Can the pre-operative Western Ontario and McMaster score predict patient satisfaction following total hip arthroplasty?

Clinical relevance of patient-reported outcome measures in patients who have undergone total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

In orthopaedic research, it is crucial to determine changes that are statistically significant and clinically meaningful. One approach to accomplish this is by calculating the Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID), the Clinically Important Differences (CID), the Minimum Detectable Change (MDC), the Minimal Important Change (MIC), and the Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) values. These tools assist medical professionals in comprehending the patient's viewpoint, enabling them to establish treatment objectives that align with patients' desires and expectations. The present systematic review investigated the MCID, MIC, CID, MDC, and PASS of the most used PROMs to assess patients who have undergone THA.

METHODS

This systematic review followed the 2020 PRISMA guidelines. Web of Science, Embase, and PubMed were accessed in March 2024 without time constraints or additional filters. All the clinical investigations which evaluated data tools (MCID, MIC, CID, MDC, and PASS) to assess the clinical relevance of PROMs in THA were accessed. Articles in Spanish, Italian, German, and English were eligible. Studies with levels of evidence I to III were eligible.

RESULTS

Data from 100,824 patients were collected. All relevant demographic data were analysed and summarised. In addition, the MCID, MIC, CID, MDC and PASS of the COMI, HOOS, SF-36, OHS, Oxford-12, PROMIS-PF, SF-12, and WOMAC scores for THA were determined.

CONCLUSION

Current evidence recommends to collect MCIDs based on anchors routinely. These values should be used as complementary tools to determine the clinical effectiveness of a treatment instead of solely relying on statistically significant improvements.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, systematic review and meta-analysis.

Instruments to assess appropriateness of hip and knee arthroplasty: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To assess criteria and psychometric properties of instruments for assessing appropriateness of elective joint arthroplasty (JA) for adults with primary hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA).

METHODS

A systematic review guided by Cochrane methods and PRISMA guidelines. Studies were searched in five databases. Eligible articles include all study designs developing, testing, and/or using an instrument to assess JA appropriateness. Two independent reviewers screened and extracted data. Instruments were compared with Hawker et al. JA consensus criteria. Psychometric properties of instruments were described and appraised guided by Fitzpatrick's and COSMIN approaches.

RESULTS

Of 55 instruments included, none met all Hawker et al. JA consensus criteria. Criteria the most met were pain (n = 50), function (n = 49), quality of life (n = 33), and radiography (n = 24). Criteria the least met were clinical evidence of OA (n = 18), expectations (n = 15), readiness for surgery (n = 11), conservative treatments (n = 8), and patient/surgeon agree benefits outweigh risks (n = 0). Instrument by Arden et al. met the most criteria (6 of 9). The most tested psychometric properties were appropriateness (n = 55), face/content validity (n = 55), predictive validity (n = 29), construct validity and feasibility (n = 24). The least tested psychometric properties were intra-rater reliability (n = 3), internal consistency (n = 5), and inter-rater reliability (n = 13). Instruments by Gutacker et al. and Osborne et al. met the most psychometric properties (4 of 10).

CONCLUSION

Most instruments included traditional criteria for assessing JA appropriateness but did not include a trial of conservative treatments or shared decision-making elements. There was limited evidence on psychometric properties.

Should We Aim to Help Patients "Feel Better" or "Feel Good" After Total Hip Arthroplasty? Determining Factors Affecting the Achievement of the Minimal Clinically Important Difference and Patient Acceptable Symptom State

BACKGROUND

Recent attempts have been made to use preoperative patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) thresholds as prior authorization criteria based on the assumption that patients who have higher baseline scores are less likely to achieve the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). This study aimed to identify factors affecting the achievement of MCID and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) after total hip arthroplasty (THA), and to determine the overlap between the two outcomes.

METHODS

We identified 3,581 primary, unilateral THAs performed at a single practice in 2015-2019. PROMs including Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement (HOOS-JR) and 12-item Short Form Health Survey were collected preoperatively and 1-year postoperatively. The likelihood of attaining PASS according to attainment of MCID was assessed. Multivariable regression was used to identify independent predictors of MCID and PASS.

RESULTS

In total, 79.8% achieved MCID and 73.6% achieved PASS for HOOS-JR. Approximately 1 in 7 patients who achieved MCID did not eventually achieve PASS. Worse preoperative HOOS-JR (odd ratio 0.933) was associated with MCID attainment. Better preoperative HOOS-JR (odd ratio 1.015) was associated with PASS attainment. Men, lower body mass index, better American Society of Anesthesiologists score, and better preoperative 12-item Short Form Health Survey mental score were predictors of MCID and PASS. Age, race, ethnicity, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and smoking status were not significant predictors.

CONCLUSION

Preoperative PROMs were associated with achieving MCID and PASS after THA, albeit in opposite directions. Clinicians should strive to help patients "feel better" and "feel good" after surgery. Preoperative PROMs should not solely be used to prioritize access to care.

Specific knowledge and resilience affect short-term outcome in patients following primary total hip arthroplasty

PURPOSE

The aim of the present study was to investigate the potential associations between specific knowledge, resilience and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS) following primary total hip arthroplasty (THA).

METHODS

In a cross-sectional prospective study, consecutive patients following primary THA were included at a rehabilitation center. A novel knowledge score and the validated Connor Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) were utilized to assess patients' specific knowledge and resilience, respectively. Additionally, patients completed a qualitative questionnaire regarding the information they had received. The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), as well as the University of California and Los Angeles Score (UCLA) served as primary outcome measures. Stepwise multiple regression analysis was performed to identify potential predictors of outcome.

RESULTS

A total of 103 patients at a mean age of 67.5 years (SD 10.5, 38-88) were included in the analysis at a median of 55.5 days (IQR 43-81) following primary THA. The mean knowledge and resilience scores were 3.8 (SD 1.6, 0-7) and 69.5 (SD 18.5, 0-100), respectively. Forty-seven percent of patients were afraid of harming their prosthesis and these patients had up to 59% worse WOMAC scores (p < 0.001). WOMAC scores on admission to rehabilitation were predicted by resilience and knowledge scores (R2 = 0.106, p = 0.036). UCLA scores at the time of admission were predicted by knowledge scores (R2 = 0.078, p = 0.007).

CONCLUSION

The present study demonstrated that patients with a feeling of uncertainty had an inferior short-term functional outcome following primary THA. Moreover, it could be shown that higher specific knowledge and resilience are associated with a better functional outcome according to validated PROMS. While these findings need to be prospectively validated in future studies, specific patient knowledge and resilience may have a direct impact on the outcome of primary THA.

Is there a Threshold Preoperative WOMAC Score That Predicts Patient Satisfaction after Total Knee Arthroplasty?

The aim of this study was to identify threshold preoperative Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores that were predictive of patient dissatisfaction 1 year after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). A retrospective cohort of 3,324 patients undergoing a primary TKA was identified from an established arthroplasty database. Patient demographics, comorbidities, and the WOMAC score were collected preoperatively. Patient satisfaction was assessed at 1 year using four questions that focused on: overall outcome, activity, work, and pain. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to identify threshold values predictive of dissatisfaction. The overall satisfaction rate at 1 year was 89.7% (n = 2982). Patients who were satisfied had a significantly greater preoperative pain (3.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.6-5.6, p < 0.001) and functional (4.5, 95% CI 2.6-6.5, p < 0.001) component and total (4.2, 95% CI 2.3-6.0, p < 0.001) WOMAC scores compared with those who were dissatisfied. ROC curve analysis demonstrated the preoperative pain (p = 0.001) and functional (p < 0.001) components and total (p < 0.001) WOMAC scores were significant predictors of satisfaction. Patients scoring < 36 for the pain and function components and < 35 for the total WOMAC score were more likely to be dissatisfied with their overall outcome, but the area under the curves (AUCs) for these predictive threshold values were 0.56, 0.54, and 0.60, respectively, indicating poor prognostic value. A similar finding was observed for satisfaction with pain relief and ability to work and recreational activities; however, in addition the stiffness component was also a significant (p < 0.001) predictor with a threshold value of < 43. Again, these thresholds were of poor prognostic value with an AUC of less than 0.57 for all these satisfaction questions. Threshold values in the preoperative component and total WOMAC scores were not reliable prognostic indicators of overall patient satisfaction or for satisfaction with pain relief, ability to do work, or recreational activities after TKA.

Addition of dexamethasone to local infiltration analgesia in elective total knee arthroplasty: double-blind, randomized control trial

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Total knee arthroplasty is associated with significant pain, and effective analgesia is beneficial to patient satisfaction and functional outcomes. Studies have demonstrated that dexamethasone may have a facilitatory role on the action of local anesthesia, but this effect, when added to a local infiltration analgesia (LIA) mixture for patients having knee arthroplasty, is underexplored. Our hypothesis was that the addition of dexamethasone to local anesthetic infiltration would improve analgesic outcomes following total knee arthroplasty.

METHODS

We performed a double-blind, randomized controlled trial of 140 patients undergoing elective, unilateral, total knee arthroplasty. Patients were randomly allocated to receive either 2 mL of saline 0.9% or 2 mL of dexamethasone 4 mg/mL added to a LIA mixture. Our primary outcome was 24 hours of oral morphine equivalent consumption. Our secondary outcomes included short-term and long-term analgesic and functional outcomes and adverse events.

RESULTS

A total of 72 patients were included in the saline group and 68 were included in the dexamethasone group. We found comparable 24 hours of morphine consumption between saline and dexamethasone groups, with a median of 60 (IQR 40-105 (range 16-230)) mg and 56 (IQR 41-75 (range 0-300)) mg, respectively (p=0.096). Dexamethasone was associated with a statistically significant reduction in total inpatient opioid consumption, incidence of requiring rescue patient-controlled analgesia, length of hospital stay, and postoperative nausea, compared with saline. Patients in the dexamethasone group had a greater range of joint movement and distance walked on postoperative day 1 than the saline group. There were no differences in rest or active pain scores, timed up and go or 3-month outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Dexamethasone 8 mg was associated with no improvements in 24 hours of morphine consumption but was associated with modest improvements in short-term analgesia, short-term function, length of stay and postoperative nausea. There were no long-term benefits in the use of dexamethasone in LIA for patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02760043.

Are Oxford Hip Score and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index Useful Predictors of Clinical Meaningful Improvement and Satisfaction After Total Hip Arthroplasty?

BACKGROUND

Up to 15% of patients express dissatisfaction after total hip arthroplasty (THA). Preoperative patient-report outcome measures (PROMs) scores can potentially mitigate this by predicting postoperative satisfaction, identifying patients that will benefit most from surgery. The aim of this study was to (1) calculate the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) thresholds for Oxford Hip Score (OHS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and the Short Form-36 (SF-36) mental component summary (MCS) and physical component summary (PCS) scores and (2) identify the threshold values of these PROMs that could be used to predict patient satisfaction and expectation fulfilment.

METHODS

Prospectively collected registry data of 1334 primary THA patients who returned for 2-year follow-up from 1998 to 2016 were reviewed. All patients were assessed preoperatively and postoperatively at 2 years using the OHS, WOMAC, and SF-36 PCS/MCS scores. The MCID for each PROMs was calculated, and the proportion of patients that attained MCID was recorded. The relationship between satisfaction, expectation fulfilment, and MCID attainment was analyzed using Spearman rank correlation. Optimal threshold scores for each PROM that predicted MCID attainment and satisfaction/expectation fulfilment at 2 years were calculated using receiver operating curve analysis.

RESULTS

The calculated MCID for OHS, WOMAC, SF-36 PCS, and SF-36 MCS were 5.2, 10.8, 6.7, and 6.2, respectively. A threshold value of 24.5 for the preoperative OHS was predictive of achieving WOMAC MCID at 2 years after THA (area under the curve 0.80, P < .001). 93.1% of patients were satisfied, and 95.5% had expectations fulfilled at 2 years. None of the PROMs were able to predict satisfaction.

CONCLUSION

OHS and WOMAC scores can be used to determine clinical meaningful improvement but are limited in their ability to predict patient satisfaction after THA.

Statistical process control assessed implementation fidelity of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in routine care

OBJECTIVES

Ensuring implementation fidelity of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in the complex clinical setting remains exigent. We aimed to integrate the routine use of PROM reports in day-to-day patient care and assess the implementation outcomes using statistical process control (SPC) methods.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

This prospective pilot study used an implementation science framework to integrate PROMs. SPC analysis was applied to track patient completion rates and staff acknowledgment rates over time. Daily observational data across clinical areas were collected to assess potential variations.

RESULTS

Data were available from 324 patient encounters over 14 weeks. On average, 78% (52% to 100%) of eligible patients entering the clinic completed the PROMs; staff acknowledged 78% (50-100%) of these patient reports. Most patterns of fluctuation were inside the control frame. Dips in compliance relating to changes in clinic daily routine, including the introduction of the second randomized clinic, were quickly resolved with a structured response.

CONCLUSION

Implementation of PROMs was feasible with reasonable patient completion and staff acknowledgment rates. Fidelity was vulnerable to barriers impacting the daily routine or unusual events in the clinics, suggesting that greater standardization and integration into clinic processes may yet further improve compliance and consistency of reporting.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures are not a Valid Proxy for Patient Satisfaction in Total Joint Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly used as quality benchmarks in total joint arthroplasty. The objective of this study is to investigate whether PROMs correlate with patient satisfaction, which is arguably the most important and desired outcome.

METHODS

Our institutional joint database was queried for patients who underwent primary, elective, unilateral total joint arthroplasty. Eligible patients were asked to complete a satisfaction survey at final follow-up. Correlation coefficients (R) were calculated to quantify the relationship between patient satisfaction and prospectively collected PROMs. We explored a wide range of PROMs including Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Short Form-12, Oxford Hip Score, Knee Society Clinical Rating Score (KSCRS), Single Assessment Numerical Evaluation, and University of California Los Angeles activity level rating.

RESULTS

In general, there was only weak to moderate correlation between patient satisfaction and PROMs. Querying the absolute postoperative scores had higher correlation with patient satisfaction compared to either preoperative scores or net changes in scores. The correlation was higher with disease-specific PROMs (WOMAC, Oxford Hip Score, KSCRS) compared to general health (Short Form-12), activity level (University of California Los Angeles activity level rating), or perception of normalcy (Single Assessment Numerical Evaluation). Within disease-specific PROMs, the pain domain consistently carried the highest correlation with patient satisfaction (WOMAC pain subscale, R = 0.45, P < .001; KSCRS pain subscale, R = 0.49, P < .001).

CONCLUSION

There is only weak to moderate correlation between PROMs and patient satisfaction. PROMs alone are not the optimal way to evaluate patient satisfaction. We recommend directly querying patients about satisfaction and using shorter PROMs, particularly disease-specific PROMs that assess pain perception to better gauge patient satisfaction.

Addition of dexamethasone to local infiltration analgesia in elective total hip arthroplasty: a double-blind, randomized control trial

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Pain following total hip arthroplasty is significant, and effective analgesia is associated with an improvement in functional outcomes. Dexamethasone may facilitate the action of local anesthesia, but its role as an additive to a local infiltration analgesia (LIA) mixture in hip arthroplasty settings has not been investigated. We hypothesized that the addition of dexamethasone to local anesthetic infiltration improves analgesic outcomes following total hip arthroplasty.

METHODS

We performed a double-blind, randomized control trial of 170 patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty. Patients were randomized to receive LIA mixed with either 2 mL of saline 0.9% or 2 mL of dexamethasone 4 mg/mL. The primary outcome was 24 hours oral morphine consumption. Secondary outcomes included short-term and long-term analgesic and functional outcomes and adverse events.

RESULTS

85 patients were included in each arm. 24 hours morphine consumption was similar between saline and dexamethasone groups, with a median (IQR (range)) of 75 (45-105 (0-240)) and 62.5 (37.5-102.5 (0-210)) mg, respectively (p=0.145). However, patients receiving dexamethasone had significantly reduced opioid consumption for their total in-hospital stay, but not at any other time points examined. Functional outcomes were similar between groups. The incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting was reduced in patients receiving dexamethasone.

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of 8 mg dexamethasone to LIA did not reduce 24 hours morphine consumption but was associated with limited improvement in short-term analgesic outcomes and a reduction in postoperative nausea and vomiting. Dexamethasone had no effect on functional outcomes or long-term analgesia.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02760043.

Association of the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey Physical Component Summary Score With Patient Satisfaction and Improvement 2 Years After Total Knee Arthroplasty

IMPORTANCE

Increases in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) utilization rates suggest that its indications have been expanded to include patients with less severe symptoms. A recent study challenged the cost-effectiveness of TKA in this group of patients.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the association of the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey physical component summary score (SF-36 PCS) with patient satisfaction 2 years after TKA.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study reviewed registry data from 2 years of follow-up of patients who underwent unilateral TKA from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2014, at a single-center tertiary institution in Singapore. Data were acquired on April 27, 2017, and analyzed from August 15, 2017, to December 22, 2017.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Patient satisfaction and SF-36 PCS. Preoperative disability and postoperative function as measured by the SF-36 PCS were correlated with Δ (2-year end point score minus baseline score) and patient satisfaction, scored on a 6-point Likert scale, with lower scores indicating greater satisfaction.

RESULTS

Of the 6659 patients, 5234 (78.6%) were female and 5753 (86.4%) were of Chinese ethnicity. Mean (SD) age was 67.0 (7.7) years, and mean (SD) body mass index (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared) was 27.7 (4.6). At 2-year follow-up, the mean (SD) SF-36 PCS score improved from 32.2 (10.1) to 48.2 (9.5) (P < .001). There were 1680 patients (25.2%) who described their satisfaction as excellent, 2574 (38.7%) very good, 1879 (28.2%) good, 382 (5.7%) fair, 96 (1.4%) poor, and 48 (0.7%) terrible. The minimal clinically important difference (change in SF-36 PCS of 10 from baseline) was met in 4515 patients (67.8%), and overall satisfaction was 97.8% (6515 patients). Covariance analysis showed significantly higher satisfaction in patients with preoperative scores of 40 to less than 50. Patients who were unlikely to meet the minimal clinically important difference compared with those who were likely to meet it (SF-36 PCS of ≥42.1 vs <42.1) had significantly higher 2-year satisfaction (mean [SD], 2.15 [0.9] vs 2.23 [1.0]; P = .009).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The findings suggest that a general health score, such as SF-36, is not associated with patient satisfaction 2 years after TKA. Functional assessment, preoperative counseling, and modification of expectations appear to remain vital before TKA.

Rationing for Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty Using the New Zealand Orthopaedic Association Score: Effectiveness and Comparison With Patient-Reported Scores

BACKGROUND

There is increasing interest in scoring systems to prioritize patients for hip and knee arthroplasty. The purpose of this study was to determine the effectiveness of the New Zealand Orthopaedic Association (NZOA) score and compare it with patient-reported scores of patients listed for hip and knee arthroplasty.

METHODS

Over a 1-year period, all patients listed for primary hip and knee arthroplasty were scored by a prioritization nurse. The NZOA score, outcome, preoperative Oxford hip or knee score (OHKS) and reduced Western Ontario McMaster osteoarthritis index (WOMAC) score (RWS) were collected.

RESULTS

Overall, 608 patients were listed for hip (319) or knee (289) arthroplasty. The mean scores for knees were all better than hips (P < .001). On initial scoring, 324 patients (53%) were given certainty (mean NZOA, 80.5; OHKS, 10.0; RWS, 35.1), 90 (15%) given clinical over-ride (NZOA, 69.6; OHKS, 12.0; RWS, 33.2), and 194 (32%) returned to general practitioner (NZOA, 64; OHKS, 14.2; RWS, 30.8). Knees (38%) were more likely to be returned than hips (26%; P = .002). Fifty (26%) were re-referred during the study period (mean, 5 months) and given certainty or over-ride. The difference at final outcome between patients with certainty and clinical over-ride was NZOA, 10.3 points; Oxford, 1.6 points; and RWS, 1.4 points. The difference between clinical over-ride and returned to general practitioner was NZOA, 7.2; Oxford, 4.4; RWS, 5.3.

CONCLUSION

The NZOA score is an effective tool for rationing for joint arthroplasty. Patients around the threshold score of 70 may not have a clinically important difference compared with those above threshold.