Predicting changes in the status of patient-reported outcome measures after Birmingham Hip Resurfacing: an observational cohort study with a median follow-up of ten years

Establishing minimal clinically important differences and patient acceptable symptom state thresholds following birmingham hip resurfacing

INTRODUCTION

Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) has emerged as a compelling and innovative alternative to total hip arthroplasty (THA), especially among young, active patients. However, the Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID) and the Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) thresholds have not yet been determined for patients undergoing BHR. Therefore, the current study aimed to (1) determine the MCID and PASS thresholds for both the Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS)-Pain and HOOS physical function shortform (PS), for patients who underwent BHR; and (2) identify factors influencing the achievement of MCID and PASS for HOOS-Pain and HOOS-PS.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data from patients undergoing BHR was analyzed. Patients with osteoarthritis and completed preoperative and 1-year postoperative PROMs were included. Distribution-based and anchored-based approaches were used to estimate MCID and PASS, respectively. The optimal cut-off point for PASS thresholds was calculated using the Youden index.

RESULTS

MCID for HOOS-Pain and PS were calculated to be 9.2 and 9.3, respectively. The PASS threshold for HOOS-Pain and PS were ≥ 77.7 and ≥ 87.3, respectively. The current study identified several factors affecting postoperative achievement of thresholds. Baseline Mental Component Summary (MCS) scores were a predictor for achieving MCID for postoperative HOOS-Pain, achieving MCID for postoperative HOOS-PS, achieving PASS for postoperative HOOS-Pain, and achieving PASS for postoperative HOOS-PS. Furthermore, baseline HOOS-Pain was a significant predictor for achieving MCID for postoperative HOOS-PS, achieving PASS for postoperative HOOS-Pain, and achieving PASS for postoperative HOOS-PS.

CONCLUSIONS

MCID and PASS thresholds were established for HOOS-Pain and PS domains following BHR with most patients achieving these clinically meaningful benchmarks. Additionally, several factors affecting achievement of MCID and PASS were identified, including modifiable risk factors that may allow clinicians to implement optimization strategies and further improve outcomes.

Time for return to sport following total hip arthroplasty: a meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA) is being increasingly undertaken in younger and more active patients, with many of these patients wanting to return to sport (RTS) after surgery. However, the percentage of patients RTS and time at which they are able to get back to sport following surgery remains unknown. The objective of this meta-analysis was to determine the time patients RTS after THA.

METHODS

A search was performed on PUBMED, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for trials on THA and RTS, in the English language, published from the inception of the database to October 2020. All clinical trials reporting on to RTS following THA were included. Data relating to patient demographics, methodological quality, RTS, clinical outcomes and complications were recorded. The PRISMA guidelines were used to undertake this study.

RESULTS

The initial literature search identified 1720 studies. Of these, 11 studies with 2297 patients matched the inclusion criteria. 3 studies with 154 patients demonstrated an overall pooled proportion of 40.0% (95% CI, 32.5-47.9%) of patients RTS between 2 and 3 months after surgery. 4 studies with 242 patients demonstrated an overall pooled proportion of 76.9% (95% CI, 71.5-82.0) of patients RTS by 6 months after surgery. Pooled proportion analysis from 7 trials with 560 patients demonstrated 93.9% (95% CI, 82.7-99.5%) of patients RTS between 6 and 12 months after surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Pooled proportion analysis showed increasingly more patients were able to RTS after THA over the first 1 year after surgery. There remains marked inter and intra-study variations in time for RTS but the pooled analysis shows that over 90% of patients were able to RTS at 6-12 months after THA. These finding will enable more informed discussions between patients and healthcare professionals about time for RTS following THA.

A meta-analysis assessing time for return to sport following hip resurfacing

BACKGROUND

Hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) is associated with excellent functional outcomes and return to pre-disease level of activity. The time for return to sport (RTS) following HRA remains unknown. The aim of this meta-analysis was to establish the time for RTS following HRA.

METHODS

A search was performed on PUBMED, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for trials on HRA and RTS, in the English language, published from the inception of the database to October 2020. In addition, a manual search was performed of relevant sports medicine and orthopaedic journals, and the bibliographies reviewed for eligible trials. All clinical trials reporting on time to RTS following HRA were included. Data relating to patient demographics, methodological quality, operation type, RTS, clinical outcomes, and complications were recorded by two independent reviewers. The PRISMA guidelines for reporting meta-analyses was used to undertake this study.

RESULTS

The initial literature search identified 1559 studies and nine further studies were found. Of these, 11 studies with a total of 659 patients matched the inclusion criteria. Two studies involving a total of 94 patients demonstrated an overall pooled proportion of 91.8% (95% CI 71.8-100) of patients RTS by three months post-operatively. Four studies including a total of 265 patients determined a pooled proportion of 96.8% (95% CI 91.0-99.7) of patients able to RTS by the 6-month post-operative stage. Pooled proportion analysis from all 11 studies comprising 659 patients showed 90.9% (95% CI 82.2-96.9) of patients were able to RTS by final follow up of 3 years.

CONCLUSION

Pooled proportion analysis showed an increasing number of patients were able to RTS after HRA over the first one year after surgery. There remains marked inter and intra-study variations in time for RTS but the pooled analysis shows that over 80% of patients were able to RTS at 6 to 12 months after HRA. The findings of this meta-analysis will enable more informed discussions between patients and healthcare professionals about time for RTS following HRA.

Long-term blood metal ion levels and clinical outcome after Birmingham hip arthroplasty

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to assess long-term metal ion level changes and clinical outcome in patients with a Birmingham hip arthroplasty.

METHODS

For the purpose of this study, we identified all BHR hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) and total hip arthroplasty (THA) operations performed in Turku University Hospital. A random coefficient model was used to compare the change between the first and last metal ion measurement. A Kaplan-Meier estimator was used to assess the survivorship of the BHR HRA and BHR THA with metal related adverse events (pseudotumor, elevated metal ions above the safe upper limit, revision due to metallosis), or revision due to any reason as endpoints with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

BHR HRA was used in 274 hips (233 patients). In addition, we identified 38 BHR-Synergy THAs (38 patients). Operations were performed between 2003 and 2010. Median follow-up time was 14 years for BHR HRA (range: 0.6-17) and 11 years for BHR THA (range: 4.7-13). In the BHR HRA group, geometric means of Cr and Co levels decreased from 2.1 to 1.6 ppb and 2.4 to 1.5 ppb, respectively, during a 3.0-year measurement interval. Metal ion levels in the BHR THA group did not show notable increase. The survivorship of BHR HRA was 66% in 16 years and 34% for BHR THA at 12 years for any metal-related adverse event.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with a Birmingham hip device do not seem to benefit from frequent repeated metal ion measurements. The amount of patients with metal-related adverse events was relatively high, but many of them did not require surgery.

Person centred care provision and care planning in chronic kidney disease: which outcomes matter? A systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies : Care planning in CKD: which outcomes matter?

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE

Explore priorities related to outcomes and barriers of adults with chronic kidney disease (CKD) regarding person centred care and care planning.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review of qualitative studies.

SEARCH STRATEGY & SOURCES

In July 2018 six bibliographic databases, and reference lists of included articles were searched for qualitative studies that included adults with CKD stages 1-5, not on dialysis or conservative management, without a previous kidney transplantation.

ANALYTICAL APPROACH

Three independent reviewers extracted and inductively coded data using thematic synthesis. Reporting quality was assessed using the COREQ and the review reported according to PRISMA and ENTREQ statements.

RESULTS

Forty-six studies involving 1493 participants were eligible. The period after diagnosis of CKD is characterized by feelings of uncertainty, social isolation, financial burden, resentment and fear of the unknown. Patients show interest in ways to return to normality and remain in control of their health in order to avoid further deterioration of kidney function. However, necessary information is often unavailable or incomprehensible. Although patients and healthcare professionals share the predominant interest of whether or not dialysis or transplantation is necessary, patients value many more outcomes that are often unrecognized by their healthcare professionals. We identified 4 themes with 6 subthemes that summarize these findings: 'pursuing normality and control' ('pursuing normality'; 'a search for knowledge'); 'prioritizing outcomes' ('reaching kidney failure'; 'experienced health'; 'social life'; 'work and economic productivity'); 'predicting the future'; and 'realising what matters'. Reporting quality was moderate for most included studies.

LIMITATIONS

Exclusion of non-English articles.

CONCLUSIONS

The realisation that patients' priorities do not match those of the healthcare professionals, in combination with the prognostic ambiguity, confirms fatalistic perceptions of not being in control when living with CKD. These insights may contribute to greater understanding of patients' perspectives and a more person-centred approach in healthcare prioritization and care planning within CKD care.