the Promise of PROMs Being Realized? Implementation Experience in a Large Orthopedic Practice

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), increasingly used for research and quality measurement, are lauded for their potential to improve patient-centered care, both through aggregate reporting and when integrated into clinical practice. However, there are few published studies of the resultant use of PROMs in clinical practice. This case study describes the implementation and use of PROMS in a Midwestern multispecialty medical group orthopedic practice among patients undergoing total knee and hip surgery. Specifically, rates of PROMs use by care teams are tracked over time once made available in the electronic health record. During this time, the orthopedics department achieved a patient PROMS survey response rate of 68% at baseline, 58% 3 months post-surgery, and 55% 12 months post-surgery. However, these data were only accessed by the care teams for fewer than 1% of associated clinical encounters. This suggests that making PROMs available for care team review in the electronic health record, even when coupled with relatively high response rates from patients and departmental leadership support is not enough to encourage integration of PROMs into clinical care for patients. Additional effort is required to identify barriers to PROMs use in clinical care and to test methods to enhance use.

Factors correlating with patients' satisfaction after undergoing cartilage repair surgery-data from the German Cartilage Registry (KnorpelRegister DGOU)

Subjective patient satisfaction is the most relevant parameter for assessing the success of treatment after orthopaedic surgery. The aim of the present study was to correlate patient-reported outcome parameters (i.e., absolute KOOS, KOOS increase) and revision-free survival with patient’s satisfaction. Furthermore, the study aimed on the identification of pre-operative factors that are associated with patient’s satisfaction after the surgery.

For the present study, 6305 consecutive patients from the German Cartilage Registry (KnorpelRegister DGOU) were analyzed. Patient characteristics and outcome were correlated with patients’ satisfaction after a follow-up of three years by Spearman correlation. P values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

Mean age was 37 ± 12.5 years, 59.7% patients were male, and 40.3% female. Most patients (46.7%) were treated with an autologous chondrocyte implantation (ACI). The strongest correlation of subjective satisfaction and the subscore quality of life (r = 0.682; p < 0.001) was found, whereas the post-operative increase in KOOS from the pre-operative value showed only a moderate correlation (r = 0.520; p < 0.001). There was also a significant correlation with the absolute KOOS value (r = 0.678; p < 0.001), the subscores pain (r = 0.652; p < 0.001), quality of life (r = 0.682; p < 0.001), and sports (r = 0.633; p < 0.001), whereas symptoms (r = 0.504, p < 0.001) and activities of daily life (r = 0.601; p < 0.001) showed a weaker correlation. Pain also correlated highly significant with the patient satisfaction 24 months after surgery (r =  − 0.651, p < 0.001). The correlation between satisfaction after the 2nd and 3rd year (r = 0.727; p < 0.001) is stronger than correlation after six months and three years (r = 0.422, p < 0.001). All pre-operative parameters show a very weak correlation (r < 0.1).

The use of standardized measuring instruments (KOOS and Pain) is a relevant outcome parameter in science and clinical practice, whereas absolute values represent satisfaction better than the individual increase. The subscores “pain,” “quality of life,” and “sports” represent satisfaction better than the subscores “symptoms” and “activity of daily life.” Early satisfaction has only a moderate predictive value for satisfaction after 3 years, which is of great practical relevance in particular for the assessment of potential treatment failures. It is remarkable to note that a revision surgery is only very mildly associated with increased dissatisfaction. Pre-operative factors are not reliable prediction factors for post-operative patient satisfaction.