Orthopaedic registries with patient-reported outcome measures

Innovative technologies for reverse total shoulder arthroplasty in Australia: Market access challenges and implications for patients, decision-makers, and manufacturers

PURPOSE

The success of reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) has expanded its use for a broader range of shoulder indications worldwide. Evidence regarding the relative efficacy and long-term safety of medical technologies used in RTSA is subjected to rigorous assessment. Nonetheless, substantial challenges impede market access for innovative shoulder implant technologies for RTSA in Australia, resulting in delayed patient access.

APPROACH

This paper addresses the key challenges associated with generating evidence for the health technology assessments of innovative medical technologies for RTSA that are required for access to the Australian market. The transition to value-based care requires establishing a benchmarking reference that incorporates patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and combines revision outcomes with additional clinical outcomes to increase patient cohort sizes. Establishing the benchmark would require agreement on the outcome measures to be collected for each indication, and investment in reporting patient-reported outcomes for RTSA to the national orthopaedic registry.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The need for increased flexibility in developing evidence for health technology assessment of RTSA medical technologies is required. Optimised approaches for benchmarking RTSA require extensive stakeholder discussions, including the agreement on evidence requirements and follow-up periods, selection of clinical outcomes, as well as pre-operative and post-operative PROMs as a value assessment.

Postoperative Pain Management and Patient Evaluations After Five Different Surgical Procedures. A Prospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Sufficient pain management is a necessity and can play an important role in patients' contentment.

AIMS

To investigate the instituted postoperative pain treatment, patients' levels of pain, opioid consumption, and patient contentment, supplemented with a questionnaire based on the International Pain Outcome (IPO).

METHODS

This prospective observational cohort study was conducted at Zealand University Hospital Køge, Denmark (ZUHK) from March 8, 2017, to January 7, 2019, aiming for a consecutive inclusion of 200 patients, 40 from five major surgical procedures. The study was approved by the Danish Data Protection Agency (REG-121-2016) and registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03080272). The Research Ethics Committee of the Zealand Region was consulted, but approval was not needed according to Danish law (J.nr. 16-000014).

RESULTS

We included 189 patients in total. We found a significant number of patients that did not achieve "no worse than mild pain" (Numeric Rating Scale ≤3) across surgical procedures. The provided pain treatment was heterogenic and inconsistent even among individuals who underwent similar surgical procedures. Although patients did not achieve "no worse than mild pain" (Numeric Rating Scale ≤3), the majority stated that they were content with their pain treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

The analgesic treatment varied between procedures and patients and a significant number of patients did not achieve "no worse than mild pain" (Numeric Rating Scale ≤3). A significant association between patient contentment and experience of severe pain, pain relief, and involvement in own pain treatment, was found.

Agreement between the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Society Standardized Shoulder Assessment score (ASES) and the Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) in patients presenting with shoulder pathology: A cohort analysis of the Clinical Quality Registry for Outcomes in Shoulder and Elbow Pathology (CROSEP) registry

Background

The choice of patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) used in shoulder studies varies based on clinician's preference and location. This creates difficulties when attempting to compare studies which have used different PROMs as their outcome measure. This study aims to assess the agreement between the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons score (ASES) and the Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS), and identify factors associated with agreement.

Methods

Patients with shoulder pathology were identified from a multi-cohort observational practice registry. 1050 paired ASES and OSS pre-treatment scores were prospectively collected. Linear regression was performed to assess the agreement between the PROMs. Mixed-effects analysis of variance was performed to assess the influence of factors associated with agreement.

Results

Regression for mean total and mean function ASES and OSS demonstrated good fit (adjusted R2 57.7%, P < 0.001; and 63.9%, P < 0.001). Mean pain subscore demonstrated a poorer fit (adjusted R2 39.4%, P < 0.001). Crosswalks to convert between mean scores were produced with reasonable precision. Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey score, age and diagnosis cohort influenced agreement.

Conclusion

Mean total and mean function ASES and OSS scores agree well with each other. This allows for a more informed comparison of studies using either PROMs as their outcome measure.

Standard set of network outcomes for traumatic spinal cord injury: a consensus-based approach using the Delphi method

STUDY DESIGN

Consensus study.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study is to define a standardized (network) outcomes set for traumatic spinal cord injury (t-SCI), covering the patient journey from acute to chronic rehabilitation phase, including patient-relevant outcomes, adequate measurement instruments, as well as case-mix and risk factors.

SETTING

Acute Spinal Cord Injury (ASCI) Unit Nijmegen, the Netherlands.

METHODS

A modified Delphi method was performed, including a multidisciplinary panel of 19 health-care professionals with experience in t-SCI management. Formal consensus was reached after two web-based surveys, a face-to-face meeting, and a final confirmation round (threshold consensus: 70%).

RESULTS

In the first two Delphi rounds, 18/19 invited panelists (94.7%) responded and 10 panelists participated in the final meeting. The prefinal set was confirmed by all panelists. The standard set encompasses the three-tiered outcome hierarchy and consists of patient-reported and clinician-reported outcome domains and measurement instruments. Consensus was reached to include survival, degree of health or recovery, time to recovery, and return to normal activities, disutility of care or treatment process, sustainability of health and nature of recurrences, and long-term consequences of therapy. A measurement schedule was defined as well as for proposed casemix and risk factors, including demographics, clinical status, and treatment process.

CONCLUSION

A standard set of network outcomes is developed that could be implemented in hospitals and rehabilitation centers involved in the treatment of t-SCI. Using this standard set, comparison of the quality of care is possible and prognostic prediction of outcomes of treatment is feasible, so that each patient receives the right care at the right time in the right place.

Sleep disturbance, dyspnea, and anxiety following total joint arthroplasty: an observational study

BACKGROUND

Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) domains for sleep disturbance, anxiety, and dyspnea have been under-reported for total joint arthroplasty (TJA). The aims of this study were to report postoperative differences for these domains based on TJA location and chronic pain state. We also investigated whether these domains were associated with physical function and pain interference outcomes.

METHODS

This was a retrospective, observational study of patients who underwent hip, knee, or shoulder TJA (primary and revision surgeries) at a single academic tertiary referral center. A subset of these patients completed an email-based survey for chronic pain grade (Chronic Pain Grade Scale-Revised) and sleep disturbance, anxiety, dyspnea, physical function, and pain interference (PROMIS short forms). Pre-operative and operative data were extracted from the electronic health record. Data analysis investigated PROMIS domains for differences in TJA location and chronic pain grade. Hierarchical linear regression determined associations of these domains with physical function and pain interference.

RESULTS

A total of 2638 individuals provided informed consent and completed the email survey. In the ANOVA models for sleep disturbance, anxiety, and dyspnea, there was no location by chronic pain grade interaction (p > 0.05) and no difference based on TJA location (p > 0.05). There were differences for chronic pain grade (p < 0.01). The poorest postoperative outcome score for each domain was associated with high impact chronic pain. Furthermore, sleep disturbance and dyspnea had the strongest associations with physical function and pain interference (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Sleep disturbance, anxiety, and dyspnea did not vary based on TJA location, but were associated with postoperative chronic pain grade. Sleep disturbance and dyspnea were strongly associated with commonly reported outcomes of physical function and pain interference. These findings provide guidance for those interested in expanding TJA outcome assessment to include sleep disturbance, anxiety, and/or dyspnea.

Outcome measures in total hip arthroplasty: have our metrics changed over 15 years?

INTRODUCTION

Consensus has not been reached regarding ideal outcome measures for total hip arthroplasty (THA) clinical evaluation and research. The goal of this review was to analyze the trends in outcome metrics within the THA literature and to discuss the potential impact of instrument heterogeneity on clinical practice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A PubMed search of all manuscripts related to THA from January 2005 to December 2019 was performed. Statistical and linear regression analyses were performed for individual outcome metrics as a proportion of total THA publications over time.

RESULTS

There was a statistically significant increase in studies utilizing outcomes metrics between 2005 and 2019 (15.1-29.5%; P < 0.001; R² = 98.1%). Within the joint-specific subcategory, use of the Harris Hip Score (HHS) significantly decreased from 2005 to 2019 (82.8-57.3%; P < 0.001), use of the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS) significantly increased (0-6.7%; P < 0.001), and the modified HHS significantly increased (0-10.5%; P < 0.001). In the quality of life subcategory, EQ-5D demonstrated a significant increase in usage (0-34.8%; P < 0.001), while Short Form-36 significantly decreased (100% vs. 27.3%; P = 0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

The utilization of outcome-reporting metrics in THA has continued to increase, resulting in added complexity within the literature. The utilization rates of individual instruments have shifted over the past 15 years. Additional study is required to determine which specific instruments are recommended.

Linking Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Physical Function Short Form and PROMIS Physical Function

INTRODUCTION

Linking scores on patient-reported outcome measures can enable data aggregation for research, clinical care, and quality. We aimed to link scores on the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Physical Function Short Form (HOOS-PS) and the Patient-reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function (PROMIS PF).

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted from 2017 to 2020 evaluating patients with hip osteoarthritis who received routine clinical care from an orthopaedic surgeon. Our sample included 3,382 unique patients with 7,369 pairs of HOOS-PS and PROMIS PF measures completed at a single nonsurgical, preoperative, or postoperative time point. We included one randomly selected time point of scores for each patient in our linking analysis sample. We compared the accuracy of linking using four methods, including equipercentile and item response theory-based approaches.

RESULTS

PROMIS PF and HOOS-PS scores were strongly correlated ( r = -0.827 for raw HOOS-PS scores and r = 0.820 for summary HOOS-PS scores). The assumptions were met for equipercentile and item response theory approaches to linking. We selected the item response theory-based Stocking-Lord approach as the optimal crosswalk and estimated item parameters for the HOOS-PS items on the PROMIS metric. A sensitivity analysis demonstrated overall robustness of the crosswalk estimates in nonsurgical, preoperative, and postoperative patients.

CONCLUSION

These crosswalks can be used to convert scores between HOOS-PS and PROMIS PF metric at the group level, which can be valuable for data aggregation. Conversion of individual patient-level data is not recommended secondary to increased risk of error.

Patient Acceptable Symptom State for the Forgotten Joint Score in Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

In order to better understand the clinical benefits of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and improve the interpretability of the Forgotten Joint Score (FJS-12), the establishment of a meaningful change in score is necessary. The purpose of this study is to determine the threshold of the FJS-12 for detecting the patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) following primary TKA.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed all patients who underwent elective, primary TKA and answered both the FJS-12 and the Knee Injury Osteoarthritis Outcome Survey, Joint Replacement KOOS, JR surveys 1-year postoperatively. The questionnaires were administered via a web-based electronic application. KOOS, JR score was used as the anchor. The anchor for PASS calculation should relate pain, physical function, and patient satisfaction. Two statistical methods were employed: (1) the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve point; (2) 75^th percentile of the cumulative percentage curve of patients who had the KOOS, JR score difference larger than the cut-off value.

RESULTS

This study included 457 patients. The mean 1-year FJS-12 score was 42.6 ± 27.8. The mean 1-year KOOS, JR score was 68.0 ± 17.2. A high positive correlation between FJS-12 and KOOS, JR was found (r = 0.72, P < .001) making the KOOS, JR a valid external anchor. The threshold score of the FJS-12 which maximized the sensitivity and specificity for detecting a PASS was 33.3 (AUC = 0.78, 95% CI [0.74, 0.83]). The cut-off value computed with the 75^th percentile approach was 77.1 (95% CI [73.9, 81.5]).

CONCLUSION

The PASS threshold for the FJS-12 was 33.3 and 77.1 at 1-year follow-up after primary TKA using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and 75^th percentile approaches, respectively. These values can be used to assess the successful achievement of a forgotten joint.

LEVEL III EVIDENCE

Retrospective Cohort Study.

Identification of Potential High-Risk Patients on the Basis of PROMs in a Certified Centre for Joint Replacement (EndoProthetikZentrum) Using the Example of Hip Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

In addition to clinical parameters, the subjective assessment by the patient to evaluate the operative outcome of an arthroplasty is becoming increasingly important. Questionnaires are used to identify patients who have not achieved the treatment goal at an early stage so that further interventions can be indicated.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A questionnaire consisting of different PROMs was completed pre- and 3 months postoperatively by patients who had been treated with a hip arthroplasty. A standardised follow-up examination of these patients was carried out 12 to 16 weeks postoperatively, after which it was determined whether further therapy was necessary to achieve the treatment goal. Different consequences were defined for this.

RESULTS

Significant differences were found between the groups of consequences of follow-up examinations over both time points, but also when postoperative scores were considered exclusively. Furthermore, the correlations for the postoperative scores and some consequences of the clinical follow-up for the Oxford Hip Score (OHS), the OHS functional score and the Euroquol-5D show moderate effects. Thus, the collection of these postoperative scores is sufficient to identify potential high risk patients. Based on a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, threshold values could be determined for these scores, for which a follow-up examination is recommended.

CONCLUSION

Patients who could not achieve functional improvement, pain reduction and improvement in quality of life after implantation of a total hip replacement must be identified at an early stage. The results of our study show that with the help of the Oxford Hip Score and Euroquol-5D, which are answered by the patients three months postoperatively, such high risk patients can be identified. This finding is an added value for the further development of the EndoCert certification system and holistic quality assurance in arthroplasties, while the personnel and time effort remain manageable.

Use of computerised adaptive testing to reduce the number of items in patient-reported hip and knee outcome scores: an analysis of the NHS England National Patient-Reported Outcome Measures programme

OBJECTIVE

Over 160 000 participants per year complete the 12-item Oxford Hip and Knee Scores (OHS/OKS) as part of the NHS England Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) programme. We used a modern computational approach, known as computerised adaptive testing (CAT), to simulate individually tailored OHS and OKS assessment, with the goal of reducing the number of questions a patient must complete without compromising measurement accuracy.

METHODS

We fit the 2018/2019 PROMs data to an item response theory (IRT) model. We assessed IRT model assumptions alongside reliability. We used parameters from the IRT model with data from 2017/2018 to simulate CAT assessments. Two simulations were run until a prespecified SE of measurement was met (SE=0.32 and SE=0.45). We compared the number of questions required to meet each cut-off and assessed the correlation between the full-length and CAT administration.

RESULTS

We conducted IRT analysis using 40 432 OHS and 44 714 OKS observations. The OHS and OKS were both unidimensional (root mean square error of approximation 0.08 and 0.07, respectively) and marginal reliability 0.91 and 0.90. The CAT, with a precision limit of SE=0.32 and SE=0.45, required a median of four items (IQR 1) and two items (IQR 1), respectively, for the OHS, and median of four items (IQR 2) and two items (IQR 0) for the OKS. This represents a potential 82% reduction in PROM length. In the context of 160 000 yearly assessments, these methodologies could result in the omission of some 1 280 000 redundant questions per year, which equates to 40 000 hours of patient time.

CONCLUSION

The application of IRT to the OHS and OKS produces an efficient and substantially reduced CAT. We have demonstrated a path to reduce the burden and potentially increase the compliance for these ubiquitous outcome measures without compromising measurement accuracy.

The History and Applications of the Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey (VR-12)

There has been an increasing emphasis on placing patients at the center of clinical care and health care research and, in particular, assessing outcomes and experiences from the patient's perspective. One of the most widely used patient-reported outcome instruments is the Veterans RAND 12-item Health Survey (VR-12). This article reviews the VR-12 development and its applications over the last 2 decades, including research and potential uses in clinical care.

Patient registries in orthopedics and orthobiologic procedures: a narrative review

There has been increasing evidence and growing popularity of orthobiologic treatments, such as platelet-rich plasma, bone marrow aspirate concentrate, and microfragmented adipose tissue. However, real-world data, including patient-reported pain and function outcomes, remains sparse for these procedures. Thus, collecting patient-reported outcome measures is important to evaluate the safety and efficacy of these treatments and hopefully improve patient care. Patient reported outcome measures can systematically be collected through patient registries. This narrative review serves to describe the data collection platforms and registries that obtain patient-reported outcome measures on orthobiologic procedures and provide a discussion on the benefits and limitations of registries. An internet search of the list of orthopedic registries available was conducted, and registries that collect patient-reported outcome measures for orthobiologic procedures were identified. Additional information regarding these various registries was collected by directly contacting these vendors. Publications from these registries, including case series, observational studies, and annual reports, were also reviewed. Providing this review will inform clinicians of a digital tool that can increase the efficiency of collecting outcome measures for orthobiologics and aid physicians in choosing a data collection platform.

Combinations of Preoperative Patient-Reported Outcome Measure Phenotype (Pain, Function, and Mental Health) Predict Outcome After Total Knee Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Value-driven healthcare models prioritize patient-perceived benefits to quantify the quality of care through patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). The Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) is the highest level of symptom beyond which a patient considers his/her condition satisfactory. We identified preoperative phenotypes of PROMs associated with not achieving PASS at 1 year following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and explored the relationships between such phenotypes with hospital utilization parameters.

METHODS

A prospective institutional cohort of 5,274 primary TKAs for osteoarthritis from 2016 to 2019 with 1-year follow-up were included. Preoperative scores on Knee Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) Pain, KOOS-Physical function Short form (PS), and Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey (VR-12) Mental Component Summary (MCS) were used to develop patient phenotypes. Associations between preoperative "phenotype" and 1-year PASS, discharge disposition, length of stay, 90-day readmission, and 1-year reoperation were evaluated using multivariate regression.

RESULTS

In total, 16.3% (n = 862) of patients reported their state as "not acceptable" at 1 year. A combination of low scores in each of the presently examined PROMs was associated with the highest odds of 1-year dissatisfaction (odds ratio 2.18, 95% confidence interval 1.74-2.74). The PROM phenotypes were the greatest drivers compared to sociodemographic variables in predicting satisfaction. Combinations of low scores in VR-12 MCS and KOOS-PS were significantly associated with both non-home discharge status and prolonged length of stay.

CONCLUSION

Patients with combined lower preoperative scores across multiple PROMs (KOOS-Pain <41.7, KOOS-PS <51.5, and VR-12 MCS <52.8) have increased odds of dissatisfaction after TKA. Measuring pain, function, and mental health concurrently as phenotypes may help identify TKA patients at risk for not achieving a satisfactory outcome at 1 year.

Development and Validation of Crosswalks Between the Western Ontario & McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index and Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Joint Replacement/Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Joint Replacement

BACKGROUND

The wide variety of patient-reported outcome measures used to assess outcomes following total joint arthroplasty can present a substantial methodological obstacle when attempting to compare information across studies or between institutions. A simple solution is to create crosswalks that reliably convert scores between patient-reported outcome measures. Our goal is to create and validate crosswalks between the commonly used Western Ontario & McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and short-form versions of the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Joint Replacement (HOOS JR)/Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS JR.).

METHODS

Patients in our joint replacement registry were included if they underwent primary total hip arthroplasty (n = 4649) or total knee arthroplasty (n = 3750) for osteoarthritis between May 2007 and February 2012. We used their preoperative and 2-year postoperative HOOS scores (n = 6351) or KOOS scores (n = 4688) to generate the patients' WOMAC and HOOS JR/KOOS JR scores. The equipercentile equating method was applied to create 10 crosswalks: HOOS JR/KOOS JR to WOMAC Total (WOMAC-T), and WOMAC-T, WOMAC Pain (WOMAC-P), WOMAC Stiffness (WOMAC-S), and WOMAC Function (WOMAC-F) to HOOS JR/KOOS JR. Crosswalk validity was assessed by comparing actual and derived scores using Spearman's rank correlation coefficients in a bootstrapped cohort.

RESULTS

All 10 crosswalks showed strong positive correlations ranging from 0.846 (WOMAC-S to KOOS JR) to 0.981 (HOOS JR to WOMAC-T).

CONCLUSION

We created and validated 10 crosswalks between WOMAC and HOOS JR/KOOS JR. We recommend using the crosswalks between WOMAC-T and HOOS JR/KOOS JR when possible, as they demonstrated the highest correlation. WOMAC-F or WOMAC-P should be used in favor of WOMAC-S if only subscores are available. The HOOS JR/KOOS JR should only be converted to a WOMAC-T.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

National Implementation of an Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Program for Joint Replacement Surgery: Pilot Study

Background

There is a global emphasis on expanding data collection for joint replacement procedures beyond implant attributes and progression to revision surgery. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly considered as an important measure of surgical outcomes from a patient’s perspective. However, a major limitation preventing wider use of PROMs data in national data collection has been the inability to systematically collect and share electronic information with relevant stakeholders in a comprehensive and financially sustainable manner.

Objective

This study reports on the development of an electronic data capture and reporting system by a national registry for the collection of PROMs and the processes used to identify and overcome barriers to implementation and uptake. The study also aims to provide a cost breakdown of establishing and maintaining a nationwide electronic PROMs program.

Methods

Between 2018 and 2020, 3 governance and advisory committees were established to develop and implement a PROMs pilot program nested within a nationwide joint replacement registry. The program involved electronic collection of preoperative and 6-month postoperative data for hip, knee, or shoulder replacement surgery from 44 Australian hospitals. Resource requirements for the program included a project manager, software developers, data manager, and statistician. An online platform was tested, refined, and implemented for electronic PROMs collection with scalability considered for future expansion to all Australian hospitals and additional data fields. Technical capabilities included different access for multiple user types, patient registration, automatic reminders via SMS text messages and email, online consent, and patient outcome real-time dashboards accessible for different user groups (surgeons, patients, hospitals, and project stakeholders).

Results

During the PROMs pilot period there were 19,699 primary procedures undertaken with 10,204 registered procedures in the electronic system. This equated to 51.80% of people who had a joint replacement at participating hospitals during this period. Patient registration and data collection were efficient (20-30 seconds and 10-12 minutes, respectively). Engagement with the reporting dashboards (as a proportion of those who viewed their dashboard) varied by user group: 197/277 (71.1%) hospital administrators, 68/129 (52.7%) project stakeholders, 177/391 (45.3%) surgeons, and 1138/8840 patients (12.9%). Cost analysis determined an overall cost per patient of Aus $7-15 (approximately US $5-12) for 2 PROMs collections per joint replacement procedure once the program was established.

Conclusions

Successful implementation of an orthopedic PROMs program with planned scalability for a broader national rollout requires significant funding and staffing resources. However, this expenditure can be considered worthwhile, given that collection and reporting of PROMs can drive health care improvement processes. Further consideration of strategies to improve stakeholder engagement with electronic reporting dashboards (particularly for patients and surgeons) will be critical to the ongoing success of a national PROMs program.

Excellent PROM results after fast-track hip and knee arthroplasty with no postoperative restrictions: a cohort study validation of fast-track surgery without postoperative restrictions

Background

Fast-track hip and knee arthroplasty (HA and KA) has been increasingly common over the last decade. In the same time period, there was a strong trend toward less restrictive mobilization. However, few reports have been published on combining these novel programs while measuring the postoperative results by patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Descriptions of fast-track surgery programs and their results are warranted.

Methods

The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to examine if it is possible to achieve excellent PROM results for hip and knee arthroplasty patients in a fast-track pathway without postoperative restrictions. During 2014–2017, the stepwise introduction of a PROM program was implemented at Stavanger University Hospital for all scheduled HA and KA patients, with preoperative assessments and postoperative follow-ups at the outpatient clinic. Standardized information with a focus on early mobilization and no postoperative restrictions was also initiated for the same patients. The generic EuroQol questionnaire (EQ-5D) and either the Hip or Knee disability/injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS or KOOS) were used.

Results

PROM response rates varied from 80 to 99%. The median (interquartile range) change from preoperative to one-year postoperative results were as follows for HA and KA patients, respectively: pain, 55 (43–68) and 47 (31–61); other symptoms, 50 (40–65) and 36 (19–50); function in daily living, 54 (41–65) and 44 (31–55); function in sports and recreation, 56 (38–75) and 40 (15–64); joint-related quality of life, 69 (50–81) and 56 (38–75). The length of stay (LOS) was reduced by 1.9 days (mean), corresponding to a 40% reduction for HA patients and a 37% reduction for KA patients.

Conclusions

We found excellent PROM results after fast-track HA and KA with no postoperative restrictions. We believe that a fast-track program focusing on mobilization without any postoperative restrictions is superior for most patients, but further comparative studies are warranted.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-022-05276-y.

Association between patient factors and hospital completeness of a patient-reported outcome measures program in joint arthroplasty, a cohort study

Background

The collection of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) following arthroplasty is common. PROMs data collection programs seek to maximise completeness in order to minimise selection bias and optimise representativeness of the sample attained. We aimed to determine if patient factors influence variation in PROMs program completeness between-hospitals.

Methods

Using data from a national arthroplasty registry PROMs program, we tested for associations between patient characteristics (age, sex, body mass index [BMI] and American Society of Anaesthesiologists [ASA] class) and both potential completeness (registration completeness: the proportion of arthroplasty patients that were registered in the PROMs electronic system) and actual completeness (response completeness: the proportion of arthroplasty patients who provided PROMs data) using linear regression.

Results

When using all elective primary total hip, knee or shoulder arthroplasty procedures (N = 31,801) from 43 hospitals as the denominator, overall registration completeness was 52%, varying from 5 to 87% between hospitals. Overall pre-operative response completeness was 46%, varying from 5 to 82% between hospitals. There were no significant associations between hospital-level registration completeness or response completeness and age, sex, BMI or ASA score.

Conclusion

Completeness rates of a PROMs program in arthroplasty varied widely between hospitals but in the absence of a relationship between measured patient factors and completeness rates, the observed variation likely relates to local site factors such as access to patients, local resources and clinician engagement with the program. Efforts to improve the rates of completeness of arthroplasty PROMs programs at individual hospitals may not improve the representativeness of the sample.

Hospitals vary in how completely they include and follow up patients when measuring patient-reported health. It is important to know if the completeness of inclusion and follow up by hospitals is affected by patient characteristics. This study addresses that problem by using data from a national patient outcome survey involving over 30,000 patients from 43 hospitals to look at the correlation between certain patient characteristics (like age, sex, obesity and general health) and the rates of inclusion and follow up for each hospital.

Rates of inclusion (registering patients in the program) and follow up rates varied widely between hospitals (from 5 to 87%). The rates of inclusion and follow up were not correlated with patient age, sex, body mass index or their general health. These findings suggest that the variation between hospitals in the rates of inclusion of joint replacement patients in health surveys are not due to differences in patient characteristics. The differences may be due to local hospital factors, such as resources and clinician engagement.

What Do Orthopaedists Believe is Needed for Incorporating Patient-reported Outcome Measures into Clinical Care? A Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly promoted for use in routine orthopaedic care with the expectation that if they are made available during encounters, they will be incorporated into clinical practice. We investigated an initiative in which PROMs were systematically collected and provided via the electronic health record but were infrequently used.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

In a qualitative study, we asked: (1) Why are PROM results not being used in clinical care when they are available to surgeons? (2) What aspects of PROMs are seen as useful for clinical care? (3) How are PROMs generally perceived by surgeons and orthopaedic leaders?

METHODS

A cross-sectional qualitative study was conducted in a single health system in an urban setting using semistructured interviews with a purposive sample of orthopaedic surgeons and leaders who would have substantial knowledge of and experience with the organization's PROM system, which was embedded in the electronic health record and developed for use in clinical care but was not being used. We included surgeons whose practices consisted of at least 90% patients with osteoarthritis, including surgical and nonsurgical management, and thus their patients would be completing PROMs surveys, or surgeons who were leaders in one of the three orthopaedic divisions in the health plan. The senior research manager for orthopaedics identified 14 potential participants meeting these criteria, 11 of whom agreed to study participation. Participants included nine surgeons and two orthopaedic leaders; the majority were men, with a median of 13 years of clinical practice. Study interviews were conducted by an experienced interviewer not known to participants, in private conference rooms in the healthcare setting, and a median (range) of 27 minutes (16 to 40) in length. A content analysis approach was employed for data analysis, with thematic inductive saturation reached in the analysis and attention to trustworthiness and rigor during the analytic process.

RESULTS

Interviewees reported that PROM scores are not being used in patient clinical care because of logistical barriers, such as access and display issues and the time required, and perceptual barriers, such as concerns about patient understanding and the validity and reliability of measures. Surgeons preferred talking with patients about the personal outcomes patients had identified as important; most patients preferred to assess progress toward their own goals than PROMs scores for other people. Surgeons also identified changes that could facilitate PROM use and reduce barriers in clinical care, including pushing PROM scores to physicians' inboxes, developing inserts for physician notes, using easy-to-understand graphical displays, and engaging patients about PROMs earlier in the care process. Participants all agreed that PROMs in aggregate use are valuable for the organization, department, and individual surgeons, but individual patient scores are not.

CONCLUSION

Despite the availability of PROMs, there are important barriers to incorporating and using PROMs in clinical care. Providing access to PROM scores without clearly understanding how and why surgeons may consider using or incorporating them into their clinical practice can result in expensive and underused systems that add little value for the clinician, patient, or organization.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Involving front-line orthopaedic surgeons and leaders in shaping the design and structure of PROM systems is important for use in clinical care, but these interviewees seemed to see aggregate data as more valuable than individual patient scores.

The German version of the High-Activity Arthroplasty Score is valid and reliable for patients after total knee arthroplasty

PURPOSE

The indications for a total knee arthroplasty (TKA) broadened to younger and more active patients. The High-Activity Arthroplasty Score (HAAS) is a self-administered instrument focussing on the wider range of functional abilities of more active patients. The HAAS was developed in English and is not available in German yet. This study aims to translate, cross-cultural adapt and assess the psychometric properties of the German HAAS in patients 12 months after primary TKA.

METHODS

After forward and backward translation, we examined the final version regarding its psychometric properties in patients 12 months after primary TKA. The HAAS was sent out to 70 patients together with routine questionnaires comprising the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), the Forgotten Joint Score (FJS-12), the EuroQol (EQ-5D-3L) and 2 numerical pain rating scales. Acceptability, reliability, responsiveness, content and construct validity as well as floor and ceiling effects were evaluated.

RESULTS

Fifty-two patients were recruited. The HAAS was well accepted with a mean time to completion of 2.4 min. Cronbach's alpha for internal consistency was 0.749, test-retest reliability was excellent with an Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) of 0.961. The smallest detectable change was 1.5. Good content validity was confirmed. A strong correlation was found between the HAAS and KOOS sport (r = 0.661) and a medium correlation for all other KOOS subscales (r = 0.324 to 0.453), the FJS-12 (r = 0.425), the EQ-5D-3L (r = 0.427) and pain (r = - 0.439 to - 0.308). The HAAS showed no floor and ceiling effects.

CONCLUSIONS

The German version of the HAAS provides good validity and reliability. It can be easily self-administered and is recommended to capture high-intensity activities in patients after TKA.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Diagnostic study, Level I.

The impact of wait time on patient outcomes in knee and hip replacement surgery: a scoping review protocol

BACKGROUND

Total hip and total knee replacement surgery are in high demand, leading to long wait times for many patients. While on the waiting list, patients may experience worsening pain, reduced mobility, and deteriorating health. Given that long wait times are common for lower joint replacement surgery, it is important to understand how patient health changes during the wait period and whether this impacts patient outcomes after surgery. The aim of this scoping review will be to identify and describe the evidence regarding the impact of wait time on patient outcomes for patients who undergo total knee and total hip replacement surgery.

METHODS

This scoping review was designed with guidance from the Joanna Briggs Institute Manual for Evidence Synthesis, and results will be reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews. EMBASE, Medline, PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, and Cochrane electronic databases will be searched for English language articles published after 1999. Studies of adult patients with osteoarthritis undergoing primary knee or hip replacement surgery, which measure patient outcomes over the wait period for surgery, will be included. Two independent reviewers will screen titles and abstracts followed by full article review. Data will be extracted by two reviewers using a standardized form. Outcomes assessed during the wait period will be identified and described in tables. Factors associated with changes in health status during the wait period will be qualitatively described.

DISCUSSION

This review will map the evidence regarding wait times for lower extremity joint replacement surgery. Better understanding of how the impact of wait times on patient health status is measured over the perioperative period will inform future research on wait times.

SCOPING REVIEW REGISTRATION

Registered with Open Science Framework, Feb 14, 2021 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/MV4FS.

Preliminary development of recommendations for the inclusion of patient-reported outcome measures in clinical quality registries

BACKGROUND

Clinical quality registries (CQRs) monitor compliance against optimal practice and provide feedback to the clinical community and wider stakeholder groups. Despite a number of CQRs having incorporated the patient perspective to support the evaluation of healthcare delivery, no recommendations for inclusion of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in CQRs exist. The aim of this study was to develop a core set of recommendations for PROMs inclusion of in CQRs.

METHOD

An online two-round Delphi survey was performed among CQR data custodians, quality of life researchers, biostatisticians and clinicians largely recruited in Australia. A list of statements for the recommendations was identified from a literature and survey of the Australian registries conducted in 2019. The statements were grouped into the following domains: rationale, setting, ethics, instrument, administration, data management, statistical methods, and feedback and reporting. Eighteen experts were invited to participate, 11 agreed to undertake the first online survey (round 1). Of these, nine experts completed the online survey for round 2.

RESULTS

From 117 statements presented to the Delphi panel in round 1, a total of 72 recommendations (55 from round 1 and 17 from round 2) with median importance (MI) ≥ 7 and disagreement index (DI) < 1 were proposed for inclusion into the final draft set and were reviewed by the project team. Recommendations were refined for clarity and to read as stand-alone statements. Ten overlapped conceptually and, therefore, were merged to reduce repetition. The final 62 recommendations were sent for review to the panel members for their feedback, which was incorporated into the final set.

CONCLUSION

This is the first study to develop preliminary recommendations for PROMs inclusion in CQRs. Recommendations for PROMs implementation are critically important for registries to assure meaningful PROMs data capture, use, interpretation, and reporting to improve health outcomes and healthcare value.

Patient-reported outcome after primary and aseptic revision hip arthroplasty: 1-year follow-up of 3,559 primary and 406 revision THAs in an institutional registry

Background and purpose - Patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) and revision THA are important information in the preoperative shared decision-making process. We present 1-year results on pain, function, and quality of life following primary and revision THA. Patients and methods - From 2010 to 2018, 3,559 primary THA and 406 revision THAs were included in our institutional quality registry. PROMs were registered preoperatively, 3 months, and 1 year after surgery, numeric rating scale (0-10) for pain during mobilization and at rest, healthrelated quality of life (EQ-5D), and a hip-specific physical function score (HOOS-PS). 2 anchor questions were asked 1 year after surgery concerning joint function and willingness to go through surgery again. Results - There were statistically significant improvements in all PROMs at the 3-month follow-up in both groups. All PROMs improved more in the primary group relative to the revision group. 1 year after surgery, pain during mobilization was reduced with a mean change of 5.1 (SD 2.6) for primary THA and 2.9 (SD 3.0) for revision THA. 93% of primary THA patients reported both better function 1 year after surgery and that they would have gone through surgery again, compared with 78% and 79% in the revision THA group. Interpretation - Primary THA patients reported better function and more pain relief than the revision THA group 1 year after surgery. Pain during mobilization shows the most marked improvement in both groups, which is important preoperative information for patients.

Lessons Learned in Implementing Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in the Australian Breast Device Registry (ABDR)

BACKGROUND

The Australian Breast Device Registry (ABDR) is a clinical quality registry which utilizes both surgical data and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to understand device performance. The ABDR is the first national breast device registry utilizing the BREAST-Q Implant Surveillance module to conduct PROMs via text messaging as the primary method of contact for most patients. ABDR PROMs are structured upon a successful acceptability and feasibility study and a pilot study.

OBJECTIVES

This aim of this paper was to examine the challenges we faced and consider how lessons learned in implementing PROMs might inform future registry studies and interventions.

METHODS

We tracked the number of completed follow-ups and documented feedback between October 2017 and December 2018 from various stakeholders, including sites, surgeons, and patients.

RESULTS

In total, 10,617 patients were contacted: 59% of breast augmentation and 77% breast reconstruction patients responded to our PROMs survey. We encountered challenges and developed solutions to overcome several key issues, including database setup; follow-up contact methods; ethics; education of surgeons and patients; associated costs; and ongoing evaluation and modification. The strategies we devised to address these challenges included drawing on experiences from previous studies, greater communication with sites and surgeons, and having the flexibility to improve and modify our PROMs.

CONCLUSIONS

The ABDR PROMs experience and lessons learned can inform a growing number of registries seeking to conduct PROMs. We describe our approach, obstacles encountered, and strategies to increase patient participation. As more breast device registries worldwide adopt PROMs, data harmonization is crucial to better understand patient outcomes and device performance.

Can the Knee Outcome and Osteoarthritis Score (KOOS) Function Subscale Be Linked to the PROMIS Physical Function to Crosswalk Equivalent Scores?

BACKGROUND

An increased focus on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) has led to a proliferation of these measures in orthopaedic surgery. Mandating a single PROM in clinical and research orthopaedics is not feasible given the breadth of data already collected with older measures and the emergence of psychometrically superior measures. Creating crosswalk tables for scores between measures allows providers to maintain control of measure choice. Furthermore, crosswalk tables permit providers to compare scores collected with older outcome measures with newly collected ones. Given the widespread use of the newer Patient-reported Outcome Measure Information System Physical Function (PROMIS PF) and the established Knee Outcome and Osteoarthritis Score (KOOS), it would be clinically useful to link these two measures.

QUESTION/PURPOSE

Can the KOOS Function in Activities of Daily Living (ADL) subscale be robustly linked to the PROMIS PF to create a crosswalk table of equivalent scores that accurately reflects a patient's reported physical function level on both scales?

METHODS

We sought to establish a common standardized metric for collected responses to the PROMIS PF and the KOOS ADL to develop equations for converting a PROMIS PF score to a score for the KOOS-ADL subscale and vice versa. To do this, we performed a retrospective, observational study at two academic medical centers and two community hospitals in an urban and suburban healthcare system. Patients 18 years and older who underwent TKA were identified. Between January 2017 and July 2020, we treated 8165 patients with a TKA, 93% of whom had a diagnosis of primary osteoarthritis. Of those, we considered patients who had completed a full KOOS and PROMIS PF 10a on the same date as potentially eligible. Twenty-one percent (1708 of 8165) of patients were excluded because no PROMs were collected at any point, and another 67% (5454 of 8165) were excluded because they completed only one of the required PROMs, leaving 12% (1003 of 8165) for analysis here. PROMs were collected each time they visited the health system before and after their TKAs. Physical function was measured by the PROMIS PF version 1.0 SF 10a and KOOS ADL scale. Analyses to accurately create a crosswalk of equivalent scores between the measures were performed using the equipercentile linking method with both unsmoothed and log linear smoothed score distributions.

RESULTS

Crosswalks were created, and adequate validation results supported their validity; we also created tables to allow clinicians and clinician scientists to convert individual patients' scores easily. The mean difference between the observed PROMIS PF scores and the scores converted by the crosswalk from the KOOS-ADL scores was -0.08 ± 4.82. A sensitivity analysis was conducted, confirming the effectiveness of these crosswalks to link the scores of two measures from patients both before and after surgery.

CONCLUSION

The PROMIS PF 10a can be robustly linked to the KOOS ADL measure. The developed crosswalk table can be used to convert PROMIS PF scores from KOOS ADL and vice versa.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The creation of a crosswalk table between the KOOS Function in ADL subscale and PROMIS PF allows clinicians and researchers to easily convert scores between the measures, thus permitting greater choice in PROM selection while preserving comparability between patient cohorts and PROM data collected from older outcome measures. Creating a crosswalk, or concordance table, between the two scales will facilitate this comparison, especially when pooling data for meta-analyses.

A Weighted Scoring System Based on Preoperative and Long-Term Patient-Reported Outcome Measures to Guide Timing of Knee Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

There is currently no existing consensus regarding timing of knee arthroplasty. This study aimed to develop a weighted scoring system from patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to guide timing of knee arthroplasty based on preoperative severity and long-term effectiveness.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data of 766 total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) and 382 unicompartmental knee arthroplasties (UKAs) at a single institution were analyzed. PROMs were assessed preoperatively and at 10 years using the Knee Society Score (KSS), Oxford Knee Score (OKS), and Short Form-36 physical component score (SF-36 PCS). Receiver operating characteristic analysis identified thresholds where preoperative PROMs predicted 10-year clinically meaningful improvements (minimal clinically important difference [MCID]). Threshold weights were assigned to PROMs based on their ability to predict MCID in isolation or in combination.

RESULTS

Poorer baseline PROMs predicted 10-year MCID attainments. The threshold of 49.5 points for the KSS, 30.5 points for the OKS, and 40.7 points for the SF-36 PCS and 55.5 points for the KSS, 33.5 points for the OKS, and 40.5 points for the SF-36 PCS was weighted 1 point for predicting MCID in 1 PROM for TKA and UKA, respectively. The threshold of 33.4 and 33.9 points for the SF-36 PCS was weighted 2 points for predicting MCID in 2 PROMs, whereas 29.3 and 31.3 points for the SF-36 PCS were weighted 3 points for predicting MCID in 3 PROMs for TKA and UKA, respectively. The sum of weighted components from 0 (lowest) to 5 (highest) represented likelihood for long-term benefits at 10 years.

CONCLUSION

This scoring system is a useful clinical adjunct for deciding timing of knee arthroplasty and prioritizing patients in institutions with long waitlists.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II.

The First Report of the International Cartilage Regeneration and Joint Preservation Society's Global Registry

OBJECTIVE

The International Cartilage Regeneration and Joint Preservation Society's (ICRS's) global registry, aims to be the best source of information for patients and an unbiased resource of evidence-based medicine for scientists and clinicians working to help those unfortunate enough to suffer the pain and disability associated with articular cartilage lesions. This article constitutes the scientific summary of the reports' main findings.

DESIGN

The article outlines the historical precedents in the development of orthopedic registries from the earliest tumor registries, then local arthroplasty databases that led ultimately to international collaborations between national arthroplasty and soft tissue registries. The ICRS global cartilage registry was designed from the outset as a GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) compliant, multilingual, multinational cooperative system. It is a web-based user-friendly, live in 11 languages by end 2019, which can be accessed via https://cartilage.org/society/icrs-patient-registry/. Patients and clinicians enter data by smartphone, tablet, or computer on any knee cartilage regeneration and joint preservation treatment, including the use of focal arthroplasty. Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score and Kujala patient-reported outcome measures are collected preoperatively, 6 months, 12 months, and annually for ten years thereafter. EQ-5D data collection will allow cost-effectiveness analysis. Strengths, weaknesses, and future plans are discussed.

RESULTS

Since inception the registry has 264 users across 50 countries. Major findings are presented and discussed, while the entire first ICRS global registry report is available at https://cartilage.org/society/icrs-patient-registry/registry-annual-reports/. Conclusion. A measure of the maturity of any registry is the publication of its findings in the peer reviewed literature. With the publication of its first report, the ICRS global registry has achieved that milestone.

Preoperative Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Computerized Adaptive Testing (PROMIS CAT) Scores Predict Achievement of Minimum Clinically Important Difference Following Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Using an Anchor-Based Methodology

PURPOSE

To determine the change in Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Computerized Adaptive Testing (PROMIS CAT) scores for physical function, pain interference, and depression that constitute minimum clinically important difference (MCID) using an anchor-based technique and to identify pre-operative clinical thresholds in anchor-based MCID that predict likelihood of achieving MCID following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction.

METHODS

Adult patients aged 18 years or older undergoing ACL reconstruction that completed both preoperative and postoperative PROMIS CAT assessments and an anchor-based questionnaire were identified over a 23-month period. Anchor-based MCID was determined for PROMIS CAT forms for physical function (PROMIS PF CAT), pain interference (PROMIS PI CAT), and depression (PROMIS D CAT).

RESULTS

A total of 137 patients were included for statistical analysis, with pre-operative PROMIS CAT forms completed 27.9 ± 31.2 days before surgery and 492.5 ± 219.9 days postoperatively on average. Statistically significant improvements were observed for all PROMIS CAT domains. PROMIS PF CAT improved from 39.5 ± 8.2 to 55.0 ± 9.7 (P < .0005), PROMIS PI CAT from 59.8 ± 7.2 to 48.2 ± 8.3 (P < .0005), and PROMIS D CAT from 47.9 ± 8.8 to 41.5 ± 8.6 (P < .0005). Anchor-based MCID for each PROMIS CAT form was calculated to be +4.5, -5.4, and -4.1 for PROMIS PF CAT, PROMIS PI CAT, and PROMIS D CAT, respectively. Mean difference between preoperative and postoperative PROMIS CAT scores exceeded MCID for all domains. The percentage of patients achieving MCID for PROMIS PF CAT, PROMIS PI CAT, and PROMIS D CAT was 85%, 72%, and 55%, respectively. After introduction of 95% specificity cutoffs, the percentage of patients achieving MCID for PROMIS PF CAT, PROMIS PI CAT, and PROMIS D CAT increased to 100% (<35.6 cutoff score), 92% (>65.7 cutoff score), and 83% (>57.5 cutoff score), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

According to anchor-based analysis of PROMIS CAT MCID, ACL reconstruction is effective in improving physical function, pain interference, and depression symptoms. In addition, preoperative PROMIS CAT scores can predict the likelihood of achieving MCID postoperatively.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, prognostic case series.

A Call for a Standardized Approach to Reporting Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Clinical Relevance Ratio

A shift toward a value-driven health-care model has made prospective collection of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) inextricably tied to measuring the success of orthopaedic surgery and patient satisfaction. While progress has been made in optimizing the utilization of PROM data, including establishing appropriate PROMs for a procedure and determining the clinical importance of unique tools, if these PROMs are not accurately analyzed and reported, a proportion of patients who do not reach the clinical thresholds may go unnoticed. Furthermore, parameters are unclear for setting a statistically and clinically important PROM threshold along with a minimum period for follow-up data collection.In this forum, we walk through simulated data sets modeling PROMs with the example of total joint arthroplasty. We discuss how the commonly used method of reporting PROMs by mean change can overestimate the treatment effects for the cohort as a whole and fail to capture distinct populations that are below a clinically relevant threshold. We demonstrate that when a study's outcome is PROMs, clinical importance should be reported using clinical thresholds such as the minimum clinically important difference (MCID), the smallest change in the treatment outcome that a patient perceives as beneficial, and the patient acceptable symptom state (PASS), the highest level of symptoms beyond which a patient considers himself or herself well. Finally, we propose a standardized reporting of PROMs that incorporates both the MCID and the PASS, and introduce a "clinical relevance ratio," which relies on a clinically relevant threshold to dichotomize outcomes and reports the number of patients achieving clinical importance at a given time point divided by the total number of patients included in the study. Unlike other common PROM-reporting approaches, the clinical relevance ratio is not skewed by patients who are lost to follow-up with increased time.

American Medical Society for Sports Medicine Position Statement: Principles for the Responsible Use of Regenerative Medicine in Sports Medicine

ABSTRACT

Many sports medicine physicians are currently considering introducing regenerative medicine into their practice. Regenerative medicine and the subclassification of orthobiologics are a complicated topic and have produced widely varying opinions. Although there is concern by government regulators, clinicians, scientists, patient advocacy organizations, and the media regarding the use of regenerative medicine products, there is also excitement about the potential benefits with growing evidence that certain regenerative medicine products are safe and potentially efficacious in treating musculoskeletal conditions. Sports medicine physicians would benefit from decision-making guidance about whether to introduce orthobiologics into their practice and how to do it responsibly. The purpose of this position statement is to provide sports medicine physicians with information regarding regenerative medicine terminology, a brief review of basic science and clinical studies within the subclassification of orthobiologics, regulatory considerations, and best practices for introducing regenerative medicine into clinical practice. This information will help sports medicine physicians make informed and responsible decisions about the role of regenerative medicine and orthobiologics in their practice.

Collection and Reporting of Patient-reported Outcome Measures in Arthroplasty Registries: Multinational Survey and Recommendations

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are validated questionnaires that are completed by patients. Arthroplasty registries vary in PROM collection and use. Current information about registry collection and use of PROMs is important to help improve methods of PROM data analysis, reporting, comparison, and use toward improving clinical practice.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

To characterize PROM collection and use by registries, we asked: (1) What is the current practice of PROM collection by arthroplasty registries that are current or former members of the International Society of Arthroplasty Registries, and are there sufficient similarities in PROM collection between registries to enable useful international comparisons that could inform the improvement of arthroplasty care? (2) How do registries differ in PROM administration and demographic, clinical, and comorbidity index variables collected for case-mix adjustment in data analysis and reporting? (3) What quality assurance methods are used for PROMs, and how are PROM results reported and used by registries? (4) What recommendations to arthroplasty registries may improve PROM reporting and facilitate international comparisons?

METHODS

An electronic survey was developed with questions about registry structure and collection, analysis, reporting, and use of PROM data and distributed to directors or senior administrators of 39 arthroplasty registries that were current or former members of the International Society of Arthroplasty Registries. In all, 64% (25 of 39) of registries responded and completed the survey. Missing responses from incomplete surveys were captured by contacting the registries, and up to three reminder emails were sent to nonresponding registries. Recommendations about PROM collection were drafted, revised, and approved by the International Society of Arthroplasty Registries PROMs Working Group members.

RESULTS

Of the 25 registries that completed the survey, 15 collected generic PROMs, most frequently the EuroQol-5 Dimension survey; 16 collected joint-specific PROMs, most frequently the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score and Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score; and 11 registries collected a satisfaction item. Most registries administered PROM questionnaires within 3 months before and 1 year after surgery. All 16 registries that collected PROM data collected patient age, sex or gender, BMI, indication for the primary arthroplasty, reason for revision arthroplasty, and a comorbidity index, most often the American Society of Anesthesiologists classification. All 16 registries performed regular auditing and reporting of data quality, and most registries reported PROM results to hospitals and linked PROM data to other data sets such as hospital, medication, billing, and emergency care databases. Recommendations for transparent reporting of PROMs were grouped into four categories: demographic and clinical, survey administration, data analysis, and results.

CONCLUSION

Although registries differed in PROM collection and use, there were sufficient similarities that may enable useful data comparisons. The International Society of Arthroplasty Registries PROMs Working Group recommendations identify issues that may be important to most registries such as the need to make decisions about survey times and collection methods, as well as how to select generic and joint-specific surveys, handle missing data and attrition, report data, and ensure representativeness of the sample.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

By collecting PROMs, registries can provide patient-centered data to surgeons, hospitals, and national entities to improve arthroplasty care.

Systematic review and standardised assessment of Chinese cross-cultural adapted hip Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs)

PURPOSE

To perform a systemic literature search to identify Chinese cross culturally adapted and new designed Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) used for hip assessment, then a standardized evaluation of available instruments in order to provide evidence of high-quality PROMs for clinical use and adoption in future hip registries.

METHODS

A Systematic Review of the following databases: PUBMED, CINAHL, EMBASE, CNKI was performed to identify relevant PROMs. Instruments underwent standardized assessment and scoring using the EMPRO tool by two independent reviewers. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC).

RESULTS

2188 articles were retrieved, with seven articles fitting the inclusion criteria consisting of six hip PROMs. Five PROMs were cross culturally adapted and one was originally designed in Mandarin Chinese. Total scores (/100) after EMPRO evaluation: Osteoarthritis of Knee and Hip Quality of Life (OAKHQOL): 55; Copenhagen Hip and Groin Outcome Score (HAGOS): 52; International Hip Outcome Tool (SC-iHOT-33): 45; Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS): 37; Questionnaire on the Perceptions and Functions of Patients about Total Hip Arthroplasty (QPFPTHA): 36; Oxford Hip Score (OHS): 35. ICC values were 0.73 for the SC-iHOT-33 and ranged between 0.83-0.93 for the other PROMs indicating good to excellent inter-rater agreement.

CONCLUSION

Among the commonly used hip-specific PROMs found in arthroplasty registries, none of the Chinese adapted versions evaluated by EMPRO is currently rated acceptable for clinical use. Only OAKHQOL and HAGOS reached acceptability threshold. Further research on the attributes of cross-cultural adaptation, interpretability and burden assessment would be helpful.

Use of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures to characterise health status for patients seeking care from an orthopaedic provider: a retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVES

Characterise the health status of patients newly consulting an orthopaedic specialist across eight clinical subspecialties.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort.

SETTING

18 orthopaedic clinics, including 8 subspecialties (14 ambulatory and 4 hospital based) within an academic health system.

PARTICIPANTS

14 910 patients consulting an orthopaedic specialist for a new patient consultation who completed baseline Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures associated with their appointment from 17 November 2017 to 13 May 2019. Patients were aged 55.72±5.8 years old, and 61.3% were female and 79.3% were Caucasian and 13.4% were black or African American. Patients who did not complete PROMIS measures or cancelled their appointment were excluded from the study.

PRIMARY OUTCOME

PROMIS domains of physical function, pain interference, pain intensity, depression, anxiety, fatigue, sleep disturbance and the ability to participate in social roles.

RESULTS

Mean PROMIS scores for physical function were (38.1±9.2), pain interference (58.9±8.1), pain intensity (4.6±2.5), depression (47.9±8.9), anxiety (49.9±9.5), fatigue (50.5±10.3), sleep disturbance (51.1±9.8) and ability to participate in social roles (49.1±10.3) for the entire cohort. Across the clinical subspecialties, neurosurgery, spine and trauma patients were most profoundly affected across almost all domains and patients consulting with a hand specialist reported the least limitations or symptoms across domains. There was a moderate, negative correlation between pain interference and physical functioning (r=-0.59) and low correlations between pain interference with anxiety (r=0.36), depression (r=0.39) as well as physical function and anxiety (r=-0.32) and depression(r=-0.30) and sleep (r=-0.31).

CONCLUSIONS

We directly compared clinically meaningful PROMIS domains across eight orthopaedic subspecialties, which would not have been possible with legacy measures alone. These results support PROMIS's utility as a common metric to assess and compare patient health status across multiple orthopaedic subspecialties.

Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation Correlates with American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons Score for Common Elbow Pathology: A Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

There are currently a variety of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for elbow pathology, without any established gold standard. The Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) is a single question assessment of the patient's perceived overall function compared with normal. The SANE score has been correlated with PROs from the shoulder and knee literature.

PURPOSE

To correlate the SANE score for a variety of elbow pathologies with a traditionally reported elbow outcome measure, the American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons-Elbow score (ASES-E).

STUDY DESIGN

Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 3.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed of all patients identified at a single center between April 2016 and January 2019 who presented as a new patient with elbow pathology. All patients prospectively completed the ASES-E along with the SANE score for elbow (SANE-E) at the time of initial consultation. Spearman correlations (r) were performed to evaluate the correlation between the ASES-E and the SANE-E score for specific elbow pathology, along with descriptive data such as age, sex, and chronicity of the problem.

RESULTS

A total of 555 patients (166 women, 29.9%) with a mean ± SD age of 51.0 ± 11.7 years with the diagnoses of medial epicondylitis (n = 72; 13.0%), lateral epicondylitis (n = 224; 40.4%), biceps tendon rupture (n = 139; 25.0%), triceps tendon rupture (n = 21; 3.8%), and elbow arthritis (n = 99; 17.8%) were included in this analysis. There was moderate correlation between the SANE-E and the ASES-E (r = 0.623; P < .001), with strongest correlation with the visual analog scale (VAS) (r = -0.518; P < .001) compared with any individual question and moderate to strong correlations based on specific diagnoses. SANE-E and ASES-E scores for the entire cohort were 42.9 ± 26.7 and 56.9 ± 21.4, respectively (P < .001). Age (r = 0.027; P = .526), sex (r = 0.026; P = .555), VAS (r = -0.106; P = .013), and chronicity of the problem (r = -0.037; P = .384) were not found to be correlated with differences in ASES-E and SANE-E.

CONCLUSION

The SANE-E score is a simple way to assess patient-perceived function relative to normal. The findings of this study demonstrated moderate to strong correlation between the ASES-E and the SANE-E score for a variety of commonly encountered elbow conditions.

Are responders to patient health surveys representative of those invited to participate? An analysis of the Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Pilot from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry

Background

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are commonly used to evaluate surgical outcome in patients undergoing joint replacement surgery, however routine collection from the target population is often incomplete. Representative samples are required to allow inference from the sample to the population. Although higher capture rates are desired, the extent to which this improves the representativeness of the sample is not known. We aimed to measure the representativeness of data collected using an electronic PROMs capture system with or without telephone call follow up, and any differences in PROMS reporting between electronic and telephone call follow up.

Methods

Data from a pilot PROMs program within a large national joint replacement registry were examined. Telephone call follow up was used for people that failed to respond electronically. Data were collected pre-operatively and at 6 months post-operatively. Responding groups (either electronic only or electronic plus telephone call follow up) were compared to non-responders based on patient characteristics (joint replaced, bilaterality, age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologist (ASA) score and Body Mass Index (BMI)) using chi squared test or ANOVA, and PROMs for the two responder groups were compared using generalised linear models adjusted for age and sex. The analysis was restricted to those undergoing primary elective hip, knee or shoulder replacement for osteoarthritis.

Results

Pre-operatively, 73.2% of patients responded electronically and telephone follow-up of non-responders increased this to 91.4%. Pre-operatively, patients responding electronically, compared to all others, were on average younger, more likely to be female, and healthier (lower ASA score). Similar differences were found when telephone follow up was included in the responding group. There were little (if any) differences in the post-operative comparisons, where electronic responders were on average one year younger and were more likely to have a lower ASA score compared to those not responding electronically, but there was no significant difference in sex or BMI. PROMs were similar between those reporting electronically and those reporting by telephone.

Conclusion

Patients undergoing total joint replacement who provide direct electronic PROMs data are younger, healthier and more likely to be female than non-responders, but these differences are small, particularly for post-operative data collection. The addition of telephone call follow up to electronic contact does not provide a more representative sample. Electronic-only follow up of patients undergoing joint replacement provides a satisfactory representation of the population invited to participate.

Total Joint Replacement of Ankle, Knee, and Hip: How Do Patients Perceive Their Operative Outcomes at 10 Years?

Background:

Patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) are an integral part of national joint registers in measuring outcomes of operative procedures and improving quality of care. There is lack of literature comparing outcomes of total ankle replacement (TAR) to total knee replacement (TKR) and total hip replacement (THR). The aim of this study was to compare PROMs between TAR, TKR, and THR patient groups at 1, 5, and 10 years.

Methods:

Prospective PROMs from patients who underwent a TAR, TKR, or THR procedure between 2003 and 2010 were studied. Patients were divided into 3 groups based on their index joint replacement (hip, knee, or ankle). Patient demographics (age, gender, body mass index), patient-reported outcome scores (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index [WOMAC], 36-Item Short Form Health Survey [SF-36]) and patient satisfaction scores (4-point Likert scale) at follow-up were compared between the 3 groups.

Results:

Data was available on 1797 THR, 2475 TKR, and 146 TAR patients. TAR patients were younger and reported fewer number of comorbidities. All 3 groups improved significantly from preoperative to 10 years for WOMAC scores (P < .001). For SF-36 scores at 10 years, the THR group (32.2% follow-up) scored the highest for 3 domains (P = .031) when compared to the TKR group (29.1% follow-up). All 3 groups had similar outcomes for 5 of 8 domains; P < .05). For patient satisfaction, the THR group reported overall 95.1% satisfaction followed by 89.8% for the TKR group and 83.9% in the TAR group (42.4% follow-up).

Conclusion:

In this cohort with diminishing numbers over the decade of time the patients were followed up we found that patients are equally happy with functional and general health outcomes from total ankle replacement vs other major lower extremity joint replacement. TAR surgery should be considered as a viable treatment option in this patient group.

Level of Evidence:

Level III, retrospective case series.

Pain Is the Primary Factor Associated With Satisfaction With Symptoms for New Patients Presenting to the Orthopedic Clinic

PURPOSE

The purpose of the current study was to (1) determine the percentage of new orthopedic patients reporting their symptoms to be acceptable at presentation, as measured by the Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) question, and (2) evaluate whether patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), including Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function (PF) or Upper Extremity, Pain Interference (PI), and Depression (D), or sociodemographic factors are associated with acceptable symptoms at presentation.

METHODS

Between February 7, 2020, and March 16, 2020, new orthopedic patients who completed PROMs were identified. Patient records were reviewed for those who also completed the PASS question, a yes/no question about whether a patient's current symptom state is satisfactory. Bivariate analysis was conducted to compare patient characteristics, such as area deprivation index (ADI), between those reporting acceptable symptoms and those who did not. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to determine factors associated with acceptable symptoms at presentation.

RESULTS

A total of 570 patients were included, with one-fourth (n = 143 [25%]) reporting acceptable symptoms at presentation. In multivariable regression analysis, only pain, as measured by the PROMIS PI, was associated with acceptable symptoms at presentation (non-upper extremity patient regression: PROMIS PI: odds ratio [OR], 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79-0.90, P < .01; upper extremity patient regression: PROMIS PI: OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.85-0.98, P < .01). In both multivariable regression analyses, insurance type (private, Medicare, Medicaid, other), visit subspecialty (sports, hand, joints, foot and ankle, spine, other), PROMIS PF, PROMIS D, and national ADI were not associated with acceptable symptoms at presentation (all P > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

One-fourth of new orthopedic patients reported their symptoms to be acceptable at presentation. Of those who considered their symptom state unsatisfactory, pain-not functional status, mental health, or sociodemographic factors-was the primary determinant.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, diagnostic.

Dental implant quality registries and databases: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The importance of dental implant quality register has been well-documented. However, no systematic review conducted on dental implant quality register can be found in the literature. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to study the existed dental implant quality registries to explain the goals, data elements, and reports of dental implant quality registries.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This systematic study was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase databases. For evaluating dental implant quality registers, all studies in the English language were examined with no time limitation. Case reports, conference abstracts, and letters to the editor were excluded. The analysis of the quality of the studies was done by the STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology checklist.

RESULTS

The primary search identified 5565 articles. After eliminating duplicate articles and articles that did not meet the inclusion criteria and reviewing 40 full texts, 11 studies were included in this study. In this review, seven countries as Sweden, the USA, Canada, Germany, Finland, Australia, and South Korea had dental implant quality registers. Furthermore, the goals of dental implant quality registers were classified into the categories of research, epidemiology, administrative, clinical, and surveillance.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study provide dentists and other stakeholders useful information on the existed dental implant quality registers and databases worldwide. It also provides a framework of the goals, data elements, and reports of dental implant quality registry. The establishment of dental implant quality register will be beneficial for societies and also allows them to control the complications of dental implants in future.

Exploring the impact of Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) among orthopaedic surgeons in mainland China: systematic review and survey-based study on hip and knee instruments

BACKGROUND

Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) are widely used in Europe and North America in a variety of areas including research, clinical governance, clinical registries and insurance ascertainment. The aim of this study was to assess commonly used knee and hip PROMs among Chinese surgeons and to gain an insight into their impact on evaluation of clinical outcomes.

METHODS

1. A systematic literature search of databases Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL and CNKI was performed from the earliest records to 22/07/2020 for knee instruments and 22/08/2020 for hip instruments, to retrieve Chinese Mandarin cross culturally adapted and validated knee and hip PROMs. 2. An 11-item electronic questionnaire was then designed under four domain categories. The survey was distributed via a ubiquitous online social media platform to orthopaedic surgeons. Responses were collected and analyzed. Output from 1. was used to populate parts of the survey questionnaire.

RESULTS

The systematic online search yielded a total of 41 evaluation instruments, (10 hip and 31 knee); all of which were incorporated as response options. 234 viable questionnaires were retrieved with the largest group representing attending surgeons. 59.0% were familiar with the concept of PROMs among which 78.4% reported to have used PROMs themselves. In order of frequency of use, PROMs were purposed for clinical assessment (55.6%), research (40.7%), health regulation policies (18.6%) and insurance service requirements (10.6%). Implementation was prompted by both departmental (43.4%) and institutional policy (34.5%). 89.4% of PROMs users reported difficulties in the use of PROMs, with major barriers including license fees, limited access, inadequate training and burden of fill-out time (all > 40%).

CONCLUSION

There is evidence of limited familiarity with knee and hip PROMs among orthopaedic surgeons. Barriers to their use are significant. Development of a Chinese language PROMs database would be helpful.

Simple Knee Value: a simple evaluation correlated to existing knee PROMs

PURPOSE

The Simple Knee Value (SKV) is an outcome score in which patients are asked to grade their knee function as a percentage of that of a normal knee. The primary aim of this study was to validate the SKV by measuring its correlation with existing knee-related PROMs.

METHODS

This was a prospective study conducted at a teaching hospital to assess the SKV's validity. The study enrolled 47 young patients (16-54 years old), 49 older patients (≥ 55 years) and 30 healthy controls. A paper questionnaire consisting of the Lysholm, IKDC, KOOS, WOMAC and SKV was given to subjects three times (enrolment, 1-month preoperative visit and 6 months postoperative visit). The criterion validity of the SKV was determined by correlating it to existing knee PROMs using the Spearman correlation coefficient (S). SKV test-retest reliability was assessed by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) between two time points (initial consultation at enrolment and preoperative visit, reflecting the same clinical condition). Responsiveness to change was determined by comparing the SKV scores before and after surgery (enrolment consultation and 6 months postoperative). Discriminative ability was determined by comparing the SKV distribution in patients and controls.

RESULTS

There was a strong and significant correlation between the SKV and the gold standard Lysholm, IKDC, KOOS and WOMAC in the younger patients and the older patients (p < 0.0001). The reliability between the SKV at the initial consultation and before surgery was excellent (ICC 0.862, 95% CI 0.765; 0.921) in the younger patients, and moderate (ICC 0.506, 95% CI 0.265; 0.688) in the older patients. The SKV was responsive to change in both patient groups (p < 0.0001 for the SKV before versus 6 months after surgery). Like the other knee-specific PROMs (p < 0.0001), the SKV was able to distinguish between patients and controls (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

The SKV is valid as it is significantly correlated to existing knee PROMs. It is also reliable, responsive to change and discriminating. Its simplicity gives it many advantages and it can be used by physicians in their daily practice.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II.

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

AIMS

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

DIFFERENCE IN PATIENT QUALITY OF LIFE AFTER HIP ARTHROPLASTY WITH A MINIMALLY INVASIVE APPROACH OR CLASSIC APPROACH

The increasing rate of orthopedic procedures, hip arthroplasty in particular, requires improvement of surgical techniques, as well as of the respective rehabilitation protocols. The aim of the study was to assess differences in the quality of life and incidence of limping eight years after total hip arthroplasty performed with a minimally invasive or classic approach. This cross-sectional study included 68 patients, i.e. 32 operated with classic approach and 36 with minimally invasive approach during 2011. The following parameters were observed: anthropometric measurements, history of comorbidity, subjective assessment of limping, and SF-36 questionnaire (Short Form Survey Instrument). SF-36 testing, which consists of 8 domains, showed that 5 domains of the quality of life were statistically significantly better in the minimally invasive group (level of significance p<0.05). These domains were role of limitation due to physical health (p=0.01), energy (p=0.02), social functioning (p=0.02), pain (p=0.02) and general health (p=0.00). The minimally invasive group had a statistically significantly lower incidence of limping (p=0.032). Quality of life after hip replacement could be a decisive factor when choosing the type of orthopedic procedure. The higher number of limping patients in the classic approach group may have contributed to differences in the quality of life. In conclusion, the minimally invasive approach enables higher long-term quality of life and functional recovery.

Epidemiology of atherosclerotic carotid artery disease

Atherosclerotic carotid artery disease is a significant cause of stroke in the United States and globally. Its prevalence increases with age and it is more prevalent in men and White and Native-American populations. However, the outcomes related to carotid disease are worse in women and Black patients. Research suggests the disparities exist due to a multitude of factors, including disease pathophysiology, access to care, provider bias, and socioeconomic status. The prevalence of carotid stenosis in the general population is low (3%), and routine screening for carotid stenosis is not recommended in adults. Randomized clinical trials have shown benefits of stroke risk reduction with surgery (carotid endarterectomy or stenting) for symptomatic patients. Management is controversial in asymptomatic patients, as modern medical management has results equivalent to those of surgery and ongoing randomized clinical trials will address this important question. Carotid surgery is not appropriate in asymptomatic patients with limited life expectancy. Future work should explore comprehensive care models for care of patients with carotid disease and assessment of patient-reported outcomes to measure quality of care.

Substantial Loss to Follow-Up and Missing Data in National Arthroscopy Registries: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

To report follow-up methodologies, compliance, and existing strategies for handling missing data in national arthroscopy registries collecting patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

METHODS

Annual reports, EMBASE, and MEDLINE were queried following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to identify national arthroscopy registries reporting follow-up with a validated PROM and sample size greater than 500. Extracted data included weighted compliance in peer-reviewed publications, cumulative compliance throughout the time span of data collection, and missing-data methodologies.

RESULTS

Nine national arthroscopy registries currently collect PROMs, with cumulative rates of follow-up ranging from less than 10% to more than 70%. We identified 36 publications from 5 national registries reporting hip and knee arthroscopies. The weighted mean compliance with PROMs in national registry publications was 56% at 0.5 years, 44% to 59% at 1 year, 40% to 61% at 2 years, 35% to 54% at 5 years, and 40% at 10 years. A missing-data analysis was reported or referenced in 58% of publications.

CONCLUSIONS

In national arthroscopy registries, compliance with 2-year PROMs does not meet traditional follow-up thresholds of 60% or 80% and reporting of missing-data methodologies is inconsistent.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level IV, systematic review of Level II through IV studies.

Pediatric Simple Knee Value: a simple patient-reported outcome measure for the knee

PURPOSE

The pediatric Simple Knee Value (pedi-SKV) is an outcome score in which paediatric patients are asked 'How would you rate your knee today as a percentage of normal (0% to 100% scale with 100% being normal)?'. The primary aim of this study was to validate the pedi-SKV by measuring its correlation with validated knee function scores used most often in paediatric orthopaedics.

METHODS

This prospective study was conducted at a teaching hospital to evaluate the pedi-SKV's validity. A total of 44 paediatric patients (ten to 15 years old), were enrolled prior to anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction as well as 17 healthy controls. A survey form consisting of the Lysholm, International Knee Documentation Committee Pediatric Form (Pedi-IKDC) and pedi-SKV was given to subjects twice (enrolment and six months postoperatively). The criterion validity of the pedi-SKV was determined by correlating it to existing knee functional scores. Responsiveness to change was evaluated by comparing the pedi-SKV scores before and after surgery (enrolment visit and six-month postoperative visit). Discriminative ability was evaluated by comparing the pedi-SKV distribution in patients versus controls.

RESULTS

There was a strong and significant correlation between the pedi-SKV and the Lysholm and Pedi-IKDC (p < 0.0001). The pedi-SKV had a good responsiveness to change (p < 0.0001 for the pedi-SKV before versus six months postoperatively). Like the other knee-specific functional sores (p < 0.0001), the pedi-SKV was able to distinguish between patients and controls (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

The pedi-SKV is a valid outcome measure that is strongly correlated with the Lysholm and Pedi-IKDC. This is a novel simple score that can be used by physicians in their daily practice.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II.

Cohort profile: the St Vincent's Melbourne Arthroplasty Outcomes (SMART) Registry, a pragmatic prospective database defining outcomes in total hip and knee replacement patients

PURPOSE

The St Vincent's Melbourne Arthroplasty Outcomes (SMART) Registry is an institutional clinical registry housed at a tertiary referral hospital in Australia. The SMART Registry is a pragmatic prospective database, which was established to capture a broad range of longitudinal clinical and patient-reported outcome data to facilitate collaborative research that will improve policy and practice relevant to arthroplasty surgery for people with advanced arthritis of the hip or knee. The purpose of this cohort profile paper is to describe the rationale for the SMART Registry's creation, its methods, baseline data and future plans for the Registry. A full compilation of the data is provided as a reference point for future collaborators.

PARTICIPANTS

The SMART Registry cohort comprises over 13 000 consecutive arthroplasty procedures in more than 10 000 patients who underwent their procedure at St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne, since January 1998. Participant recruitment, data collection and follow-up is ongoing and currently includes up to 20 years follow-up data.

FINDINGS TO DATE

SMART Registry data are used for clinical audit and feedback, as well as for a broad range of research including epidemiological studies, predictive statistical modelling and health economic evaluations. At the time of writing, there were 46 publications from SMART Registry data, with contributions from more than 67 coauthors.

FUTURE PLANS

With the recent linking of the SMART Registry with Medicare Benefits Schedule and Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme data through the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, research into prescribing patterns and health system utilisation is currently underway. The SMART Registry is also being updated with the Clavien-Dindo classification of surgical complications.

Imaging-based patient-reported outcomes (PROs) database: How we do it

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) provide an essential understanding of the impact a condition or treatment has on a patient, while complementing other, more traditional outcomes information like survival and time to symptom resolution. PROs have become increasingly important in medicine with the push toward patient-centered care. The creation of a PROs database within an institution or practice provides a way to collect, understand, and use this kind of patient feedback to inform quality improvement and develop the evidence base for medical decision-making and on a larger scale could potentially help determine national standards of care and treatment guidelines. This paper provides a first-hand account of our experience setting up an imaging-based PROs database at our institution and is organized into steps the reader can follow for creating a PROs database of their own. Given the limited use of PROs within both diagnostic and interventional radiology, we hope our paper stimulates a new interest among radiologists who may have never considered outcomes work in the past.