Comparison of pre- and post-operative health-related quality of life and length of stay after primary total hip replacement in matched English and German patient cohorts

Short-term outcomes vary by surgical approach in total hip arthroplasty: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The direct anterior approach (DAA) has increased in popularity in recent years. Proponents cite its muscle-sparing approach and purported reduction in pain and improvement in function when compared to the traditional surgical approaches. There remains controversy surrounding the validity of these claims. The objective of this study was to compare the common total hip surgical approaches in terms of pain scores, functional outcomes, opioid use and complications within the first 12 weeks postoperatively.

METHODS

A network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing postoperative outcomes of different surgical approaches in primary THA up to 12 weeks was performed. PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and SCOPUS were systematically searched from inception to May 2020. Outcomes included pain scores, functional outcome scores, length of stay (LOS), complications and opioid consumption.

RESULTS

Twenty-five RCTs (n = 2339) were included. The DAA demonstrated statistically significant improvement in Harris Hip Scores at 6 weeks when compared to the posterior and direct lateral approaches. The DAA reduced pain scores on postoperative day 2 and at 2 weeks compared to the direct lateral approach. The anterolateral approach was found to have a significantly shorter LOS compared to the other major surgical approaches. The differences in functional outcomes or pain scores did not surpass conventional cutoffs for a minimal clinically important difference.

CONCLUSION

The DAA led to functional improvements at 6 weeks compared to the posterior and direct lateral approaches and reduced postoperative pain compared to the direct lateral approach. However, these improvements failed to reach clinical significance. All major surgical approaches led to large improvements in function by 12 weeks with relatively low complication rates. Whether a short-term statistically significant improvement in function is sufficiently patient important to recommend DAA as a standard remains uncertain.

Indicators and predictors modifiable by the nursing department during the preoperative period: A scoping review

AIM AND OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study is to identify preoperative indicators and/or predictors of complications or inefficiencies in the surgical process that can be modified within nursing practice.

BACKGROUND

Due to rapid sociodemographic and technological change, the global demand for surgical attention is rising exponentially, requiring new strategies for optimisation and sustainability in perioperative care.

DESIGN

We conduced the scoping review using the methodology recommended by the Joanna Briggs Institute supported with The PAGER framework and guided by the PRISMA-ScR Checklist.

METHODS

Four databases (CINAHL, MEDLINE, SCOPUS and PUBMED) were examined to extract relevant published results for elective surgery on adult patients during the period 2011-2021. This process identified 609 records. Exclusion criteria were applied, and the sample was then evaluated with the Quality Assessment Tool for Studies with Diverse Designs (QATSDD), after which 15 studies remained.

RESULTS

The following preoperative indicators and/or predictors were considered: (1) Anxiety; (2) Pain; (3) Health education, knowledge and training; (4) Satisfaction; (5) Management/organisation (including costs, resources used/available, organisational issues, hospital stay (preoperative), standardisation and protocolisation.

CONCLUSION

The identification of five indicators and/or predictors of complications or inefficiencies in the surgical process, which can be modified by nursing, allows the effective application of interventions in the preoperative phase, optimising care and improving health outcomes.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

The development and implementation of specific nursing skills in the preoperative phase are essential to optimise the surgical process.

Patient characteristics and valuation changes impact quality of life and satisfaction in total knee arthroplasty - results from a German prospective cohort study

Background

Evaluation of variations in pre- and postoperative patient reported outcomes (PRO) and the association between preoperative patient characteristics and health and satisfaction outcomes after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) may support shared decision-making in Germany. Since previous research on TKA health outcomes indicated valuation differences in longitudinal data, experienced-based population weights were used for the first time as an external valuation system to measure discrepancies between patient and average population valuation of HRQoL.

Methods

Baseline data (n = 203) included sociodemographic and clinical characteristics and PROs, measured by the EQ-5D-3 L and WOMAC. Six-month follow-up data (n = 161) included medical changes since hospital discharge, PROs and satisfaction. A multivariate linear regression analysis was performed to evaluate the relationship between preoperative patient characteristics and PRO scores. Patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) was calculated to provide a satisfaction threshold. Patient-reported health-related quality of life (HRQoL) valuations were compared with average experienced-based population values to detect changes in valuation.

Results

One hundred thirty-seven subjects met inclusion criteria. All PRO measures improved significantly. Preoperative WOMAC and EQ-5D VAS, housing situation, marital status, age and asthma were found to be predictors of postoperative outcomes. 73% of study participants valued their preoperative HRQoL higher than the general population valuation, indicating response shift. Preoperatively, patient-reported EQ-5D VAS was substantially higher than average experienced-based population values. Postoperatively, this difference declined sharply.

Approximately 61% of the patients reported satisfactory postoperative health, being mainly satisfied with results if postoperative WOMAC was ≥82.49 (change ≥20.25) and postoperative EQ-5D VAS was ≥75 (change ≥6).

Conclusion

On average, patients benefited from TKA. Preoperative WOMAC and EQ-5D VAS were predictors of postoperative outcomes after TKA. Particularly patients with high absolute preoperative PRO scores were more likely to remain unsatisfied. Therefore, outcome prediction can contribute to shared-decision making. Using general population valuations as a reference, this study underlined a discrepancy between population and patient valuation of HRQoL before, but not after surgery, thus indicating a potential temporary response shift before surgery.

Development and validation of a shared decision-making instrument for health-related quality of life one year after total hip replacement based on quality registries data

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Clinicians considering improvements in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) after total hip replacement (THR) must account for multiple pieces of information. Evidence-based decisions are important to best assess the effect of THR on HRQoL. This work aims at constructing a shared decision-making tool that helps clinicians assessing the future benefits of THR by offering predictions of 1-year postoperative HRQoL of THR patients.

METHODS

We used data from the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Data from 2008 were used as training set and data from 2009 to 2012 as validation set. We adopted two approaches. First, we assumed a continuous distribution for the EQ-5D index and modelled the postoperative EQ-5D index with regression models. Second, we modelled the five dimensions of the EQ-5D and weighted together the predictions using the UK Time Trade-Off value set. As predictors, we used preoperative EQ-5D dimensions and the EQ-5D index, EQ visual analogue scale, visual analogue scale pain, Charnley classification, age, gender, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists, surgical approach and prosthesis type. Additionally, the tested algorithms were combined in a single predictive tool by stacking.

RESULTS

Best predictive power was obtained by the multivariate adaptive regression splines (R²  = 0.158). However, this was not significantly better than the predictive power of linear regressions (R²  = 0.157). The stacked model had a predictive power of 17%.

CONCLUSIONS

Successful implementation of a shared decision-making tool that can aid clinicians and patients in understanding expected improvement in HRQoL following THR would require higher predictive power than we achieved. For a shared decision-making tool to succeed, further variables, such as socioeconomics, need to be considered.

An Experience-Based Value Set for the EQ-5D-5L in Germany

OBJECTIVE

Valuation of health states provides a summary measure useful to health care decision makers. Results may depend on whether the currently experienced health state or a hypothetical health state is being evaluated. This study derives a value set for the EuroQoL Five-Dimensional Five-Level Questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) by focusing on the individual's current experience.

DATA AND METHODS

Data include four pooled population surveys of the general German population in 2012-2015 (N = 8114). For valuation, a visual analogue scale (VAS) was used. Six specifications of a generalized linear model with binomial error distribution and constraint parameter estimation were analyzed. In each 1000 simulation runs, models were cross-validated after splitting the sample into an estimation part and a validation part. Predictive accuracy was measured by mean absolute error and sum of squared errors.

RESULTS

The models rendered a consistent set of parameters. With regard to predictive accuracy, the model considering all problem levels within the five dimensions and the highest problem level reached performed best overall.

DISCUSSION

Estimation proved to be feasible. Predictive accuracy exceeded that of a similar, experience-based value set for the EQ-5D-3L. Compared with a Dutch value set for the EQ-5D-5L derived for hypothetical health states, experienced values tended to be slightly lower for mild health states and substantially higher for severe health states. Clinical relevance and usefulness of the value set remain to be determined in future studies.

CONCLUSIONS

For decision makers who prioritize patient-relevant benefit, the experience-based value set provides a novel option to summarize health states, reflecting how health states experienced are valued in a population.

International comparison of experience-based health state values at the population level

BACKGROUND

Decision makers need to know whether health state values, an important component of summary measures of health, are valid for their target population. A key outcome is the individuals' valuation of their current health. This experience-based perspective is increasingly used to derive health state values. This study is the first to compare such experience-based valuations at the population level across countries.

METHODS

We examined the relationship between respondents' self-rated health as measured by the EQ-VAS, and the different dimensions and levels of the EQ-5D-3 L. The dataset included almost 32,000 survey respondents from 15 countries. We estimated generalized linear models with logit link function, including country-specific models and pooled-data models with country effects.

RESULTS

The results showed significant and meaningful differences in the valuation of health states and individual health dimensions between countries, even though similarities were present too. Between countries, coefficients correlated positively for the values of mobility, self-care and usual activities, but not for the values of pain and anxiety, thus underlining structural differences.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings indicate that, ideally, population-specific experience-based value sets are developed and used for the calculation of health outcomes. Otherwise, sensitivity analyses are needed. Furthermore, transferring the results of foreign studies into the national context should be performed with caution. We recommend future studies to investigate the causes of differences in experience-based health state values through a single international study possibly complemented with qualitative research on the determinants of valuation.

Assessing quality of life in a clinical study on heart rehabilitation patients: how well do value sets based on given or experienced health states reflect patients' valuations?

Background

Quality of life as an endpoint in a clinical study may be sensitive to the value set used to derive a single score. Focusing on patients’ actual valuations in a clinical study, we compare different value sets for the EQ-5D-3L and assess how well they reproduce patients’ reported results.

Methods

A clinical study comparing inpatient (n = 98) and outpatient (n = 47) rehabilitation of patients after an acute coronary event is re-analyzed. Value sets include: 1. Given health states and time-trade-off valuation (GHS-TTO) rendering economic utilities; 2. Experienced health states and valuation by visual analog scale (EHS-VAS). Valuations are compared with patient-reported VAS rating. Accuracy is assessed by mean absolute error (MAE) and by Pearson’s correlation ρ. External validity is tested by correlation with established MacNew global scores. Drivers of differences between value sets and VAS are analyzed using repeated measures regression.

Results

EHS-VAS had smaller MAEs and higher ρ in all patients and in the inpatient group, and correlated best with MacNew global score. Quality-adjusted survival was more accurately reflected by EHS-VAS. Younger, better educated patients reported lower VAS at admission than the EHS-based value set.

EHS-based estimates were mostly able to reproduce patient-reported valuation. Economic utility measurement is conceptually different, produced results less strongly related to patients’ reports, and resulted in about 20 % longer quality-adjusted survival.

Conclusion

Decision makers should take into account the impact of choosing value sets on effectiveness results. For transferring the results of heart rehabilitation patients from another country or from another valuation method, the EHS-based value set offers a promising estimation option for those decision makers who prioritize patient-reported valuation. Yet, EHS-based estimates may not fully reflect patient-reported VAS in all situations.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12955-016-0453-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Variation in Patient-reported Outcomes Across Hospitals Following Surgery

BACKGROUND

Although there is growing interest in applying patient-reported outcomes (PROs) toward surgical quality, the extent to which PROs vary across hospitals following surgical procedures is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

We examined variation in PROs, specifically health-related quality of life (HRQOL), across hospitals performing bariatric surgery.

RESEARCH DESIGN

A retrospective cohort study.

SUBJECTS

The Michigan Bariatric Surgery Collaborative is a statewide consortium of 39 hospitals performing laparoscopic gastric bypass, gastric banding, or sleeve gastrectomy (n=11,420 patients between 2008 and 2012).

MEASURES

We examined generic and disease-specific HRQOL measured by the Health and Activities Limitations Index (HALex) and Bariatric Quality of Life index (BQL) preoperatively and at 1 year. We measured the variation in postoperative HRQOL across hospitals, and the effect of risk and reliability adjustment on hospital ranking.

RESULTS

In this cohort, HRQOL varied by 56% (HALex) and 37% (BQL) across hospitals. Patient factors accounted for 58% (HALex) to 71% (BQL) of the variation in HRQOL across hospitals. After risk and reliability adjustment, HRQOL varied by 18% (by HALex) and 14.5% (by BQL) across hospitals, and the proportion of patients who experienced a large improvement in HRQOL by HALex ranged from 33% to 69% and 67% to 92% by BQL. After adjusting for patient factors and reliability, these differences diminished to 55%-64% (HALex) and 79%-84% (BQL).

CONCLUSIONS

Patient factors explain a large proportion of hospital-level variation in PROs following bariatric surgery, underscoring the importance of risk adjustment. However, some variation in PROs across hospitals remains unexplained, suggesting PROs may represent a viable indicator of hospital performance.