Minimum Clinically Important Difference: Current Trends in the Orthopaedic Literature, Part II: Lower Extremity

Responsiveness and minimal important change of specific and generic patient-reported outcome measures for back patients: the Norwegian Neck and Back Register

PURPOSE

To evaluate responsiveness and minimal important change (MIC) of Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), pain during activity on a numeric rating scale (NRSa) and health related quality of life (EQ-5D) based on data from the Norwegian neck and back registry (NNRR).

METHODS

A total of 1617 patients who responded to NNRR follow-up after both 6 and 12 months were included in this study. Responsiveness was calculated using standardized response mean and area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. We calculated MIC with both an anchor-based and distribution-based method.

RESULTS

The condition specific ODI had best responsiveness, the more generic NRSa and EQ-5D had lower responsiveness. We found that the MIC for ODI varied from 3.0 to 9.5, from 0.4 to 2.5 for NRSa while the EQ5D varied from 0.05 to 0.12 depending on the method for calculation.

CONCLUSION

In a register based back pain population, the condition specific ODI was more responsive to change than the more generic tools NRSa and EQ5D. The variations in responsiveness and MIC estimates also indicate that they should be regarded as indicative, rather than fixed estimates.

Can the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the Oxford score, KOOS and its derivatives be identified in a French sample of total knee arthroplasties?

CONTEXT

To assess the effect of a surgical procedure on a patient, it is conventional to use clinical scores before and after the procedure, but it is increasingly common and recommended to weight the results of these scores with the notion of minimal clinically important difference ("MCID"). This MCID should be determined using either the data distribution method based on score variation, or the anchor method, which uses an external question to categorize the results. MCIDs vary from one population to another, and to our knowledge there has been no investigation in France for total knee arthroplasties (TKAs). We therefore conducted a prospective study on a population of TKAs in order to: 1) Define MCID in France on a population of TKAs for the Oxford score, KOOS (Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score) and its derivatives, 2) Determine whether MCID for these scores in France is comparable to results in the literature.

HYPOTHESIS

Is the MCID for total knee arthroplasty in France comparable to other results in the literature?

MATERIAL AND METHOD

This was a prospective observational study in which 218 patients (85 men, 133 women) with a mean age of 72 years [27-90] who had undergone a primary TKA out of 300 initially included responded, before and after surgery, to the Oxford-12, KOOS and Forgotten Joint Score (FJS) questions (mean follow-up 24 months). MCID was calculated using the distribution method as well as the anchor method ("improvement 1 to 5" and "improvement yes or no").

RESULTS

At a mean follow-up of 24 months [18-36], the Oxford-12 score increased from 16 ± 8 [0-41] to 34 ± 11 [6-48] (p < 0.001), all components of the KOOS score were improved and the FJS at follow-up was 47 ± 32 [0-100]. For the anchor "improvement 1 to 5", there were 14 unimproved patients, 23 patients in identical condition and 179 patients improved by surgery. For the anchor "are you improved yes/no", there were 8 unimproved patients, 22 in identical condition and 187 surgically-improved patients. The mean MCID for all methods (anchor method and distribution) was 10 [7-13] for Oxford-12, 12 [12-12] for KOOS Symptom, 14 [12-17] for KOOS Pain, 12 [11-14] for KOOS Function, 14 [12-16] for KOOS Sport, 15 [15-16] for KOOS Quality of Life (QOL), 11 [10-12] for KOOS 12, 15 [12-18] for KOOS 12 Pa in. 12 [12-13] for KOOS 12 Function, 15 [15-15] for KOOS 12 QOL, 14 [13-14] for KOOS Physical Function Short-form (PS) and 14 [13-16] for KOOS Joint Replacement (JR).

DISCUSSION

The MCID for the Oxford-12, KOOS and its derivatives scores in a French population is comparable to that observed in other populations in the literature.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV; prospective study without control group.

What Are the Diagnosis-Specific Thresholds of Minimal Clinically Important Difference and Patient Acceptable Symptom State in Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score After Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty?

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to determine the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) thresholds for Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS) pain, physical short form (PS), and joint replacement (JR) 1 year after primary total hip arthroplasty stratified by preoperative diagnosis of osteoarthritis (OA) versus non-OA.

METHODS

A prospective institutional cohort of 5,887 patients who underwent primary total hip arthroplasty (January 2016 to December 2018) was included. There were 4,184 patients (77.0%) who completed a one-year follow-up. Demographics, comorbidities, and baseline and one-year HOOS pain, PS, and JR scores were recorded. Patients were stratified by preoperative diagnosis: OA or non-OA. Minimal detectable change (MDC) and MCIDs were estimated using a distribution-based approach. The PASS values were estimated using an anchor-based approach, which corresponded to a response to a satisfaction question at one year post surgery.

RESULTS

The MCID thresholds were slightly higher in the non-OA cohort versus OA patients. (HOOS-Pain: OA: 8.35 versus non-OA: 8.85 points; HOOS-PS: OA: 9.47 versus non-OA: 9.90 points; and HOOS-JR: OA: 7.76 versus non-OA: 8.46 points). Similarly, all MDC thresholds were consistently higher in the non-OA cohort compared to OA patients. The OA cohort exhibited similar or higher PASS thresholds compared to the non-OA cohort for HOOS-Pain (OA: ≥80.6 versus non-OA: ≥77.5 points), HOOS-PS (OA: ≥83.6 versus non-OA: ≥83.6 points), and HOOS-JR (OA: ≥76.8 versus non-OA: ≥73.5 points). A similar percentage of patients achieved MCID and PASS thresholds regardless of preoperative diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

While MCID and MDC thresholds for all HOOS subdomains were slightly higher among non-OA than OA patients, PASS thresholds for HOOS pain and JR were slightly higher in the OA group. The absolute magnitude of the difference in these thresholds may not be sufficient to cause major clinical differences. However, these subtle differences may have a significant impact when used as indicators of operative success in a population setting.

Artificial Intelligence for Clinically Meaningful Outcome Prediction in Orthopedic Research: Current Applications and Limitations

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) play a critical role in evaluating the success of treatment interventions for musculoskeletal conditions. However, predicting which patients will benefit from treatment interventions is complex and influenced by a multitude of factors. Artificial intelligence (AI) may better anticipate the propensity to achieve clinically meaningful outcomes through leveraging complex predictive analytics that allow for personalized medicine. This article provides a contemporary review of current applications of AI developed to predict clinically significant outcome (CSO) achievement after musculoskeletal treatment interventions.

RECENT FINDINGS

The highest volume of literature exists in the subspecialties of total joint arthroplasty, spine, and sports medicine, with only three studies identified in the remaining orthopedic subspecialties combined. Performance is widely variable across models, with most studies only reporting discrimination as a performance metric. Given the complexity inherent in predictive modeling for this task, including data availability, data handling, model architecture, and outcome selection, studies vary widely in their methodology and results. Importantly, the majority of studies have not been externally validated or demonstrate important methodological limitations, precluding their implementation into clinical settings. A substantial body of literature has accumulated demonstrating variable internal validity, limited scope, and low potential for clinical deployment. The majority of studies attempt to predict the MCID-the lowest bar of clinical achievement. Though a small proportion of models demonstrate promise and highlight the utility of AI, important methodological limitations need to be addressed moving forward to leverage AI-based applications for clinical deployment.

Survivorship and Patient Outcomes of Conforming Bearings in Modern Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty: Mean 3.5 Year Follow-Up

BACKGROUND

The use of conforming and congruent bearings in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) have rapidly increased due to the benefits of increased stability and the potential for replicating normal knee kinematics. However, limited data exist for these newly available bearings. This study evaluated revision-free survivorship and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) of a large granular database of primary TKAs using a single conforming bearing design.

METHODS

A total of 1,306 consecutive primary TKAs performed using a single conforming bearing design (85% cemented and 15% cementless) were retrospectively reviewed. Kaplan-Meier survivorship estimates were calculated based on the latest clinical follow-up. The PROMs and minimal clinically important differences were evaluated. A total of 93% of cases achieved minimum 1-year clinical follow-up (mean 3.5 years; range, 1 to 7), with a subset of 261 cases that achieved minimum 5-year follow-up (mean 5.8 years; range, 5 to 7).

RESULTS

All-cause and aseptic Kaplan-Meier survivorship estimates were 97.6 (95% CI [confidence interval], 97 to 99) and 98.1% (95% CI, 97 to 99) at 7.0 years. Revision-free survivorship did not differ by cemented or cementless fixation (98 versus 97%, P = .163). All PROM scores significantly improved from preoperative baseline (P < .001), and ≥ 86% of patients achieved minimal clinically important differences for Knee Society pain and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement total scores. A total of 89% of cases reported their knees to 'sometimes or always' feel normal. For cases with minimum 5-year PROMs, 93% were 'very satisfied' or 'satisfied.'

CONCLUSIONS

Conforming-bearing TKA demonstrated excellent survivorship up to 7.0 years. In addition, PROMs were comparable to other designs reported in the literature. While mid-term (mean 3.5-year) results are promising, long-term data are warranted on survivorship due to potential polyethylene wear in conforming bearings with more surface area in contact with articulating surfaces.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Using PROMIS Scores to Provide Cost-Conscious Follow-up After Foot and Ankle Surgery

BACKGROUND

National campaigns in the United States, such as Choosing Wisely, emphasize that decreasing low-value office visits maximizes health care value. Although patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are frequently used to quantify postoperative outcomes, they have not been assessed as a tool to help guide clinicians consider alternatives or discontinue in-person follow-up visits. The purpose of this study is to assess the frequency and cost of in-person follow-up visits after patients report substantial improvement defined as 2 consecutive improvements above preoperative Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) pain interference (PI) scores.

METHODS

Retrospective PROMIS PI data were obtained between 2015 and 2020 for common elective foot (n = 759) and ankle (n = 578) surgical procedures. Patients were divided into quartiles according to their preoperative PI score. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to investigate time to substantial improvement. Substantial improvement was defined as having 2 consecutive postoperative minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) above preoperative PROMIS PI scores. MCID was measured using the distribution-based method. Multivariable negative binomial models were used to determine the number of visits and direct associated costs after substantial improvement. The cost to payors was estimated using reimbursement rates.

RESULTS

Within 3 months, 12% to 46% of foot and 16% to 61% of ankle patients achieved substantial improvement. Results vary by preoperative pain quartile, with patients who report higher preoperative pain scores achieving earlier improvement. After achieving substantial improvement, foot and ankle patients averaged 3.60 and 4.01 follow-up visits during the remaining 9 months of the year. Visit costs averaged $266 and $322 per foot and ankle patient respectively.

CONCLUSION

Postoperative follow-up visits are time-consuming and costly. Physicians might consider objective measures, such as PROMIS PI, to determine the need, timing, and alternatives for in-person follow-up visits for elective foot and ankle surgeries after patients demonstrate reliable clinical improvement.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective cohort study at a single institution.

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.

Diagnosis-Specific Thresholds of the Minimal Clinically Important Difference and Patient Acceptable Symptom State for KOOS After Total Knee Arthroplasty

UPDATE

This article was updated on May 1, 2024 because of a previous error, which was discovered after the preliminary version of the article was posted online. The byline that had read "Ahmed K. Emara, MD 1 *, Ignacio Pasqualini, MD 1 *, Alison K. Klika, MS 1 , Melissa N. Orr, BS 1 , Pedro J. Rullán, MD 1 , Nicolas S. Piuzzi, MD 1 , and the Cleveland Clinic Arthroplasty Group†" now reads "Ahmed K. Emara, MD 1 *, Ignacio Pasqualini, MD 1 *, Yuxuan Jin, MS 1 , Alison K. Klika, MS 1 , Melissa N. Orr, BS 1 , Pedro J. Rullán, MD 1 , Nicolas S. Piuzzi, MD 1 , and the Cleveland Clinic Arthroplasty Group†".

BACKGROUND

Literature-reported minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) thresholds for patient-reported outcome measures demonstrate marked variability. The purpose of this study was to determine the minimal detectable change (MDC), MCID, and PASS thresholds for the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) Pain subdomain, Physical Function Short Form (PS), and Joint Replacement (JR) among patients with osteoarthritis (OA) who underwent primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA).

METHODS

A prospective cohort of 6,778 patients who underwent primary TKA was analyzed. Overall, 1-year follow-up was completed by 5,316 patients for the KOOS Pain, 5,018 patients for the KOOS PS, and 4,033 patients for the KOOS JR. A total of 5,186 patients had an OA diagnosis; this group had an average age of 67.0 years and was 59.9% female and 80.4% White. Diagnosis-specific MDCs and MCIDs were estimated with use of a distribution-based approach. PASS values were estimated with use of an anchor-based approach, which corresponded to a response to a satisfaction question at 1 year postoperatively.

RESULTS

The MCID thresholds for the OA group were 7.9 for the KOOS Pain, 8.0 for the KOOS PS, and 6.7 for the KOOS JR. A high percentage of patients achieved the MCID threshold for each outcome measure (KOOS Pain, 95%; KOOS PS, 88%; and KOOS JR, 94%). The MDC 80% to 95% confidence intervals ranged from 9.1 to 14.0 for the KOOS Pain, 9.2 to 14.1 for the KOOS PS, and 7.7 to 11.8 for the KOOS JR. The PASS thresholds for the OA group were 77.7 for the KOOS Pain (achieved by 73% of patients), 70.3 for the KOOS PS (achieved by 68% of patients), and 70.7 for the KOOS JR (achieved by 70% of patients).

CONCLUSIONS

The present study provided useful MCID, MDC, and PASS thresholds for the KOOS Pain, PS, and JR for patients with OA. The diagnosis-specific metrics established herein can serve as benchmarks for clinically meaningful postoperative improvement. Future research and quality assessments should utilize these OA-specific thresholds when evaluating outcomes following TKA. Doing so will enable more accurate determinations of operative success and improvements in patient-centered care.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic Level II . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Trends in Preoperative Outcome Measures From 2013 to 2021 in Patients Undergoing Primary Total Joint Arthroplasty

INTRODUCTION

The prevalence of total joint arthroplasty (TJA) continues to increase exponentially. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are used to define clinical and quality-of-life improvement and for reimbursement. Temporal trends of preoperative PROMs and specifically how COVID-19 has affected these PROMs is lacking. This study evaluated preoperative PROMs over time, whether medical factors affected preoperative PROMs, and what correlations the COVID-19 pandemic had with these trends in PROMs.

METHODS

A total of 3,014 patients who underwent primary total hip total hip arthroplasty or total knee arthroplasty from 2013 to 2021 were retrospectively reviewed for covariates and preoperative PROMs. Commonly reported preoperative PROMs were evaluated in univariate and multivariate models.

RESULTS

Preoperative activity level steadily increased from 2015 to 2021 for THAs and steadily increased from 2015 to 2019 for TKAs, followed by a decrease in 2020. Preoperative KOOS JR scores increased from 2016 to 2019 and then decreased in 2020 and 2021. Preoperative knee pain with level walking and climbing stairs steadily increased from 2013 to 2019, with additional increases in 2020. The COVID-19 era was significantly associated with higher activity levels for THAs, higher levels of pain with level walking, and lower KOOS JR scores. Preoperative PROM scores demonstrated correlations with postoperative PROM scores, which differed from that during the COVID era (rho range 0.105 to 0.391) at a mean of 2.0 years postoperatively.

DISCUSSION

Surgical delays because of COVID-19 were associated with increased preoperative disability as evidenced by lower activity levels. Aside from this pandemic era, patient activity levels increased over time, indicating that modern TJA patients are more active preoperatively and likely to demand higher levels of function after surgery. Additional studies should evaluate the clinical effect of these statistically significant findings. Providers should consider the trends in preoperative PROMs over time when counseling patients on expectations after TJA.

Establishing the Minimal Clinically Important Difference and Patient Acceptable Symptom State Thresholds Following Arthroscopic Capsular Release for the Treatment of Idiopathic Shoulder Adhesive Capsulitis

PURPOSE

To determine the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and the patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) threshold for the visual analog scale (VAS), Constant, Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE), and American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) scores following arthroscopic capsular release for the treatment of idiopathic shoulder adhesive capsulitis.

METHODS

A retrospective review of prospective collected data was performed in patients undergoing arthroscopic capsular release for the treatment of idiopathic adhesive capsulitis at a single institution from January 2018 through January 2019. Patient-reported outcome measures were collected preoperatively and 6 months' postoperatively. Delta was defined as the change between preoperative and 6 months' postoperative scores. Distribution-based and anchored-based (response to a satisfaction question at 1 year) approaches were used to estimate MCIDs and PASS, respectively. The optimal cut-off point where sensitivity and specificity were maximized (Youden index) and the percentage of patients achieving those thresholds were also calculated.

RESULTS

Overall, a total of 100 patients without diabetes who underwent arthroscopic capsular release and completed baseline and 6-month patient-reported outcome measures were included. The distribution-based MCID for VAS, Constant, SANE, and ASES were calculated to be 1.1, 10.1, 9.3, and 8.2, respectively. The rate of patients who achieved MCID thresholds was 98% for VAS, 96% for Constant, 98% for SANE, and 99% for ASES. The PASS threshold values for VAS, Constant, and ASES were ≤2, ≥70, ≥80, and ≥80, respectively. The rate of patients who achieved PASS thresholds was 84% for VAS, 84% for Constant, 89% for SANE, and 78% for ASES.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients without diabetes and idiopathic adhesive capsulitis, high rates of MCID and PASS thresholds can be achieved with arthroscopic anteroinferior capsular release LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, retrospective cohort study.

Effect of knee bracing on clinical outcomes following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction: A prospective randomised controlled study

Objectives

While there is a consensus against bracing after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction, the question of its potential benefits, especially in cases involving meniscus repair, as well as its routine use by the majority of clinicians, remains a topic of debate. This study aims to assess the effectiveness of bracing in relation to clinical scores after ACL reconstruction, regardless of meniscus surgery.

Methods

This randomised controlled study involved patients aged 15-55 years who underwent arthroscopic ACL reconstruction surgery. All eligible patients were assigned into two groups: one group received an adjustable frame with a four-point fixation knee brace for a four-week period, while the other did not.A single experienced surgeon performed standard anatomical single-bundle ACL reconstruction. All patients, irrespective of whether they underwent meniscus repair, followed the same rehabilitation protocol. Knee functional questionnaires, including the International Knee Documentation Committee (IKDC) score, Lysholm score, Tegner Activity Scale, Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), and examinations, were collected preoperatively, at six months, one year, and two years postoperatively. The study employed an intention-to-treat analysis and multilevel mixed-effects generalised linear models to compare continuous outcomes between the groups, adjusting for the times of follow-up.

Results

A total of 84 patients (42 patients per group) comprised of 75 males (89 %) and average age of 30 ± 9.4 years old. Patient-reported function, physical examination findings, and surgical characteristics were comparable between the two groups. (P-value >0.05) Both groups demonstrated significant improvement in IKDC and Lysholm scores at the end of the two-year follow-up period. (P-value <0.0001) In multivariate analysis, bracing was significantly associated with lower Tegner activity scale than the non-brace group after adjustment for VAS and time (coefficient -0.49, 95 % confidence interval -0.87, -0.10, P-value = 0.013). None of the graft ruptures were reported, and there was no significant difference of return to sports between the groups at the end of the follow-up.

Conclusion

The study suggests that knee bracing after ACL reconstruction, regardless of any additional meniscus procedures, fails to enhance subjective or objective outcomes and could potentially have a negative impact on the Tegner activity scale, although the difference is not clinically significant. The routine use of a postoperative brace should be discontinued.

Level of evidence

Level I, Randomised controlled trial with no negative criteria.

Establishing the Patient Acceptable Symptom State Thresholds for Patient-Reported Outcomes after Operatively Treated Tibial Plateau Fractures

OBJECTIVES

Define patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) thresholds and factors affecting PASS thresholds for Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function (PF) and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) following operatively treated tibial plateau fractures.

METHODS

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort.

SETTING

Single Level I academic trauma center.

PATIENT SELECTION CRITERIA

All patients (n = 159) who underwent fixation of a tibial plateau fracture from 2016 to 2021 and completed patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at minimum 1-year follow-up were enrolled for the study.

OUTCOME MEASURES AND COMPARISONS

PASS thresholds for global outcome (PASS-Global), pain (PASS-Pain), and function (PASS-Function) were determined using anchor-based questions such as "How satisfied are you today with your injured lower extremity?" with answer choices of very satisfied, satisfied, neutral, unsatisfied, and very unsatisfied. PASS thresholds for each PROM were calculated using 3 methods: (1) 80% specificity, (2) 75th percentile, and (3) Youden Index.

RESULTS

Sixty percent of patients were satisfied with their global outcome and 53% with function. Using 80% specificity, 75th percentile, and Youden Index, PASS-Global thresholds were 48.5, 44.5, and 47.9 for PROMIS-PF and 56.3, 56.2, and 56.3 for KOOS-QOL, respectively. PASS-Pain threshold for KOOS-Pain was 84.4, 80.6, and 80.6, respectively. PASS-Function thresholds were 48.9, 46.8, and 48 for PROMIS-PF and 94.1, 90.2, and 86.8 for KOOS-ADL, respectively. Younger patients and those with bicondylar fractures or infections were associated with significantly lower PASS-Pain thresholds. Schatzker II fractures, lateral column involvement, or isolated lateral approach resulted in significantly higher PASS-Global and PASS-Function thresholds.

CONCLUSIONS

This study defines global, functional, and pain PASS thresholds for tibial plateau fractures. Patients with bicondylar fractures, infections, and medial column involvement were more often unsatisfied. These thresholds are valuable references to identify patients who have attained satisfactory outcomes and to counsel patients with risk factors for unsatisfactory outcomes following tibial plateau fractures.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Establishing patient-centered metrics for the knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score following medial unicompartmental knee arthropalsty

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to determine the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and the patient acceptable symptoms state (PASS) threshold for the knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS) pain subscore, KOOS physical short form (PS), and KOOS joint replacement (JR) following medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (mUKA).

METHODS

Prospectively collected data from 743 patients undergoing mUKA from a single academic institution from April 2015 through March 2020 were analyzed. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were collected both pre-operatively and 1-year post-operatively. Distribution-based and anchored-based approaches were used to estimate MCIDs and PASS, respectively. The optimal cut-off point and the percentage of patients who achieved PASS were also calculated.

RESULTS

MCID for KOOS-pain, KOOS-PS, and KOOS-JR following mUKA were calculated to be 7.6, 7.3, and 6.2, respectively. The PASS threshold for KOOS pain, PS, and JR were 77.8, 70.3, and 70.7, with 68%, 66%, and 64% of patients achieving satisfactory outcomes, respectively. Cut-off values for delta KOOS pain, PS, and JR were found to be 25.7, 14.3, and 20.7 with 73%, 69%, and 68% of patients achieving satisfactory outcomes, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The current study identified useful values for the MCID and PASS thresholds at 1 year following medial UKA of KOOS pain, KOOS PS, and KOOS JR scores. These values may be used as targets for surgeons when evaluating PROMS using KOOS to determine whether patients have achieved successful outcomes after their surgical intervention. Potential uses include the integration of these values into predictive models to enhance shared decision-making and guide more informed decisions to optimize patient outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Association Between Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function With Postoperative Pain, Narcotics Consumption, and Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Following Lumbar Microdiscectomy

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE

To determine association between preoperative Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function (PROMIS-PF) scores with postoperative pain, narcotics consumption, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) following single-level lumbar microdiscectomy.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent single-level lumbar microdiscectomy were identified from May 2017-May 2020. Patients were grouped by their preoperative PROMIS-PF scores: mild disability (score≥40), moderate disability (score 30-39.9), and severe disability (score<30). Preoperative PROMIS-PF subgroups were tested for association with inpatient postoperative pain, total inpatient narcotics consumption, time to narcotic use cessation as well as improvements in postoperative PROMIS-PF, ODI, VAS-Leg Pain, VAS-Back Pain, SF-12 Physical Component Score (PCS), SF-12 Mental Component Score (MCS) at 2-, 6-, 12-weeks, 6-month, 1-year, 2-year follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 127 patients were included. Patients with greater disability reported higher inpatient maximum Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain scores (P = .023) and total inpatient narcotics consumption (P = .008) but no difference in time to narcotic cessation after surgery (P = .373). However, patients with greater preoperative disability also demonstrated greater improvement from baseline in PROMIS-PF, ODI, SF-12 PCS, and SF-12 MCS at 2-week follow-up (P < .05). These higher improvements from baseline for patients with greater preoperative disability were sustained for PROMIS-PF, ODI, and VAS-Leg Pain at 2-year follow-up (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with greater preoperative disability, as measured by PROMIS-PF, had increased inpatient postoperative pain and narcotics consumption, but also higher improvement from baseline in long-term PROMs. This data can be utilized for patient counseling and setting expectations.

[Total knee replacement in different age groups]

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and quality of life in long-term period (1 year) after total knee replacement in various age groups.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We studied 134 patients after unilateral primary total knee replacement. The KOOS and SF-36 questionnaires were used to assess the therapeutic effect (functionality and symptoms) and quality of life in patients with knee osteoarthritis.

RESULTS

At baseline, group I (young patients) had low KOOS pain scores (39.42±16.42), function scores (50.18±19.16) and QoL scores (18.2±15.9) compared to other age groups. A year after surgery, group I (<55 years) had significantly lower KOOS scores of pain, function and quality of life compared to group III (>65 years). Multiple regression analysis showed that age was a significant predictor of pain, but not a function after a year.

CONCLUSION

Total knee replacement gives a noticeable improvement in pain, functionality and quality of life in all age groups. However, there are significant age-related differences in preoperative assessment of pain, quality of life and mental health, as well as in final indicators of postoperative pain and quality of life. Indeed, young patients (<50 years) report more intense pain and worse quality of life. These data may be used in clinical practice to improve decision-making and patient expectations before total knee replacement.

An Evaluation of Patient-reported Outcome Measures and Minimal Clinically Important Difference Usage in Hand Surgery

Background

This study was designed to examine the current use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and minimal clinically important difference (MCID) calculations in the hand surgery literature in an effort to standardize their use for research purposes.

Methods

A systematic review of the hand surgery literature was conducted. All nonshoulder upper extremity articles utilizing PROMs were compared between different journals, different surgical indications, and differing usage. MCID values were reported, and calculation methods assessed.

Results

In total, 4677 articles were reviewed, and 410 met the inclusion criteria of containing at least one PROM. Of the 410 articles reporting PROMs, 148 also mentioned an associated MCID. Of the articles that mentioned MCIDs, 14 calculated MCID values based on their specific clinical populations, whereas the remainder referenced prior studies. An estimated 35 different PROMs were reported in the study period; 95 different MCID values were referenced from 65 unique articles.

Conclusions

There are many different PROMs currently being used in hand surgery clinical reports. The reported MCIDs from their related PROMs are from multiple different sources and calculated by different methods. The lack of standardization in the hand surgery literature makes interpretation of studies utilizing PROMs difficult. There is a need for a standardized method of calculating MCID values and applying these values to established PROMs for nonshoulder upper extremity conditions.

Pinloc or Hansson pins: a multicenter, randomized controlled study of 439 patients treated for femoral neck fractures

Objectives

To compare the recently developed Hansson Pinloc system, which features 3 cylindrical parallel pins with hooks connected through a fixed-angle interlocking plate, with the Hansson Pin System (2 hook pins) for the treatment of femoral neck fractures.

Design

One hundred fourteen patients with displaced femoral neck fractures and 325 patients with nondisplaced fractures from 9 orthopaedic centers were randomized to either Hansson Pinloc system or Hansson Pin System and followed for 2 years or until death. Age at inclusion was 50 years or older.

Main Outcome Measurements

The primary outcome was failure (defined as early displacement, nonunion, symptomatic avascular necrosis, or deep infection). Secondary outcomes included revision surgery, Timed Up and Go (TUG) test and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs: EQ-5D and WOMAC).

Results

For nondisplaced fractures, the incidence of failure was 14% (23/169) in the Pinloc group and 16% (25/156) in the Hansson group. For displaced fractures, the analysis was stratified by age. Patients aged 50-69 years with displaced fractures showed a 2-year failure rate of 44% (17/39) in the Pinloc group versus 44% (16/36) in the Hansson group. For patients 70 years or older with displaced fractures, 33% (7/21) in the Pinloc group versus 22% (4/18) in the Hansson group failed. At 3 and 12 months, no clinically significant differences between treatment groups were found for EQ-5D-3L, WOMAC, or for the TUG in any fracture type or age group.

Conclusions

There were no advantages for Pinloc in any of the studies aspects.

Level of evidence

1.

Establishing the Minimal Clinically Important Difference and Patient Acceptable Symptomatic State following Patellofemoral Inlay Arthroplasty for Visual Analog Scale Pain, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index, and Lysholm Scores

BACKGROUND

The purposes of the study were to define the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) after patello-femoral inlay arthroplasty (PFA) and to identify factors predictive for the achievement of clinically important outcomes (CIOs).

METHODS

A total of 99 patients who underwent PFA between 2009 and 2019 and had a minimum of 2-year postoperative follow-up were enrolled in this retrospective monocentric study. Included patients had a mean age of 44 years (range, 21 to 79). The MCID and PASS were calculated using an anchor-based approach for the visual analog scale (VAS) pain, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC), and Lysholm patient-reported outcome measures. Factors associated with CIO achievement were determined using multivariable logistic regression analyses.

RESULTS

The established MCID thresholds for clinical improvement were -2.46 for the VAS pain score, -8.5 for the WOMAC score, and + 25.4 for the Lysholm score. Postoperative scores corresponding to the PASS were <2.55 for the VAS pain score, <14.6 for the WOMAC score, and >52.5 points for the Lysholm score. Preoperative patellar instability and concomitant medial patello-femoral ligament reconstruction were independent positive predictors of reaching both MCID and PASS. Additionally, inferior baseline scores and age were predictive of achieving MCID, whereas superior baseline scores and body mass index were predictive of achieving PASS.

CONCLUSION

This study determined the thresholds of MCID and PASS for the VAS pain, WOMAC, and Lysholm scores following PFA implantation at 2-year follow-up. The study demonstrated a predictive role of patient age, body mass index, preoperative patient-reported outcome measure scores, preoperative patellar instability, and concomitant medial patello-femoral ligament reconstruction in the achievement of CIOs.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic Level IV.

Obesity is Associated With Greater Improvement in Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Body mass index (BMI) cutoffs have been established for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) patients due to increased risk of medical complications in obese patients. However, evidence-based medical optimization may mitigate risk in these patients. This study examined the influence of BMI on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) following primary TKA with specialized perioperative optimization.

METHODS

Between 2016 and 2020, 1,329 consecutive primary TKAs using standardized perioperative optimization were retrospectively reviewed. Patients were categorized into ordinal groups based on BMI in 5 kg/m2 increments (range, 17 to 61). Primary outcomes related to activity level, pain, function, and satisfaction were evaluated. BMI groups ≥35 had significantly lower age, more women, and higher prevalence of comorbidities (P ≤ .004). Mean follow-up was 1.7 years (range, 1 to 5 years).

RESULTS

Each successive BMI group from 35 to ≥50 demonstrated continually greater improvement in pain with level walking and stair climbing (P ≤ .001), Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement (P = .001), and greater satisfaction (P = .007). No patients who had a BMI ≥35 were revised for aseptic loosening, and rates of periprosthetic joint infection were not different between BMI groups (P = 1.000).

CONCLUSION

Despite being more debilitated preoperatively, patients who had a BMI ≥35 experienced greater improvements in PROMs compared to patients who had lower BMI. Given the significant improvements in PROMs and quality of life in obese patients, with appropriate perioperative optimization, these patients should not be prohibited from having a TKA when appropriately indicated.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Traumatic coccydynia patients benefit from coccygectomy more than patients undergoing coccygectomy for non-traumatic causes

PURPOSE

Conservative treatment is the first step in the management of coccydynia. However, surgical treatment is required in cases where conservative treatment fails. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of traumatic and atraumatic etiologies on functional outcomes in patients who underwent coccygectomy for chronic coccydynia.

METHODS

Ninety-seven patients who underwent partial coccygectomy between October 2010 and December 2018 for the diagnosis of chronic coccygodynia were evaluated retrospectively. The patients were divided into two groups according to etiologies as atraumatic (group AT) and traumatic (group T). Concomitant disorders of the patients were recorded as psychiatric and musculoskeletal diseases. Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for low back pain, the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) scale, Short Form-36 Physical Component Summary and Short Form-36 Mental Component Summary were used to evaluate the clinical outcomes pre- and postoperative at the last follow-up.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up time was 67.3 ± 13.9 (range; 44-115) months. Group AT and group T included 48 (mean age 37.1 ± 11.3 and 36 (75%) female) and 49 patients (mean age 36 ± 11 and 35 (71.4%) female), respectively. The groups were statistically similar in terms of age (p = 0.614), gender (p = 0.691), body mass index (p = 0.885), tobacco usage (p = 0.603) and duration of pain (p = 0.073). However, the rate of musculoskeletal and total concomitant disorders was higher in the Group AT than in Group T (p < 0.05). The average preoperative SF-36 MCS and SF-36 PCS scores improved at the last follow-up from 43.3 ± 6.2 and 35.6 ± 4.9 to 72 ± 14.1 and 58.3 ± 10.9, respectively. The preoperative VAS and ODI decreased from 8 ± 1.4 and 39.8 ± 8.5 to 2.6 ± 1.8 and 13.4 ± 8.9 at the last follow-up, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Successful results were obtained with surgical treatment in chronic coccygodynia. In addition, functional outcomes in patients with traumatic etiology are better than in atraumatic ones. Levels of evidence Level III; Retrospective Comparative Study.

Responsiveness of specific and generic patient-reported outcome measures in patients with plantar fasciopathy

PURPOSE

To evaluate and compare responsiveness characteristics for the Foot Function Index revised short form (FFI-RS), RAND-12 Health Status Inventory (RAND-12), and Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), in patients with plantar fasciopathy receiving non-surgical treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study was conducted on a sub-group of patients from an ongoing randomised controlled trial. One-hundred fifteen patients were included. The patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were applied at baseline and after 6 months. Responsiveness was calculated using standardised response mean and area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. ROC curves were used to compute the minimal important change (MIC) for the outcome measures.

RESULTS

The region specific FFI-RS had best responsiveness and the NRS at rest had lowest responsiveness.

CONCLUSION

FFI-RS were marginally more responsive than the other PROMs. Responsiveness and MIC estimates should be regarded as indicative rather than fixed estimates.

Challenges and Opportunities for the Use of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Orthopaedic Pediatric and Sports Medicine Surgery

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are essential tools in assessing treatment response, informing clinical decision making, driving healthcare policy, and providing important prognostic data regarding patient health status change. These tools become essential in orthopaedic disciplines, such as pediatrics and sports medicine, given the diversity of patient populations and procedures. However, the creation and routine administration of standard PROMs alone do not suffice to appropriately facilitate the aforementioned functions. Indeed, both the interpretation and optimal application of PROMs are essential to provide to achieve greatest clinical benefit. Contemporary developments and technologies surrounding PROMs may help augment this benefit, including the application of artificial intelligence, novel PROM structure with improved interpretability and validity, and PROM delivery methods that provide increased access to patients resulting in greater compliance and data acquisition yields. Despite these exciting innovations, several challenges remain in this realm that must be addressed to continue to advance the clinical usefulness and subsequent benefit of PROMs. This review will highlight the opportunities and challenges surrounding contemporary PROM use in the orthopaedic subspecialties of pediatrics and sports medicine.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: State of the Art in Patient-Reported Outcome Measure Application in Lower Extremity Orthopaedics

With an increasing shift toward a value-based and outcome-driven healthcare system, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) will continue to play a prominent role in assessing performance, making clinical decisions, shared decision making, and determining the comparative effectiveness of procedures such as total joint arthroplasty for lower extremity conditions, such as ankle, hip, and knee osteoarthritis. As the application of PROMs in evaluating surgical outcomes has evolved from that of a research setting to that of a clinical setting, their use in the decision-making process has become more prevalent. As a result, preoperative optimization, surgical indications, and improved outcomes after surgery have been greatly enhanced. To enable benchmarking, quality reporting, and performance measurement at an aggregate level, it is crucial to have a comprehensive PROM collection system. However, achieving this goal is contingent upon addressing the variability in reported PROMs and the patient-centered benchmarks used to analyze clinical significance.

Optimizing Asymmetric Native Knee Flexion Gap Balance Promotes Superior Outcomes in Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty

INTRODUCTION

Replicating native knee kinematics remains the ultimate goal of total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Technology, such as robotics, provides robust intraoperative data; however, no evidence-based targets currently exist for improved clinical outcomes. Furthermore, some surgeons target a rectangular flexion space in TKA unlike the native knee. This study evaluated the effect of in vivo flexion gap asymmetry on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in contemporary TKA.

METHODS

In vivo tibiofemoral joint space dimensions were measured during 129 TKAs using a calibrated tension device before and after complete posterior cruciate ligament resection. PROMs were compared based on the final dimensions and the change in flexion gap dimensions at 90° of flexion: (1) equal laxity, (2) lateral laxity, and (3) medial laxity. Groups did not differ by demographics ( P ≥ 0.347), clinical follow-up ( P = 0.134), tibiofemoral alignment ( P = 0.498), or preoperative PROMs ( P ≥ 0.093). Mean follow-up for the cohort was 1.5 years (range, 1-3).

RESULTS

Pain with climbing stairs, pain while standing upright, and knees "always feeling normal" scores were superior for patients with equal or lateral laxity compared with medial laxity ( P ≤ 0.064). Pain with level walking, University of California Los Angeles activity level, KOOS JR, and satisfaction scores also tended to be superior for patients with equal or lateral laxity, although it lacked statistical significance ( P ≥ 0.111).

DISCUSSION

Results of this study suggest that patients with either an equally tensioned rectangular flexion space or with later-flexion lateral laxity after posterior cruciate ligament resection may achieve superior PROMs. Findings support the clinical benefit of facilitating posterolateral femoral roll back in flexion, which mimics native knee kinematics and further helps define targets for advanced technology.

"In Situ" Joint Preparation Technique for First Metatarsophalangeal Arthrodesis: A Retrospective Comparative Review of 388 Cases

"Cup-shaped power reamers" and "flat cuts" (FC) are common joint preparation techniques in first metatarsophalangeal (MTP) joint arthrodesis. However, the third option of an "in situ" (IS) technique has rarely been studied. This study aims to compare the clinical, radiographic, and patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) of the IS technique for various MTP pathologies with other MTP joint preparation techniques. A single-center retrospective review was performed for patients who underwent primary MTP joint arthrodesis between 2015 and 2019. In total, 388 cases were included in the study. We found higher nonunion rates in the IS group (11.1% vs 4.6%, p = .016). However, the revision rates were similar between the groups (7.1% vs 6.5%, p = .809). Multivariate analysis revealed that diabetes mellitus was associated with significantly higher overall complication rates (p < .001). The FC technique was associated with transfer metatarsalgia (p = .015) and a more first ray shortening (p < .001). Visual analog scale, PROMIS-10 physical, and PROMIS-CAT physical scores significantly improved in IS and FC groups (p < .001, p = .002, p = .001, respectively). The improvement was comparable between the joint preparation techniques (p = .806). In conclusion, the IS joint preparation technique is simple and effective for first MTP joint arthrodesis. In our series, the IS technique had a higher radiographic nonunion rate that did not correlate with a higher revision rate, and otherwise similar complication profile to the FC technique while providing similar PROMs. The IS technique resulted in significantly less first ray shortening when compared to the FC technique.

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.

Age-Related Differences in Pain, Function, and Quality of Life Following Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty: Results from a FORCE-TJR Cohort

INTRODUCTION

The impact of age on patient outcomes after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remains controversial. Age has shown no effect on outcome in some studies, while others have reported better or worse outcome in younger patients. The aims of this study were to determine the differences in pain, function, and quality of life reported one-year after TKA across different age groups.

METHODS

A prospective, multi-center cohort of 11,602 unilateral primary TKA patients was evaluated. Demographic data, comorbid conditions, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) including the knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS), KOOS-12, KOOS JR, and Short-Form health survey (12-item) were collected pre- and at one-year postoperatively. Descriptive statistics were generated, stratified by age [< 55 years (younger adult), 55 to 64 years (older adult), 65 to 74 years (early elder), and ≥ 75 years (late elder)], and differences in pain, function, and quality of life among the four age groups were evaluated using Chi-square and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Multivariate regression models with 95% confidence interval (CI) were performed to determine if age was predictive for KOOS pain and function scores.

RESULTS

Prior to surgery, younger patients (< 55 years) reported worse KOOS pain (39), function (50), and quality of life (18) scores with poor mental health score (47) than other older patient groups. The mean pre-op score differences across the age groups in the KOOS total score (9.37), KOOS pain (11.61), KOOS-12 pain (10.14), and KOOS/KOOS-12 QoL (12.60) reached the calculated minimal clinically important difference (MCID). At one-year after TKA, younger patients (< 55 years) reported lower KOOS pain, function, and quality of life scores when compared to older patients (≥ 75 years). The differences in one-year postop scores among the 4 age groups (ranging from 4.0 to 12.2) reached the MCID for pain (10.4) and quality of life (12.2). Younger patients (< 55 years) achieved higher baseline to one-year pain (36.8 points), function (30.3 points), and quality of life (40.7 points) score changes when compared to older patients ≥ 75 years. Although statistically significant, the differences in score changes among the age groups were clinically irrelevant. The multivariate regression analyses showed that age was a significant predictor for pain, but not for function at one year where KOOS pain score was predicted to be higher (less pain) (β =6.17; 95% CI (4.12- 8.22) (P<0.001) in older patients (≥ 75 years) when compared to younger patients (< 55 years).

CONCLUSION

A TKA provides a dramatic improvement in pain, function, and quality of life in all age groups. However, there are age-related clinically significant differences in pre-operative pain, quality of life, and mental health and in final post-operative pain and quality of life scores with younger patients (< 55 years) reporting more pain, less quality of life, and worse pre-operative mental health. The PROM data presented here can be used clinically to improve shared decision making and patient expectations prior to TKA.

Coronal and Sagittal Component Position in Contemporary TKA: Targeting Native Alignment Optimizes Clinical Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Advanced technologies, like robotics, provide enhanced precision for implanting total knee arthroplasty (TKA) components; however, optimal component position and limb alignment remain unknown. This study sought to identify sagittal and coronal alignment targets that correlate with minimal clinically important differences (MCID) in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

METHODS

A total of 1,311 consecutive TKAs were retrospectively reviewed. Posterior tibial slope (PTS), femoral flexion (FF), and tibio-femoral alignment (TFA) were measured radiographically. Patients were grouped based on whether they achieved multiple MCIDs for PROM scores. Classification and regression tree machine learning models were utilized to identify optimal alignment zones. Mean follow-up was 2.4 years (range, 1 to 11).

RESULTS

The change in PTS and postoperative TFA were most predictive for achieving MCIDs in 90% of the models. Approximating native PTS within 4° correlated with MCID achievement and superior PROMs. Preoperative varus and neutral aligned knees were more likely to meet MCIDs and superior PROM scores when not overcorrected into valgus postoperatively (≥ 7°). Preoperative valgus aligned knees correlated with MCID achievement when postoperative TFA was not overcorrected into substantial varus (<0°). Albeit less impactful, FF ≤ 7° correlated with MCID achievement and superior PROMs regardless of preoperative alignment. Sagittal and coronal alignment measurements had moderate to strong interactions in 13 of 20 models.

CONCLUSION

Optimized PROM MCIDs correlated with approximating native PTS while maintaining similar preoperative TFA and incorporating moderate FF. Study findings demonstrate interactions between sagittal and coronal alignment which may optimize PROMs, highlighting the importance of three-dimensional implant alignment targets.

Recovery Curves for Patient Reported Outcomes and Physical Function After Total Hip Arthroplasty

INTRODUCTION

Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are frequently used for evaluating patient satisfaction and function following total hip arthroplasty (THA). Functional measures along with chronologic modeling may help set expectations perioperatively. Our goal was to define the trajectory of recovery and function in the first year following THA.

METHODS

Prospective data from 1,898 patients in a multicenter study was analyzed. The PROMs included the Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Score for Joint Replacement (HOOS-JR) and EuroQol-5 dimension (EQ5D). Physical activity was recorded on a wearable technology. Data was collected pre-operatively and at one, three, six, and twelve months post-operatively. Generalized estimating equations were used to evaluate outcomes over time.

RESULTS

Significant improvement occurred between pre- and post-operative time points for all PROMs. The PROMs showed the greatest proportional recovery within the first month post-operatively, each improving by at least one minimal clinically important difference (MCID). Daily steps and flights of stairs took longer to reach at least one MCID (three months and one year, respectively). Gait speed and walking asymmetry returned to baseline by three months, but did not reach a MCID of improvement by one-year.

CONCLUSION

Patients can be counseled that the greatest proportional improvement in PROMs is within one month after THA, while function surpasses pre-operative baselines by three-months, and gait quality may not improve until after one-year. This can help set realistic expectations and target interventions toward patients deviating from the norm.

Changes Over a Decade in Patient-Reported Outcome Measures and Minimal Clinically Important Difference Reporting in Total Joint Arthroplasty

Background

When used appropriately, the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) provides a powerful tool for identifying meaningful improvements brought about by a given treatment, offering more clinically relevant information than frequentist statistical analysis. However, recent studies have shown inconsistent derivation methods and use of MCIDs. The goal of this study was to report the rate of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and MCIDs use in the literature and assess how this rate has changed over time.

Methods

All articles published in 2010 and 2020 reporting on total hip arthroplasty or total knee arthroplasty in The Journal of Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, and The Journal of Arthroplasty were reviewed. In each reviewed article, every reported PROM and, if present, its corresponding MCID was recorded. These data were used to calculate the rate of reporting of each PROM and MCID.

Results

While the total number of articles on total hip arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty reporting PROMs increased over time, the proportion of articles reporting PROMs decreased from 49.8% (131/263) in 2010 to 35.5% (194/546) in 2020 (P = .011). Of these articles that report PROMs, the proportion of articles reporting any MCID increased from 2.3% (3/131) in 2010 to 16.5% (32/194) in 2020 (P = .002).

Conclusions

The rate of reporting of MCIDs among articles relating to total hip arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty that report PROMs has increased significantly between 2010 and 2020 but remains low. Continued emphasis on appropriate inclusion and value of MCIDs when PROMS are reported in clinical outcomes studies is needed.

Discordance Abounds in Minimum Clinically Important Differences in THA: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The minimum clinically important difference (MCID) is intended to detect a change in a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) large enough for a patient to appreciate. Their growing use in orthopaedic research stems from the necessity to identify a metric, other than the p value, to better assess the effect size of an outcome. Yet, given that MCIDs are population-specific and that there are multiple calculation methods, there is concern about inconsistencies. Given the increasing use of MCIDs in total hip arthroplasty (THA) research, a systematic review of calculated MCID values and their respective ranges, as well as an assessment of their applications, is important to guide and encourage their use as a critical measure of effect size in THA outcomes research.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We systematically reviewed MCID calculations and reporting in current THA research to answer the following: (1) What are the most-reported PROM MCIDs in THA, and what is their range of values? (2) What proportion of studies report anchor-based versus distribution-based MCID values? (3) What are the most common methods by which anchor-based MCID values are derived? (4) What are the most common derivation methods for distribution-based MCID values? (5) How do the reported medians and corresponding ranges compare between calculation methods for each PROM?

METHODS

The EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PubMed databases were systematically reviewed from inception through March 2022 for THA studies reporting an MCID value for any PROMs. Two independent authors reviewed articles for inclusion. All articles calculating new PROM MCID scores after primary THA were included for data extraction and analysis. MCID values for each PROM, MCID calculation method, number of patients, and study demographics were extracted from each article. In total, 30 articles were included. There were 45 unique PROMs for which 242 MCIDs were reported. These studies had a total of 1,000,874 patients with a median age of 64 years and median BMI of 28.7 kg/m 2 . Women made up 55% of patients in the total study population, and the median follow-up period was 12 months (range 0 to 77 months). The overall risk of bias was assessed as moderate using the modified Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies criteria for comparative studies (the mean score for comparative papers in this review was 18 of 24, with higher scores representing better study quality) and noncomparative studies (for these, the mean score was 10 of a possible 16 points, with higher scores representing higher study quality). 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 the non-normal distribution of values.

RESULTS

The Oxford Hip Score (OHS) and the Hip Injury and Osteoarthritis Score (HOOS) Pain and Quality of Life subscore MCIDs were the most frequently reported, comprising 12% (29 of 242), 8% (20 of 242), and 8% (20 of 242), respectively. The EuroQol VAS (EQ-VAS) was the next-most frequently reported (7% [17 of 242]) followed by the EuroQol 5D (EQ-5D) (7% [16 of 242]). The median anchor-based value for the OHS was 9 (IQR 8 to 11), while the median distribution-based value was 6 (IQR 5 to 6). The median anchor-based MCID values for HOOS Pain and Quality of Life were 33 (IQR 28 to 35) and 25 (14 to 27), respectively; the median distribution-based values were 10 (IQR 9 to 10) and 13 (IQR 10 to 14), respectively. Thirty percent (nine of 30) of studies used an anchor-based method to calculate a new MCID, while 40% (12 of 30) used a distribution-based technique. Thirty percent of studies (nine of 30) calculated MCID values using both methods. For studies reporting an anchor-based calculation method, a question assessing pain relief, satisfaction, or quality of life on a five-point Likert scale was the most commonly used anchor (30% [eight of 27]), followed by a receiver operating characteristic curve estimation (22% [six of 27]). For studies using distribution-based calculations, the most common method was one-half the standard deviation of the difference between preoperative and postoperative PROM scores (46% [12 of 26]). Most reported median MCID values (nine of 14) did not differ by calculation method for each unique PROM (p > 0.05). The OHS, HOOS JR, and HOOS Function, Symptoms, and Activities of Daily Living subscores all varied by calculation method, because each anchor-based value was larger than its respective distribution-based value.

CONCLUSION

We found that MCIDs do not vary very much by calculation method across most outcome measurement tools. Additionally, there are consistencies in MCID calculation methods, because most authors used an anchor question with a Likert scale for the anchor-based approach or used one-half the standard deviation of preoperative and postoperative PROM score differences for the distribution-based approach. For some of the most frequently reported MCIDs, however, anchor-based values tend to be larger than distribution-based values for their respective PROMs.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

We recommend using a 9-point increase as the MCID for the OHS, 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 calculations, which we believe are most appropriate for most applications in clinical research. Likewise, we recommend using the anchor-based 33-point and 25-point MCIDs for the HOOS Pain and Quality of Life subscores, respectively. We encourage using anchor-based MCID values of WOMAC Pain, Function, and Stiffness subscores, which were 29, 26, and 30, respectively.

Propensity for Clinically Meaningful Improvement and Surgical Failure After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Repair

Background

Primary repair of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) confers an alternative to ACL reconstruction in appropriately selected patients.

Purpose

To prospectively assess survivorship and to define the clinically meaningful outcomes after ACL repair.

Study Design

Case series; Level of evidence, 4.

Methods

Included were consecutive patients with Sherman grade 1-2 tears who underwent primary ACL repair with or without suture augmentation between 2017 and 2019. Patient-reported outcomes (Lysholm, Tegner, International Knee Documentation Committee, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [KOOS] subscales) were collected preoperatively and at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years postoperatively. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was calculated using a distribution-based method, whereas the Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) were calculated using an anchor-based method. Plain radiographs and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were obtained at 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years postoperatively.

Results

A total of 120 patients were included. The overall failure rate was 11.3% at 2 years postoperatively. Changes in outcome scores required to achieve the MCID ranged between 5.1 and 14.3 at 6 months, 4.6 and 8.4 at 1 year, and 4.7 and 11.9 at 2 years postoperatively. Thresholds for PASS achievement ranged between 62.5 and 89 at 6 months, 75 and 89 at 1 year, and 78.6 and 93.2 at 2 years postoperatively. Threshold scores (absolute/change based) for achieving the SCB ranged between 82.8 and 96.4/17.7 and 40.1 at 6 months, between 94.7 and 100/23 and 45 at 1 year, and between 95.3 and 100/29.4 and 45 at 2 years. More patients achieved the MCID and PASS at 1 year compared with 6 months and 2 years. For SCB, this trend was also observed for non-KOOS outcomes, while for KOOS subdomains, more patients achieved the SCB at 2 years. High-intensity signal of the ACL repair (odds ratio [OR], 31.7 [95% CI, 1.5-73.4]; P = .030) and bone contusions on MRI (OR, 4.2 [95% CI, 1.7-25.2]; P = .041) at 1 year postoperatively were independently associated with increased risk of ACL repair failure.

Conclusion

The rate of clinically meaningful outcome improvement was high early after ACL repair, with the greatest proportion of patients achieving the MCID, PASS, and SCB at 1 year postoperatively. Bone contusions involving the posterolateral tibia and lateral femoral condyle as well as high repair signal intensity at 1 year postoperatively were independent predictors of failure at 2 years postoperatively.

High complication rates following revision first metatarsophalangeal joint arthrodesis: a retrospective analysis of 79 cases

BACKGROUND

The most common indications for revision of first metatarsophalangeal joint (MTPJ) arthrodesis are symptomatic failures of prior arthrodesis, failed hallux valgus correction, and failed MTPJ arthroplasty implants. However, the outcomes of revision MTPJ arthrodesis have rarely been studied. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical, radiographic, and patient-reported outcomes of revision MTPJ arthrodesis following different primary procedures.

METHODS

A retrospective review of revision MTPJ arthrodesis cases between January 2015 and December 2019 was performed. The radiographic results, patient-reported outcomes, and rates of complications, subsequent revisions, and nonunions, were analyzed and compared preoperatively and postoperatively. A multivariate analysis was utilized to determine risk factors for complications and reoperations.

RESULTS

This study yielded a total of 79 cases of revision MTPJ arthrodesis. The mean follow-up time was 365 days (SD ± 295). The overall complication rate was 40.5%, of which the overall nonunion rate was 19.0%. Seven cases (8.9%) required further revision surgery. The multivariate analysis revealed that Diabetes mellitus was associated with significantly higher overall complication rates (p = 0.016), and nonunion was associated with "in-situ" joint preparation techniques (p = 0.042). Visual Analog Scale (VAS) significantly improved postoperatively (p < 0.001); However, PROMIS-10 physical health and PROMIS-10 mental health did not change significantly during the study period.

CONCLUSION

Treatment of MTPJ surgery failures is a clinical challenge in orthopedic surgery. In our study, revision of first MTPJ surgery resulted in higher nonunion rates and overall complication rates compared to typical outcomes from primary MTPJ arthrodesis. Diabetes, Tobacco use, and "in-situ" joint preparation technique were found to be independent risk factors for complications and reoperations.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III-Retrospective Cohort Study.

Establishing minimal detectable change thresholds for the international knee documentation committee and Kujala scores at one and two years after patellofemoral joint arthroplasty

PURPOSE

To define the minimal detectable change (MDC) for the international knee documentation committee (IKDC) and Kujala scores one and two years after patellofemoral joint arthroplasty (PFA).

METHODS

A distribution-based method (one-half the standard deviation of the mean difference between postoperative and preoperative outcome scores) was applied to establish MDC thresholds among 225 patients undergoing primary PFA at a single high-volume musculoskeletal-care center. Stability of change in MDC achievement was explored by quantifying the proportion of achievement at one- and two-year postoperative timepoints. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to explore the association between sociodemographic and operative features on MDC achievement.

RESULTS

MDC thresholds for the Kujala score were 10.3 (71.1% achievement) and 10.6 (70.4% achievement) at one- and two years, respectively. The MDC thresholds for the IKDC score were 11.2 (78.1% achievement) and 12.3 (69.0% achievement) at one- and two years, respectively. Predictors of achieving the MDC for the Kujala and IKDC scores at both time points were lower preoperative Kujala and IKDC scores, respectively. Preoperative thresholds of ≤ 24.1 and 7.6 for the Kujala and IKDC scores, respectively, were associated with a 90% MDC achievement probability. When preoperative thresholds approached 64.3 and 48.3 for the Kujala and IKDC, respectively, MDC achievement probability reduced to 50%.

CONCLUSION

The MDC thresholds for the Kujala and IKDC scores two years after PFA were 10.6 and 12.3, respectively. Clinically significant health status changes were maintained overall, with a slight decrease in achievement rates between one and two years. MDC achievement was associated with disability at presentation, and several probability-based preoperative thresholds were defined. These findings may assist knee surgeons with patient selection and the decision to proceed with PFA by better understanding the patient-specific propensity for MDC achievement.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, retrospective case series.

MCID and PASS in Knee Surgeries. Theoretical Aspects and Clinical Relevance References

The application and interpretation of patient-reported outcome measures (PROM), following knee injuries, pathologies, and interventions, can be challenging. In recent years, the literature has been enriched with metrics to facilitate our understanding and interpretation of these outcome measures. Two commonly utilized tools include the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and the patient acceptable symptoms state (PASS). These measures have demonstrated clinical value, however, they have often been under- or mis-reported. It is paramount to use them to understand the clinical significance of any statistically significant results. Still, it remains important to know their caveats and limitations. In this focused report on MCID and PASS, their definitions, methods of calculations, clinical relevance, interpretations, and limitations are reviewed and presented in a simple approach.

The Minimal Clinically Important Difference: A Review of Clinical Significance

BACKGROUND

The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is a term synonymous with orthopaedic clinical research over the past decade. The term represents the smallest change in a patient-reported outcome measure that is of genuine clinical value to patients. It has been derived in a myriad of ways in existing orthopaedic literature.

PURPOSE

To describe the various modalities for deriving the MCID.

STUDY DESIGN

Narrative review; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

The definitions of common MCID determinations were first identified. These were then evaluated by their clinical and statistical merits and limitations.

RESULTS

There are 3 primary ways for determining the MCID: anchor-based analysis, distribution-based analysis, and sensitivity- and specificity-based analysis. Each has unique strengths and weaknesses with respect to its ability to evaluate the patient's clinical status change from baseline to posttreatment. Anchor-based analyses are inherently tied to clinical status yet lack standardization. Distribution-based analyses are the opposite, with strong foundations in statistics, yet they fail to adequately address the clinical status change. Sensitivity and specificity analyses offer a compromise of the other methodologies but still rely on a somewhat arbitrarily defined global transition question.

CONCLUSION

This current concepts review demonstrates the need for (1) better standardization in the establishment of MCIDs for orthopaedic patient-reported outcome measures and (2) better study design-namely, until a universally accepted MCID derivation exists, studies attempting to derive the MCID should utilize the anchor-based within-cohort design based on Food and Drug Administration recommendations. Ideally, large studies reporting the MCID as an outcome will also derive the value for their populations. It is important to consider that there may be reasonable replacements for current derivations of the MCID. As such, future research should consider an alternative threshold score with a more universal method of derivation.

Functional recovery after total hip/knee replacement in obese people: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Several studies have investigated the influence of body mass index (BMI) on functional gain after total hip replacement (THR) or total knee replacement (TKR) in osteoarthritis, with contradictory results. This systematic literature review was conducted to ascertain whether obesity affects functional recovery after THR or TKR in the short (<1 year), medium (<3 years) and long term (>3 years).

METHODS

The study was registered with PROSPERO and conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. A systematic literature search was conducted across Medline and EMBASE databases for articles published between 1980 and 2020 that investigated patient-reported measures of functional recovery after THR and TKR in participants with osteoarthritis and obesity (defined as BMI ≥30 kg/m²).

RESULTS

Twenty-six articles reporting on 68,840 persons (34,955 for THR and 33,885 for TKR) were included in the final analysis: 5 case-control studies, 21 cohort studies (9 for THR only, 10 for TKR only and 2 for both). The average minimum follow-up was 36.4 months, ranging from 6 weeks to 10 years. Most studies found significantly lower pre-operative patient-reported functional scores for participants with obesity. After THR, there was a small difference in functional recovery in favor of those without obesity in the short term (<6 months), but the difference remained below the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) threshold and disappeared in the medium and long term. After TKR, functional recovery was better for those with obesity than those without in the first year, similar until the third year, and then decreased thereafter.

CONCLUSIONS

Although there is a paucity of high-quality evidence, our findings show substantial functional gains in people with obesity after total joint replacement. Functional recovery after THR or TKR does not significantly differ, or only slightly differs, between those with and without obesity, and the difference in functional gain is not clinically important.

PROSPERO NUMBER

CRD42018112919.

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.

Bone marrow stimulation in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair is a cost-effective and straightforward technique to reduce retear rates: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Bone marrow stimulation (BMS) has been considered a well-established method for treating knee and ankle osteochondral lesions. Some studies have also shown that BMS can promote healing of the repaired tendon and enhance biomechanical properties during rotator cuff repair. Our purpose was to compare the clinical outcomes of arthroscopic repair rotator cuff (ARCR) with and without BMS.

Methods

A systematic review with meta-analysis was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Google scholar, ScienceDirect, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to March 20, 2022. Data on retear rates, shoulder functional outcomes, visual analog score and range of motion were pooled and analyzed. Dichotomous variables were presented as odds ratios (OR), and continuous variables were presented as mean differences (MD). Meta-analyses were conducted with Review Manager 5.3.

Results

Eight studies involving 674 patients were included, with mean follow-up period ranging from 12 to 36.8 months. Compared to ARCR alone, the intraoperative combination of the BMS resulted in lower retear rates (P < 0.0001), but showed similar results in Constant score (P = 0.10), University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) score (P = 0.57), American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) score (P = 0.23), Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score (P = 0.31), VAS (visual analog score) score (P = 0.34), and range of motion (ROM) (forward flexion, P = 0.42; external rotation, P = 0.21). After sensitivity analyses and subgroup analyses, no significant changes in statistical results were observed.

Conclusion

Compared to ARCR alone, the combination of intraoperative BMS can significantly reduce the retear rates, but showed similar short-term results in functional outcomes, ROM and pain. Better clinical outcomes are anticipated in the BMS group by improving structural integrity during long-term follow-up. Currently, BMS may be a viable option in ARCR based on its straightforward and cost-effective advantages.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier: CRD42022323379.

Securing Transplanted Meniscal Allografts Using Bone Plugs Results in Lower Risks of Graft Failure and Reoperations: A Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Meniscal allograft transplant (MAT) is an important treatment option for young patients with deficient menisci; however, there is a lack of consensus on the optimal method of allograft fixation.

HYPOTHESIS

The various methods of MAT fixation have measurable and significant differences in outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN

Meta-analysis; Level of evidence, 4.

METHODS

A single-arm meta-analysis of studies reporting graft failure, reoperations, and other clinical outcomes after MAT was performed. Studies were stratified by suture-only, bone plug, and bone bridge fixation methods. Proportionate rates of failure and reoperation for each fixation technique were pooled with a mixed-effects model, after which reconstruction of relative risks with confidence intervals was performed using the Katz logarithmic method.

RESULTS

A total of 2604 patients underwent MAT. Weighted mean follow-up was 4.3 years (95% CI, 3.2-5.6 years). During this follow-up period, graft failure rates were 6.2% (95% CI, 3.2%-11.6%) for bone plug fixation, 6.9% (95% CI, 4.5%-10.3%) for suture-only fixation, and 9.3% (95% CI, 6.2%-13.9%) for bone bridge fixation. Transplanted menisci secured using bone plugs displayed a lower risk of failure compared with menisci secured via bone bridges (RR = 0.97; 95% CI, 0.94-0.99; P = .02). Risks of failure were not significantly different when comparing suture fixation to bone bridge (RR = 1.02; 95% CI, 0.99-1.06; P = .12) and bone plugs (RR = 0.99; 95% CI, 0.96-1.02; P = .64). Allografts secured using bone plugs were at a lower risk of requiring reoperations compared with those secured using sutures (RR = 0.91; 95% CI, 0.87-0.95; P < .001), whereas allografts secured using bone bridges had a higher risk of reoperation when compared with those secured using either sutures (RR = 1.28; 95% CI, 1.19-1.38; P < .001) or bone plugs (RR = 1.41; 95% CI, 1.32-1.51; P < .001). Improvements in Lysholm and International Knee Documentation Committee scores were comparable among the different groups.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis demonstrates that bone plug fixation of transplanted meniscal allografts carries a lower risk of failure than the bone bridge method and has a lower risk of requiring subsequent operations than both suture-only and bone bridge methods of fixation. This suggests that the technique used in the fixation of a transplanted meniscal allograft is an important factor in the clinical outcomes of patients receiving MATs.

Reliability and validity of commonly used patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) after medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty

INTRODUCTION

Many patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have been utilized to assess outcomes after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). However, most are not specifically designed for UKA and the measurement properties of these PROMs have never been elucidated in the setting of UKA. This study aimed to evaluate the reliability and validity of commonly used PROMs after UKA, which includes the Oxford knee score (OKS), Knee Society Score (KSS)-function score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS).

HYPOTHESIS

The four commonly used PROMs after UKA are of good reliability and validity, but with different floor/ceiling effect.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Prospectively collected postoperative follow-up PROMs scores of patients after medial UKA cases for osteoarthritis between May 2015 and June 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. All of the PROMs were finished on the same electronic questionnaires. Reliability (internal consistency, test-retest reliability, measurement error), construct validity and floor/ceiling effects were assessed.

RESULTS

The whole cohort was composed of 207 cases, with a median age of 62.0 years and a male ratio of 59/207 (28.50%). Internal consistency was high in the OKS, weak in the KSS-function score and with redundancy in the WOMAC and KOOS scores (Cronbach alpha=0.915, 0.610, 0.953, 0.961, respectively). Each of the four PROMs had a high test-retest reliability (all intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) >0.97). Convergent validity of the four PROMs with the physical component score of the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-12 PCS) were proven (all r>0.5; p<0.001). While no ceiling effect occurred in the OKS, one was detected in the KSS-function score with 19.81% of patients achieving the best possible score, as well as in the WOMAC sub-score for pain (54.11%) and stiffness (50.72%), in addition to the KOOS sub-score for symptoms (27.54%) and pain (38.16%).

DISCUSSION

The four commonly used PROMs after UKA showed good test-retest reliability and construct validity. The OKS is more recommended for its better performance in internal consistency and ceiling effect than the KSS-function score, the WOMAC and KOOS scores.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III; Diagnostic study.

Defining Minimally Important Differences in Functional Outcomes in Musculoskeletal Oncology

BACKGROUND

Functional outcomes are commonly reported in studies of patients undergoing limb-salvage surgery for the treatment of musculoskeletal tumors; however, interpretation requires knowledge of the smallest amount of improvement that is important to patients: the minimally important difference (MID). We established the MIDs for the Musculoskeletal Tumor Society Rating Scale-93 (MSTS-93) and Toronto Extremity Salvage Score (TESS) for patients with bone tumors undergoing lower-extremity endoprosthetic reconstruction.

METHODS

This study was a secondary analysis of the recently completed PARITY (Prophylactic Antibiotic Regimens in Tumor Surgery) study. We used MSTS-93 and TESS data from this trial to calculate (1) the anchor-based MIDs with use of an overall function scale and a receiver operating characteristic curve analysis and (2) the distribution-based MIDs based on one-half of the standard deviation of the change scores from baseline to the 12-month follow-up and one-half the standard deviation of baseline scores.

RESULTS

Five hundred and ninety-one patients were available for analysis. The Pearson correlation coefficients for the association between changes in MSTS-93 and TESS scores and changes in the external anchor scores were 0.71 and 0.57, indicating high and moderate correlations. The anchor-based MID was 12 points for the MSTS-93 and 11 points for the TESS. Distribution-based MIDs were larger: 16 to 17 points for the MSTS-93 and 14 points for the TESS.

CONCLUSIONS

Two methods for determining MIDs for the MSTS-93 and TESS for patients undergoing lower-extremity endoprosthetic reconstruction for musculoskeletal tumors yielded quantitatively different results. We suggest the use of anchor-based MIDs, which are grounded in changes in functional status that are meaningful to patients. These thresholds can facilitate responder analyses and indicate whether significant differences following interventions are clinically important to patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

The AAHKS Clinical Research Award: Are Minimum Two-Year Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Necessary for Accurate Assessment of Patient Outcomes After Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty?

BACKGROUND

The two-year minimum follow-up after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) required by most academic journals is based on implant survivorship studies rather than patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Additionally, the COVID-19 pandemic placed an unprecedented burden on patients and staff and halted asymptomatic surveillance clinic visits to minimize exposure. The purpose of this study was to determine if clinically meaningful differences were observed in PROMs beyond one year after TKA.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed on prospectively collected PROMs after 1093 primary TKAs at a suburban academic center. PROMs related to pain, function, activity level, and satisfaction were compared by subsequent follow-up intervals preoperatively, at 4 months, 1 year, and minimum 2 years using paired data analysis techniques.

RESULTS

Pain with level walking and while climbing stairs improved from preoperative levels to 4-month, 1-year, and minimum 2-year follow-up. The University of California Los Angeles activity level and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement improved over the same intervals. Patient satisfaction improved over postoperative follow-up intervals (84.0%, 87.3%, and 90.9%). While PROMs improved with statistical and clinical significance preoperatively to 4-month to 1-year follow-up, improvements from 1-year to minimum 2-year follow-up were small and did not reach minimum clinically important differences for nearly all PROMs, demonstrating significant overlap of the 95% confidence intervals.

CONCLUSION

While long-term follow-up after TKA remains important for implant survivorship, it appears that one-year PROMs are as clinically reliable and meaningful as two-year PROMs. Therefore, it is reasonable to question the currently accepted 2-year minimum follow-up requirement used in peer-reviewed research involving PROMs.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Defining the minimal clinically important difference for the knee society score following revision total knee arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

No previous study has evaluated the MCID for revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). This study aimed to identify the MCID for the Knee Society Score (KSS), for revision TKA.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data from 270 patients who underwent revision TKA at a single institution was analysed. Clinical assessment was performed preoperatively, at 6 months and 2 years using Knee Society Function Score (KSFS) and Knee (KSKS) Scores, and Oxford Knee Score (OKS). MCID was evaluated with a three-pronged methodology, using (1) anchor-based method with linear regression, (2) anchor-based method with receiver operating characteristic (ROC) and area under curve (AUC), (3) distribution-based method with standard deviation (SD). The anchors used were improvement in OKS ≥ 5, patient satisfaction, and implant survivorship following revision TKA.

RESULTS

The cohort comprised 70% females, with mean age of 69.0 years, that underwent unilateral revision TKA. The MCID determined by anchor-based linear regression method using OKS was 6.3 for KSFS, and 6.6 for KSKS. The MCID determined by anchor-based ROC was between 15 and 20 for KSFS (AUC: satisfaction = 71.8%, survivorship = 61.4%) and between 33 and 34 for KSKS (AUC: satisfaction = 76.3%, survivorship = 67.1%). The MCID determined by distribution-based method of 0.5 SD was 11.7 for KSFS and 11.9 for KSKS.

CONCLUSION

The MCID of 6.3 points for KSFS, and 6.6 points for KSKS, is a useful benchmark for future studies looking to compare revision against primary TKA outcomes. Clinically, the MCID between 15 and 20 for KSFS and between 33 and 34 for KSKS is a powerful tool for discriminating patients with successful outcomes after revision TKA. Implant survivorship is an objective and naturally dichotomous outcome measure that complements the subjective measure of patient satisfaction, which future MCID studies could consider utilizing as anchors in ROC.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II.

Impetus of US hospital leaders to invest in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs): a qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

Though hospital leaders across the USA have invested significant resources in collection of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), there are very limited data on the impetus for hospital leadership to establish PROM programmes. In this qualitative study, we identify the drivers and motivators of PROM collection among hospital leaders in the USA.

DESIGN

Exploratory qualitative study.

SETTING

Thirty-seven hospital leaders representing seven different institutions with successful PROMs programs across twenty US states.

METHODS

Semistructured interviews conducted with hospital leaders. Transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Leaders strongly believe that collecting PROMs is the 'right thing to do' and that the culture of the institution plays an important role in enabling PROMs. The study participants often believe that their institutions deliver superior care and that PROMs can be used to demonstrate the value of their services to payors and patients. Direct financial incentives are relatively weak motivators for collection of PROMs. Most hospital leaders have reservations about using PROMs in their current state as a meaningful performance metric.

CONCLUSION

These findings suggest that hospital leaders feel a strong moral imperative to collect PROMs, which is also supported by the culture of their institution. Although PROMs are used in negotiations with payors, direct financial return on investment is not a strong driver for the collection of PROMs. Understanding why leaders of major healthcare institutions invest in PROMs is critical to understanding the role that PROMs play in the US healthcare system.

Do Patient Outcomes Vary by Patient Age Following Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty?

BACKGROUND

Multiple authors have sought to determine what patient characteristics influence outcome after total hip arthroplasty (THA). Age has shown no effect on outcome in some evaluations, while others have reported higher functional improvement in younger patients. The aim of this study was to determine if outcome after THA varies based on patient age.

METHODS

A prospective, multicenter cohort of 7,934 unilateral primary THA patients from the FORCE-TJR comparative effectiveness consortium was evaluated. Demographic data, comorbid conditions, and Patient-Reported Outcome Measures, including (HOOS), HOOS-12, HOOS JR, and SF-36 (PCS) and (MCS), were collected preop and at 1-year postop. Descriptive statistics were generated, stratified by age (<55 years [younger adult], 55-64 years [older adult], 65-74 years [early elder], and ≥75 years [late elder]), and differences in pain, function, and quality of life among the 4 age groups were evaluated. A multivariate regression model with 95% confidence interval (CI) was used to assess the role of patient age as a predictive factor for HOOS pain and function scores reported 1 year after primary THA.

RESULTS

Prior to surgery, younger patients (<55 years) reported worse pain, function, and quality of life than the other 3 patient groups. At 1 year after THA, younger patients (<55 years) reported slightly worse pain and quality of life but better function scores than the 3 older patients' groups. Younger patients (<55 years) achieved higher baseline to 1-year pain, and function score changes when compared to the older patients' groups. The quality of life score changes was not different among the 4 age groups. The differences in 1-year postop scores (ranging from 2.74 to 8.46) and the magnitude of score changes from baseline to 1 year (ranging from 1.9 to 5.85), although statistically significant (P < .001), did not reach the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). The multivariate regression analysis shows that age is a significant predictor for pain at 1 year but not for function. Although HOOS pain score is predicted to be higher by 4.38 points (less pain) 1 year after THA in older patients (≥75), when compared to younger patients (<55 years), again the difference is well below the MCID and is clinically insignificant.

CONCLUSION

Although there are statistically significant differences in pain relief, functional improvement, and quality of life between younger and older patients among different patients' age groups, there is no clinically significant difference. THA provides an improvement in quality of life by decreasing pain and increasing function in all 4 age groups, with large improvements in Patient-Reported Outcome Measures scores (>2 standard deviations) without clinically significant age-related differences in THA outcome at 1 year.

The minimal clinically important difference for the nonarthritic hip score at 2-years following hip arthroscopy

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to determine and establish the MCID for the NAHS at 2 years in patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS).

METHODS

Patients that underwent primary hip arthroscopy for FAIS between 2010 and 2016 were analyzed for eligibility. Data were collected from a single surgeon's hip arthroscopy database. MCID was calculated for the NAHS utilizing a distribution-based method.

RESULTS

The study included 298 patients (184 females) with an average age of 40.4 ± 13.0 years and average body mass index (BMI) of 25.7 ± 4.2 kg/m². At baseline, the cohort's average NAHS score was 48.7 ± 13.6 and demonstrated an improvement of 36.5 ± 17.0 for NAHS at follow-up. This resulted in MCID values of + 8.5 for NAHS.

CONCLUSION

This is the first study to report the MCID (+ 8.5) for NAHS following primary hip arthroscopy, and as such, is a valuable contribution to future hip arthroscopy research.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV.

Substantial Inconsistency and Variability Exists Among Minimum Clinically Important Differences for Shoulder Arthroplasty Outcomes: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

As the value of patient-reported outcomes becomes increasingly recognized, minimum clinically important difference (MCID) thresholds have seen greater use in shoulder arthroplasty. However, MCIDs are unique to certain populations, and variation in the modes of calculation in this field may be of concern. With the growing utilization of MCIDs within the field and value-based care models, a detailed appraisal of the appropriateness of MCID use in the literature is necessary and has not been systematically reviewed.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We performed a systematic review of MCID quantification in existing studies on shoulder arthroplasty to answer the following questions: (1) What is the range of values reported for the MCID in commonly used shoulder arthroplasty patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs)? (2) What percentage of studies use previously existing MCIDs versus calculating a new MCID? (3) What techniques for calculating the MCID were used in studies where a new MCID was calculated?

METHODS

The Embase, PubMed, and Ovid/MEDLINE databases were queried from December 2008 through December 2020 for total shoulder arthroplasty and reverse total shoulder arthroplasty articles reporting an MCID value for various PROMs. Two reviewers (DAK, MAM) independently screened articles for eligibility, specifically identifying articles that reported MCID values for PROMs after shoulder arthroplasty, and extracted data for analysis. Each study was classified into two categories: those referencing a previously defined MCID and those using a newly calculated MCID. Methods for determining the MCID for each study and the variability of reported MCIDs for each PROM were recorded. The number of patients, age, gender, BMI, length of follow-up, surgical indications, and surgical type were extracted for each article. Forty-three articles (16,408 patients) with a mean (range) follow-up of 20 months (0.75 to 68) met the inclusion criteria. The median (range) BMI of patients was 29.3 kg/m2 (28.0 to 32.2 kg/m2), and the median (range) age was 68 years (53 to 84). There were 17 unique PROMs with MCID values. Of the 112 MCIDs reported, the most common PROMs with MCIDs were the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) (23% [26 of 112]), the Simple Shoulder Test (SST) (17% [19 of 112]), and the Constant (15% [17 of 112]).

RESULTS

The ranges of MCID values for each PROM varied widely (ASES: 6.3 to 29.5; SST: 1.4 to 4.0; Constant: -0.3 to 12.8). Fifty-six percent (24 of 43) of studies used previously established MCIDs, with 46% (11 of 24) citing one study. Forty-four percent (19 of 43) of studies established new MCIDs, and the most common technique was anchor-based (37% [7 of 19]), followed by distribution (21% [4 of 19]).

CONCLUSION

There is substantial inconsistency and variability in the quantification and reporting of MCID values in shoulder arthroplasty studies. Many shoulder arthroplasty studies apply previously published MCID values with variable ranges of follow-up rather than calculating population-specific thresholds. The use of previously calculated MCIDs may be acceptable in specific situations; however, investigators should select an anchor-based MCID calculated from a patient population as similar as possible to their own. This practice is preferable to the use of distribution-approach MCID methods. Alternatively, authors may consider using substantial clinical benefit or patient-acceptable symptom state to assess outcomes after shoulder arthroplasty.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Although MCIDs may provide a useful effect-size based alternative to the traditional p value, care must be taken to use an MCID that is appropriate for the particular patient population being studied.

All MCIDs Are Wrong, But Some May be Useful

OBJECTIVE

To demonstrate how to apply a baseline-adjusted receiver operator characteristic curve (AROC) analysis for minimum clinically important differences (MCIDs) in an empirical data set and discuss new insights relating to MCIDs.

DESIGN

Retrospective study.

METHODS

This study includes data from 999 active-duty military service patients enrolled in the United States Military Health System's Military Orthopedics Tracking Injuries and Outcomes Network. Anchored MCIDs were calculated using the standard receiver operator characteristic analysis and the AROC analysis for the Patient-Reported Outcome Measure Information System (PROMIS) Pain Interference and Defense and Veterans Pain Rating Scale (DVPRS). Point estimates where confidence intervals (CIs) crossed the 0.5 identity line on the area-under-the-curve (AUC) analysis were considered statistically invalid. MCID estimates where CIs crossed 0 were considered theoretically invalid.

RESULTS

In applying an AROC analysis, the region of AUC and MCID validity for the PROMIS Pain Interference score exists when the baseline score is greater than 61.0 but less than 72.3. For DVPRS, the region of MCID validity is when the baseline score is greater than 5.9 but less than 7.9.

CONCLUSION

Baseline values influence not only the MCID but also the accuracy of the MCID. MCIDs are statistically and theoretically valid for only a discrete range of baseline scores. Our findings suggest that the MCID may be too flawed a construct to accurately benchmark treatment outcomes. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2022;52(6):401-407. doi:10.2519/jospt.2022.11193.