Minimal important changes and differences were estimated for Oxford hip and knee scores following primary and revision arthroplasty

Anchor-based minimal important difference values are often sensitive to the distribution of the change score

PURPOSE

Anchor-based studies are today the most popular approach to determine a minimal important difference value for an outcome variable. However, a variety of construction methods for such values do exist. This constitutes a challenge to the field. In order to distinguish between more or less adequate construction methods, meaningful minimal requirements can be helpful. For example, minimal important difference values should not reflect the intervention(s) the patients are exposed to in the study used for construction, as they should later allow to compare interventions. This requires that they are not sensitive to the distribution of the change score observed. This study aims at investigating to which degree established construction methods fulfil this minimal requirement.

METHODS

Six constructions methods were considered, covering very popular and recently suggested methods. The sensitivity of MID values to the distribution of the change score was investigated in a simulation study for these six construction methods.

RESULTS

Five out of six construction methods turned out to yield MID values which are sensitive to the distribution of the change score to a degree that questions their usefulness. Insensitivity can be obtained by using construction methods based solely on an estimate of the conditional distribution of the anchor variable given the change score.

CONCLUSION

In future the computation of MID values should be based on construction methods avoiding sensitivity to the distribution of the change score.

The functional and psychological impact of delayed hip and knee arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 89,996 patients

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the impact of presurgical waiting times on pre-/post-operative joint specific pain and function, health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and perspectives of patients awaiting primary elective total hip (THR) and knee (TKR) replacements. MEDLINE, EMBASE, PUBMED, and CENTRAL databases were searched from inception until 30th January 2023 (CRD42022288128). Secondary literature and unpublished datasets containing paediatric, non-elective, partial, or revision replacement populations were excluded. PRISMA 2020 reporting and GRADE certainty of evidence guidelines were followed. Residual maximum likelihood meta-analysis and linear meta-regression was performed to elucidate the influence of presurgical waiting time. Twenty-six studies were eligible for systematic review and sixteen for meta-analysis, capturing 89,996 patients (60.6% female, mean age 67.4 years) between 2001 and 2022. A significant deterioration in joint function (mean difference (MD):0.0575%; 95% CI 0.0064, 0.1086; p = 0.028(4d.p.); I2 = 73.1%) and HRQOL (MD: 0.05%; 95% CI - 0.0001.0009; p = 0.011(4 d.p.); I2 = 80.6%) was identified per additional day of waiting. Despite qualitative evidence, meta-analysis could not observe a relationship with postoperative outcome data. Patient responses to delayed THR and TKR surgery were unanimously negative. Immediate action should seek to reduce the increased patient anxiety and significant reductions in pre-operative joint functionality and HRQOL associated with prolonged pre-surgical waiting time, whilst mitigating any potential deleterious post-operative effects.

Evaluation of time to reimplantation as a risk factor in two-stage revision with static spacers for periprosthetic knee joint infection

INTRODUCTION

We investigated the time to reimplantation (TTR) during two-stage revision using static spacers with regard to treatment success and function in patients with chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the knee.

METHODS

163 patients (median age 72 years, 72 women) who underwent two-stage exchange for chronic knee PJI between 2012 and 2020 were retrospectively analyzed (based on the 2011 Musculoskeletal Infection Society criteria). A cutoff TTR for increased risk of reinfection was identified using the maximally selected log-rank statistic. Infection control, aseptic revisions and overall survival were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier survival estimates. Adjustment for confounding factors-the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) and C-reactive protein (CRP)-was done with a Cox proportional hazards model.

RESULTS

When TTR exceeded 94 days, the adjusted hazard of reinfection was increased 2.8-fold (95% CI 1.4-5.7; p = 0.0036). The reinfection-free rate was 67% (95% CI 52-79%) after 2 years and 33% (95% CI 11-57%) after 5 years for a longer TTR compared to 89% (95% CI 81-94%) and 80% (95% CI 69-87%) at 2 and 5 years, respectively, for a shorter TTR. Adjusted overall survival and number of aseptic revisions did not differ between the longer TTR and shorter TTR groups. Maximum knee flexion was 90° (IQR 84-100) for a longer TTR and 95° (IQR 90-100) for a shorter TTR (p = 0.0431), with no difference between the groups in Oxford Knee Score. Baseline characteristics were similar (body mass index, age, previous surgeries, microorganisms) for the two groups, except that there was a higher CCI (median 4 vs. 3) and higher CRP (median 3.7 vs 2.6 mg/dl) in the longer TTR group.

CONCLUSION

A long TTR is sometimes unavoidable in clinical practice, but surgeons should be aware of a potentially higher risk of reinfection.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III, retrospective comparative study.

Hip-specific and generic patient-reported outcome measure scores after primary hip replacement are associated with early revision surgery: a national registry study

BACKGROUND

The ability to efficiently identify patients at higher risk of poor outcomes after joint replacement would enable limited resources for post-operative follow-up to be directed to those with the greatest clinical need. This is particularly important as joint replacement rates continue to grow internationally, stretching health system capabilities. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are routinely administered in many settings and offer an opportunity to detect suboptimal patient outcomes early. This study aimed to determine whether hip-specific and generic PROM scores are associated with early revision hip replacement within six to 24 months after the primary procedure.

METHODS

Pre-operative and six-month post-operative PROM scores for patients undergoing primary total hip replacement (THR) were obtained from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry and Arthroplasty Clinical Outcomes Registry National and linked to revision surgery data. Clinically important improvement was defined using anchor-based thresholds. Associations between PROM scores (hip pain, Oxford Hip Score, HOOS-12, EQ-5D-5L, EQ VAS, patient-perceived change, satisfaction) and revision surgery were evaluated using t-tests, chi-square tests and regression models.

RESULTS

Data were analysed for 21,236 primary THR procedures between 2013 and 2022. Eighty-eight revision procedures were performed at six to 24 months. Patients who were revised had more back pain and worse HOOS-12 scores pre-operatively but between-group differences were small. Worse post-operative PROM scores (hip pain, Oxford, HOOS-12, EQ-5D-5L, EQ VAS) were associated with early revision, after adjusting for age and sex (p < 0.001 for all analyses). Patient dissatisfaction (relative risk (RR) 10.18, 95%CI 6.01-17.25) and patient-perceived worsening (RR 19.62, 95%CI 11.33-33.98) were also associated with a higher likelihood of revision. Patients who did not achieve clinically important improvement in hip pain, function, or quality of life had a higher revision risk (RRs 2.54-5.64), compared with those who did (reference).

CONCLUSION

Six-month hip-specific and generic PROM scores can identify patients at higher risk of early revision surgery. Our data highlight the utility of routine post-operative PROM assessment for signaling suboptimal surgical outcomes.

Which factors are associated with a successful outcome following total hip arthroplasty in patients with early radiographic osteoarthritis?

BACKGROUND

It is unclear which factors are associated with a successful total hip arthroplasty (THA) in patients with early radiographic osteoarthritis (OA).

METHODS

70 patients with early OA (Kellgren and Lawrence [KL] grades 0-2) who underwent THA were compared with 200 patients with advanced OA (KL grades 3-4). Outcomes were Oxford Hip Scores (OHS), EQ-5D and EQ-VAS scores; compared preoperatively with 1 year postoperatively. We investigated which clinical and radiographic (plain x-ray, CT, MRI) features predicted successful THA (postoperative OHS ⩾42).

RESULTS

The early OA group were significantly younger (61 vs. 66 years; [p = 0.0035). There were no significant differences in BMI, ASA grade or gender. After adjusting for confounders, the advanced OA group had a significantly greater percentage of possible change (PoPC) in OHS (75.8% vs. 50.4%; p < 0.0001) and improvement in EQ-5D (0.151 vs. 0.002; p < 0.0001). There were no significant differences in complication, revision or readmission rates. In the early OA group, 16/70 (22.9%) patients had a 'successful' THA. Patients who had a 'successful' THA were significantly more likely to have subchondral cysts on CT/MRI (91.7% vs. 57.7%; p = 0.0362). The presence of cysts on CT/MRI was associated with a significantly greater PoPC in OHS (61.6% vs. 38.2%; p = 0.0353). The combination of cysts and joint space width <1 mm was associated with a PoPC of 68%.

CONCLUSIONS

THA in patients with early OA (KL grades 0-2) on plain radiographs should be indicated with caution. We advocate preoperative cross-sectional imaging in these patients. In the absence of cysts on CT/MRI, a THA seems unlikely to provide a satisfactory outcome.

Post-traumatic stress disorder is more likely in younger patients undergoing lower limb arthroplasty: impact on function and quality of life

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to assess whether PTSD was associated with preoperative and/or postoperative joint-specific function and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and whether there were associated preoperative factors.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted at a single centre using an established arthroplasty database over a 2-year period. Patients undergoing THA and TKA completed pre and 1-year postoperative Oxford hip/knee scores and EuroQoL questionnaire (EQ-5D) to assess joint specific function and HRQoL. Postoperatively, patients completed the self-reported PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5) questionnaire where a score of 31 or greater was used to determine a provisional diagnosis of PTSD.

RESULTS

There were 1244 THA and 1356 TKA patients, of which 42 (3.4%) and 54 (4.0%) had a PCL-5 score of ≥ 31, respectively (PTSD groups). Younger age was associated (p < 0.001) with PTSD for both THA (mean difference (MD) 9.9, 95%CI 6.7-13.0) and TKA (MD 4.6, 95%CI 2.2-6.9), which remained significant when adjusting for confounding variables (THA: p < 0.001; TKA: p = 0.020). The preoperative Oxford (THA:MD 4.9, p < 0.001; TKA:MD 5.7, p < 0.001) and EQ-5D scores (THA:MD 0.378, p < 0.001; TKA:MD 0.276, p < 0.001) were significantly worse in the PTSD groups. Age (AUC 73.8%, p < 0.001) and EQ-5D (AUC 72.9%, p < 0.001) were independent factors that were predictive of PTSD in patients undergoing THA and TKA, respectively. When adjusting for confounding variables, PTSD was clinically and statistically significantly (p < 0.001) associated with a lower improvement in the Oxford (THA:MD 9.3; TKA:MD 10.0) and EQ-5D (THA:MD 0.375; TKA:MD 0.293) scores.

CONCLUSIONS

One in 25 patients met a provisional PTSD diagnosis; they were younger and had worse preoperative and improvement in postoperative joint specific function and HRQoL. Age and EQ-5D could be used to identify patients at risk.

Patient-Relevant Outcomes Following First Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty, by Diagnosis: An Analysis of Implant Survivorship, Mortality, Serious Medical Complications, and Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Utilizing the National Joint Registry Data Set

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to investigate patient-relevant outcomes following first revision total knee arthroplasties (rTKAs) performed for different indications.

METHODS

This population-based cohort study utilized data from the United Kingdom National Joint Registry, Hospital Episode Statistics Admitted Patient Care, National Health Service Patient-Reported Outcome Measures, and the Civil Registrations of Death. Patients undergoing a first rTKA between January 1, 2009, and June 30, 2019, were included in our data set. Patient-relevant outcomes included implant survivorship (up to 11 years postoperatively), mortality and serious medical complications (up to 90 days postoperatively), and patient-reported outcome measures (at 6 months postoperatively).

RESULTS

A total of 24,540 first rTKAs were analyzed. The patient population was 54% female and 62% White, with a mean age at the first rTKA of 69 years. At 2 years postoperatively, the cumulative incidence of re-revision surgery ranged from 2.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.9% to 3.4%) following rTKA for progressive arthritis to 16.3% (95% CI, 15.2% to 17.4%) following rTKA for infection. The mortality rate at 90 days was highest following rTKA for fracture (3.6% [95% CI, 2.5% to 5.1%]) and for infection (1.8% [95% CI, 1.5% to 2.2%]) but was <0.5% for other indications. The rate of serious medical complications requiring hospital admission within 90 days was highest for patients treated for fracture (21.8% [95% CI, 17.9% to 26.3%]) or infection (12.5% [95% CI, 11.2% to 13.9%]) and was lowest for those treated for progressive arthritis (4.3% [95% CI, 3.3% to 5.5%]). Patients who underwent rTKA for stiffness or unexplained pain had some of the poorest postoperative joint function (mean Oxford Knee Score, 24 and 25 points, respectively) and had the lowest proportion of responders (48% and 55%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

This study found large differences in patient-relevant outcomes among different indications for first rTKA. The rate of complications was highest following rTKA for fracture or infection. Although rTKA resulted in large improvements in joint function for most patients, those who underwent surgery for stiffness and unexplained pain had worse outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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

Epidemiology of revision hip replacement surgery in the UK over the past 15 years-an analysis from the National Joint Registry

OBJECTIVES

To investigate trends in the incidence rate and main indication for revision hip replacement (rHR) over the past 15 years in the UK.

DESIGN

Repeated national cross-sectional study from 2006 to 2020.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

rHR procedures were identified from the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man and the States of Guernsey. Population statistics were obtained from the Office for National Statistics.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Crude incidence rates of rHR.

RESULTS

The incidence rate of rHR doubled from 11 per 100 000 adults in 2006 (95% CI 10.7 to 11.3) to a peak of 22 per 100 000 adults (95% CI 22 to 23) in 2012, before falling to 17 per 100 000 adults in 2019 (95% CI 16 to 17) (24.5% decrease from peak). The incidence rate of rHR reduced by 39% in 2020 compared with 2019 (during the COVID-19 pandemic). The most frequent indications for rHR between 2006 and 2019 were loosening/lysis (27.8%), unexplained pain (15.1%) and dislocation/instability (14.7%). There were incremental increases in the annual number and incidence rates of rHR for fracture, infection, dislocation/instability and a decrease in rHR for aseptic loosening/lysis.

CONCLUSIONS

The incidence rate of rHR doubled from 2006 to 2012, likely due to high early failure rates of metal-on-metal hip replacements. The incidence of rHR then decreased by approximately 25% from 2012 to 2019, followed by a large decrease during the COVID-19 pandemic. The decrease in the number of rHR performed for aseptic loosening/lysis may reflect improved wear and implant longevity. Increased healthcare resource will be required to care for the increasing numbers of patients undergoing rHR for fracture and infection.

Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS): Reference Values From a National Representative Sample

Background

The Foot and Ankle Outcome Score (FAOS) is widely used in clinical practice and research. However, FAOS reference values are missing to aid interpretation. This study aimed to establish national record-based reference values for the FAOS.

Methods

A national representative sample of 9996 adult Danish citizens was derived from the Danish Civil Registration System. The FAOS questionnaire was sent to all participants, including 2 supplemental questions regarding previous foot and ankle problems and body mass index (BMI). A threshold of 10 FAOS points was predefined as a clinically relevant difference across all 5 subscales.

Results

A total of 2759 participants completed the FAOS. Mean age of participants was 60.5 years, and 51% were women. The mean FAOS subscale scores were as follows: pain, 87.1 (95% CI 86.4-87.8); symptoms, 85.1 (95% CI 84.5-85.8); activity of daily living (ADL), 88.9 (95% CI 88.2-89.6); sport and recreation function 78.5 (95% CI 77.4-79.6); and quality of life (QOL), 79.9 (95% CI 79.0-80.9). The mean difference between men and women was small and not clinically relevant (ranged from 0.9 in ADL to 3.4 in QOL). The largest differences in mean scores between age groups ranged from 4.3 in symptoms to 16.4 in sport/rec. Except for the subscale sport/rec, all age-related differences were below the predefined threshold of 10 for clinical relevance. The difference in mean subscale scores between the lowest BMI group (<24.7) and the obese group (>30) ranged from 19.6 in ADL to 39.1 in sport/rec.

Conclusion

We found in our population that BMI severely impacted FAOS scores. We recommend using BMI-specific reference FAOS values. Separate FAOS reference values for men and women appear not needed. Stratifying reference values for age is likely not needed except for the subscale sport and recreation function.

Level of evidence

Level III, cohort study.

Patient-relevant outcomes following elective, aseptic revision knee arthroplasty: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The aim of this systematic review was to summarise the evidence for the clinical effectiveness of revision knee arthroplasty (rKA) compared to non-operative treatment for the management of patients with elective, aseptic causes for a failed knee arthroplasty.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, AMED and PsychINFO were searched from inception to 1st December 2020 for studies on patients considering elective, aseptic rKA. Patient-relevant outcomes (PROs) were defined as implant survivorship, joint function, quality of life (QoL), complications and hospital admission impact.

RESULTS

No studies compared elective, aseptic rKA to non-operative management. Forty uncontrolled studies reported on PROs following elective, aseptic rKA (434434 rKA). Pooled estimates for implant survivorship were: 95.5% (95% CI 93.2-97.7%) at 1 year [seven studies (5524 rKA)], 90.8% (95% CI 87.6-94.0%) at 5 years [13 studies (5754 rKA)], 87.4% (95% CI 81.7-93.1%) at 10 years [nine studies (2188 rKA)], and 83.2% (95% CI 76.7-89.7%) at 15 years [two studies (452 rKA)]. Twelve studies (2382 rKA) reported joint function and/or QoL: all found large improvements from baseline to follow-up. Mortality rates were low (0.16% to 2% within 1 year) [four studies (353064 rKA)]. Post-operative complications were common (9.1 to 37.2% at 90 days).

CONCLUSION

Higher-quality evidence is needed to support patients with decision-making in elective, aseptic rKA. This should include studies comparing operative and non-operative management. Implant survivorship following elective, aseptic rKA was ~ 96% at 1 year, ~ 91% at 5 years and ~ 87% at 10 years. Early complications were common after elective, aseptic rKA and the rates summarised here can be shared with patients during informed consent.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42020196922.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Conventional Total Hip Arthroplasty Versus Robotic-Arm Assisted Arthroplasty: A Prospective Cohort Study With Minimum 3 Years' Follow-Up

BACKGROUND

Robotic-arm assisted total hip arthroplasty (RO THA) has been shown to improve the accuracy of component positioning compared with conventional total hip arthroplasty (CO THA). This study reports Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) of a previous trial that showed that RO THA was associated with improved accuracy and reduced outliers in acetabular component positioning compared with CO THA.

METHODS

This prospective cohort study included 50 patients undergoing CO THA versus 50 patients receiving RO THA. The Oxford hip score, Forgotten Joint Score (FJS), University of California at Los Angeles hip score were recorded at a minimum of 3 years following surgery.

RESULTS

At minimum 3 years follow-up, there was no statistically significant difference in CO THA versus RO THA with respect to the Oxford hip score [median 42(6.25) versus 41(5.5), P = .914]; FJS [89 (9.25) versus 86 (9), P = .065], and University of California at Los Angeles score [median 7.5 (3) versus 7 (2), P = .381]. None of the study patients had dislocations or underwent revision surgery within 3 years follow-up.

CONCLUSION

The previously reported improvement in accuracy of acetabular component in this study population did not translate to statistically significant improvements in PROMs. Patients in both groups achieved excellent PROMs and there was a trend towards higher FJS scores postoperatively in the RO THA group that did not reach statistical significance. Further studies are needed to assess the significance of these findings on longer-term clinical outcomes and implant survivorships, and also to explore the impact of the enhanced RO THA workflow and functional implant positioning on these outcomes.

Do the Revision Rates of Arthroplasty Surgeons Correlate With Postoperative Patient-reported Outcome Measure Scores? A Study From the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are a pragmatic and efficient means to evaluate the functional quality of arthroplasty beyond revision rates, which are used by most joint replacement registries to judge success. The relationship between these two measures of quality-revision rates and PROMs-is unknown, and not every procedure with a poor functional result is revised. It is logical-although still untested-that higher cumulative revision rates correlate inversely with PROMs for individual surgeons; more revisions are associated with lower PROM scores.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We used data from a large national joint replacement registry to ask: (1) Does a surgeon's early THA cumulative percent revision (CPR) rate and (2) early TKA CPR rate correlate with the postoperative PROMs of patients undergoing primary THA and TKA, respectively, who have not undergone revision?

METHODS

Elective primary THA and TKA procedures in patients with a primary diagnosis of osteoarthritis that were performed between August 2018 and December 2020 and registered in the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry PROMs program were eligible. THAs and TKAs were eligible for inclusion in the primary analysis if 6-month postoperative PROMs were available, the operating surgeon was clearly identified, and the surgeon had performed at least 50 primary THAs or TKAs. Based on the inclusion criteria, 17,668 THAs were performed at eligible sites. We excluded 8878 procedures that were not matched to the PROMs program, leaving 8790 procedures. A further 790 were excluded because they were performed by unknown or ineligible surgeons or were revised, leaving 8000 procedures performed by 235 eligible surgeons, including 4256 (53%; 3744 cases of missing data) patients who had postoperative Oxford Hip Scores and 4242 (53%; 3758 cases of missing data) patients who had a postoperative EQ-VAS score recorded. Complete covariate data were available for 3939 procedures for the Oxford Hip Score and for 3941 procedures for the EQ-VAS. A total of 26,624 TKAs were performed at eligible sites. We excluded 12,685 procedures that were not matched to the PROMs program, leaving 13,939 procedures. A further 920 were excluded because they were performed by unknown or ineligible surgeons, or because they were revisions, leaving 13,019 procedures performed by 276 eligible surgeons, including 6730 (52%; 6289 cases of missing data) patients who had had postoperative Oxford Knee Scores and 6728 (52%; 6291 cases of missing data) patients who had a postoperative EQ-VAS score recorded. Complete covariate data were available for 6228 procedures for the Oxford Knee Score and for 6241 procedures for the EQ-VAS. The Spearman correlation between the operating surgeon's 2-year CPR and 6-month postoperative EQ-VAS Health and Oxford Hip or Oxford Knee Score was evaluated for THA and TKA procedures where a revision had not been performed. Associations between postoperative Oxford and EQ-VAS scores and a surgeon's 2-year CPR were estimated based on multivariate Tobit regressions and a cumulative link model with a probit link, adjusting for patient age, gender, ASA score, BMI category, preoperative PROMs, as well as surgical approach for THA. Missing data were accounted for using multiple imputation, with models assuming they were missing at random and a worst-case scenario.

RESULTS

Of the eligible THA procedures, postoperative Oxford Hip Score and surgeon 2-year CPR were correlated so weakly as to be clinically irrelevant (Spearman correlation ρ = -0.09; p < 0.001), and the correlation with postoperative EQ-VAS was close to zero (ρ = -0.02; p = 0.25). Of the eligible TKA procedures, postoperative Oxford Knee Score and EQ-VAS and surgeon 2-year CPR were correlated so weakly as to be clinically irrelevant (ρ = -0.04; p = 0.004 and ρ = 0.03; p = 0.006, respectively). All models accounting for missing data found the same result.

CONCLUSION

A surgeon's 2-year CPR did not exhibit a clinically relevant correlation with PROMs after THA or TKA, and all surgeons had similar postoperative Oxford scores. PROMs, revision rates, or both may be inaccurate or imperfect indicators of successful arthroplasty. Missing data may limit the findings of this study, although the results were consistent under a variety of different missing data scenarios. Innumerable factors contribute to arthroplasty results, including patient-related variables, differences in implant design, and the technical quality of the procedure. PROMs and revision rates may be analyzing two different facets of function after arthroplasty. Although surgeon variables are associated with revision rates, patient factors may exert a stronger influence on functional outcomes. Future research should identify variables that correlate with functional outcome. Additionally, given the gross level of function that Oxford scores record, outcome measures that can identify clinically meaningful functional differences are required. The use of Oxford scores in national arthroplasty registries may rightfully be questioned.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

Item response theory assumptions were adequately met by the Oxford hip and knee scores

OBJECTIVES

To develop item response theory (IRT) models for the Oxford hip and knee scores which convert patient responses into continuous scores with quantifiable precision and provide these as web applications for efficient score conversion.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Data from the National Health Service patient-reported outcome measures program were used to test the assumptions of IRT (unidimensionality, monotonicity, local independence, and measurement invariance) before fitting models to preoperative response patterns obtained from patients undergoing primary elective hip or knee arthroplasty. The hip and knee datasets contained 321,147 and 355,249 patients, respectively.

RESULTS

Scree plots, Kaiser criterion analyses, and confirmatory factor analyses confirmed unidimensionality and Mokken analysis confirmed monotonicity of both scales. In each scale, all item pairs shared a residual correlation of ≤ 0.20. At the test level, both scales showed measurement invariance by age and gender. Both scales provide precise measurement in preoperative settings but demonstrate poorer precision and ceiling effects in postoperative settings.

CONCLUSION

We provide IRT parameters and web applications that can convert Oxford Hip Score or Oxford Knee Score response sets into continuous measurements and quantify individual measurement error. These can be used in sensitivity analyses or to administer truncated and individualized computerized adaptive tests.

Item response theory may account for unequal item weighting and individual-level measurement error in trials that use PROMs: a psychometric sensitivity analysis of the TOPKAT trial

OBJECTIVES

To apply item response theory as a framework for studying measurement error in superiority trials which use patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

METHODS

We reanalyzed data from the The Total or Partial Knee Arthroplasty Trial, which compared the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) responses of patients undergoing partial or total knee replacement, using traditional sum-scoring, after accounting for OKS item characteristics with expected a posteriori (EAP) scoring, and after accounting for individual-level measurement error with plausible value imputation (PVI). We compared the marginalized mean scores of each group at baseline, 2 months, and yearly for 5 years. We used registry data to estimate the minimal important difference (MID) of OKS scores with sum-scoring and EAP scoring.

RESULTS

With sum-scoring, we found statistically significant differences in mean OKS score at 2 months (P = 0.030) and 1 year (P = 0.030). EAP scores produced slightly different results, with statistically significant differences at 1 year (P = 0.041) and 3 years (P = 0.043). With PVI, there were no statistically significant differences.

CONCLUSION

Psychometric sensitivity analyses can be readily performed for superiority trials using PROMs and may aid the interpretation of results.

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

BACKGROUND

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

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

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

METHODS

The EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PubMed databases were systematically reviewed from inception through March 2022 for THA studies reporting an MCID value for any PROMs. Two independent authors reviewed articles for inclusion. All articles calculating new PROM MCID scores after primary THA were included for data extraction and analysis. MCID values for each PROM, MCID calculation method, number of patients, and study demographics were extracted from each article. In total, 30 articles were included. There were 45 unique PROMs for which 242 MCIDs were reported. These studies had a total of 1,000,874 patients with a median age of 64 years and median BMI of 28.7 kg/m 2 . Women made up 55% of patients in the total study population, and the median follow-up period was 12 months (range 0 to 77 months). The overall risk of bias was assessed as moderate using the modified Methodological Index for Nonrandomized Studies criteria for comparative studies (the mean score for comparative papers in this review was 18 of 24, with higher scores representing better study quality) and noncomparative studies (for these, the mean score was 10 of a possible 16 points, with higher scores representing higher study quality). Calculated values were classified as anchor-based, distribution-based, or not reported. MCID values for each PROM, MCID calculation method, number of patients, and study demographics were extracted from each study. Anchor-based and distribution-based MCIDs were compared for each unique PROM using a Wilcoxon rank sum test, given the non-normal distribution of values.

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

We recommend using a 9-point increase as the MCID for the OHS, consistent with the median reported anchor-based value derived from several high-quality studies with large patient groups that used anchor-based approaches for MCID calculations, which we believe are most appropriate for most applications in clinical research. Likewise, we recommend using the anchor-based 33-point and 25-point MCIDs for the HOOS Pain and Quality of Life subscores, respectively. We encourage using anchor-based MCID values of WOMAC Pain, Function, and Stiffness subscores, which were 29, 26, and 30, respectively.

Interpretation Threshold Values for the Oxford Hip Score in Patients Undergoing Total Hip Arthroplasty: Advancing Their Clinical Use

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcome measures such as the Oxford Hip Score (OHS) can capture patient-centered perspectives on outcomes after total hip arthroplasty (THA). The OHS assesses hip pain and functional limitations, but defining interpretation threshold values for the OHS is warranted so that numerical OHS values can be translated into whether patients have experienced clinically meaningful changes. Therefore, we determined the minimal important change (MIC), patient acceptable symptom state (PASS), and treatment failure (TF) threshold values for the OHS at 12 and 24-month follow-up in patients undergoing THA.

METHODS

This cohort study used data from patients undergoing THA at 1 public hospital between July 2016 and April 2021. At 12 and 24 months postoperatively, patients provided responses for the OHS and for 3 anchor questions about whether they had experienced changes in hip pain and function, whether they considered their symptom state to be satisfactory, and if it was not satisfactory, whether they considered the treatment to have failed. The anchor-based adjusted predictive modeling method was used to determine interpretation threshold values. Baseline dependency was evaluated using a new item-split method. Nonparametric bootstrapping was used to determine 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Complete data were obtained for 706 (69%) of 1,027 and 728 (66%) of 1,101 patients at 12 and 24 months postoperatively, respectively. These patients had a median age of 70 years, and 55% to 56% were female. Adjusted OHS MIC values were 6.3 (CI, 4.6 to 8.1) and 5.2 (CI, 3.6 to 6.7), adjusted OHS PASS values were 30.6 (CI, 29.0 to 32.2) and 30.5 (CI, 29.3 to 31.8), and adjusted OHS TF values were 25.5 (CI, 22.9 to 27.7) and 27.0 (CI, 25.2 to 28.8) at 12 and 24 months postoperatively, respectively. MIC values were 5.4 (CI, 2.1 to 9.1) and 5.0 (CI, 1.9 to 8.7) higher at 12 and 24 months, respectively, in patients with a more severe preoperative state.

CONCLUSIONS

The established interpretation threshold values advance the interpretation and clinical use of the OHS, and may prove especially beneficial for registry-based evaluations of treatment quality.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

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

A comparison of clinical thresholds for revision following total and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has higher revision rates than total knee arthroplasty (TKA). As revision of UKA may be less technically demanding than revision TKA, UKA patients with poor functional outcomes may be more likely to be offered revision than TKA patients with similar outcomes. The aim of this study was to compare clinical thresholds for revisions between TKA and UKA using revision incidence and patient-reported outcomes, in a large, matched cohort at early, mid-, and late-term follow-up. Analyses were performed on propensity score-matched patient cohorts of TKAs and UKAs (2:1) registered in the New Zealand Joint Registry between 1 January 1999 and 31 December 2019 with an Oxford Knee Score (OKS) response at six months (n, TKA: 16,774; UKA: 8,387), five years (TKA: 6,718; UKA: 3,359), or ten years (TKA: 3,486; UKA: 1,743). Associations between OKS and revision within two years following the score were examined. Thresholds were compared using receiver operating characteristic analysis. Reasons for aseptic revision were compared using cumulative incidence with competing risk. Fewer TKA patients with 'poor' outcomes (≤ 25) subsequently underwent revision compared with UKA at six months (5.1% vs 19.6%; p < 0.001), five years (4.3% vs 12.5%; p < 0.001), and ten years (6.4% vs 15.0%; p = 0.024). Compared with TKA, the relative risk for UKA was 2.5-times higher for 'unknown' reasons, bearing dislocations, and disease progression. Compared with TKA, more UKA patients with poor outcomes underwent revision from early to long-term follow-up, and were more likely to undergo revision for 'unknown' reasons, which suggest a lower clinical threshold for UKA. For UKA, revision risk was higher for bearing dislocations and disease progression. There is supporting evidence that the higher revision UKA rates are associated with lower clinical thresholds for revision and additional modes of failure.

Associations of the Oxford Knee Score and knee arthroplasty revision at long-term follow-up

BACKGROUND

Self-reported outcome measures are increasingly being collected for healthcare evaluation therefore it is prudent to understand their associations with patient outcomes. Our aims were to investigate: (1) if Oxford Knee Score (OKS) is associated with impending revision at long-term (5 and 10 years) follow-up, and (2) if decreased OKS at subsequent follow-ups is associated with higher risk of revision.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

All total knee (TKAs) and unicompartmental knee arthroplasties (UKAs) between 1999 and 2019 in the New Zealand Joint Registry with an OKS at 6 months (TKA n = 27 708, UKA n = 8415), 5 years (TKA n = 11 519, UKA n = 3365) or 10 years (TKA n = 6311, UKA n = 1744) were included. Logistic regression determined associations of the OKS with revision within 2 years of each score. Change in OKS between timepoints were compared with revision risk.

RESULTS

For every one-unit increase in OKS, the odds of TKA and UKA revision decreased by 10% and 11% at 6 months, 10% and 12% at 5 years and 9% and 5% at 10 years. For both procedures a decrease of seven or more OKS points from previous follow-up was associated with higher risk of revision (5 years: TKA 4.7% versus 0.5%, UKA 8.7% versus 0.9%; 10 years: TKA 4.4% versus 0.7%, UKA 11.3% versus 1.5%; all P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

The OKS had a strong negative association with risk of impending TKA and UKA revision from early to long-term (10+ years) follow-up. A decrease of seven or more points when compared with the previous follow-up was also associated with higher revision risk.

There are Considerable Inconsistencies Among Minimum Clinically Important Differences in TKA: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are frequently used to assess the impact of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) on patients. However, mere statistical comparison of PROMs is not sufficient to assess the value of TKA to the patient, especially given the risk profile of arthroplasty. Evaluation of treatment effect sizes is important to support the use of an intervention; this is often quantified with the minimum clinically important difference (MCID). MCIDs are unique to specific PROMs, as they vary by calculation methodology and study population. Therefore, a systematic review of calculated MCID values, their respective ranges, and assessment of their applications is important to guide and encourage their use as a critical measure of effect size in TKA outcomes research.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

In this systematic review of MCID calculations and reporting in primary TKA, we asked: (1) What are the most frequently reported PROM MCIDs and their reported ranges in TKA? (2) What proportion of studies report distribution- versus anchor-based MCID values? (3) What are the most common methods by which these MCID values are derived for anchor-based values? (4) What are the most common derivation methods for distribution-based values? (5) How do the reported medians and corresponding interquartile ranges (IQR) compare between calculation methods for each PROM?

METHODS

Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, a systematic review was conducted using the PubMed, EMBASE, and MEDLINE databases from inception through March 2022 for TKA articles reporting an MCID value for any PROMs. Two independent reviewers screened articles for eligibility, including any article that calculated new MCID values for PROMs after primary TKA, and extracted these data for analysis. Overall, 576 articles were identified, 38 of which were included in the final analysis. These studies had a total of 710,128 patients with a median age of 67.7 years and median BMI of 30.9 kg/m 2 . Women made up more than 50% of patients in most studies, and the median follow-up period was 17 months (range 0.25 to 72 months). The overall risk of bias was assessed as moderate using the Jadad criteria for one randomized controlled trial (3 of 5 ideal global score) and the modified Methodological Index for Non-randomized Studies criteria for comparative studies (mean 17.2 ± 1.8) and noncomparative studies (mean 9.6 ± 1.3). There were 49 unique PROMs for which 233 MCIDs were reported. Calculated values were classified as anchor-based, distribution-based, or not reported. MCID values for each PROM, MCID calculation method, number of patients, and study demographics were extracted from each study. Anchor-based and distribution-based MCIDs were compared for each unique PROM using a Wilcoxon rank sum test given non-normal distribution of values.

RESULTS

The WOMAC Function and Pain subscores were the most frequently reported MCID value, comprising 9% (22 of 233) and 9% (22 of 233), respectively. The composite Oxford Knee Score (OKS) was the next most frequently reported (9% [21 of 233]), followed by the WOMAC composite score (6% [13 of 233]). The median anchor-based values for WOMAC Function and Pain subscores were 23 (IQR 16 to 33) and 25 (IQR 14 to 31), while the median distribution-based values were 11 (IQR 10.8 to 11) and 22 (IQR 17 to 23), respectively. The median anchor-based MCID value for the OKS was 6 (IQR 4 to 7), while the distribution-based value was 7 (IQR 5 to 10). Thirty-nine percent (15 of 38) used an anchor-based method to calculate a new MCID, while 32% (12 of 38) used a distribution-based technique. Twenty-nine percent of studies (11 of 38) calculated MCID values using both methods. For studies reporting an anchor-based calculation method, a question assessing patient satisfaction, pain relief, or quality of life along a five-point Likert scale was the most commonly used anchor (40% [16 of 40]), followed by a receiver operating characteristic curve estimation (25% [10 of 40]). For studies using distribution-based calculations, all articles used a measure of study population variance in their derivation of the MCID, with the most common method reported as one-half the standard deviation of the difference between preoperative and postoperative PROM scores (45% [14 of 31]). Most reported median MCID values (15 of 19) did not differ by calculation method for each unique PROM (p > 0.05) apart from the WOMAC Function component score and the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Pain and Activities of Daily Living subscores.

CONCLUSION

Despite variability of MCIDs for each PROM, there is consistency in the methodology by which MCID values have been derived in published studies. Additionally, there is a consensus about MCID values regardless of calculation method across most of the PROMs we evaluated.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Given their importance to treatment selection and patient safety, authors and journals should report MCID values with greater consistency. We recommend using a 7-point increase as the MCID for the OKS, consistent with the median reported anchor-based value derived from several high-quality studies with large patient groups that used anchor-based approaches for MCID calculation, which we believe are most appropriate for most applications in clinical research. Likewise, we recommend using a 10-point to 15-point increase for the MCID of composite WOMAC, as the median value was 12 (IQR 10 to 17) with no difference between calculation methods. We recommend use of median reported values for WOMAC function and pain subscores: 21 (IQR 15 to 33) and 23 (IQR 13 to 29), respectively.

The impact of frailty on patient-reported outcomes following hip and knee arthroplasty

AIM

to determine the impact of frailty on patient-reported outcomes following hip and knee arthroplasty.

METHODS

we used linked primary and secondary care electronic health records. Frailty was assessed using the electronic frailty index (categorised: fit, mild, moderate, severe frailty). We determined the association between frailty category and post-operative Oxford hip/knee score (OHS/OKS) using Tobit regression. We calculated the proportion of patients in each frailty category who achieved the minimally important change (MIC) in OHS (≥8 points) and OKS (≥7 points) and the proportion who reported a successful outcome (hip/knee problems either 'much better' or 'a little better' following surgery).

RESULTS

About 42,512 people who had a hip arthroplasty and 49,208 who had a knee arthroplasty contributed data. In a Tobit model adjusted for pre-operative OHS/OKS, age, sex and quintile of index of multiple deprivation, increasing frailty was associated with decreasing post-operative OHS and OKS, respectively, β-coefficient (95% CI) in severely frail versus fit, -6.97 (-7.44, -6.49) and - 5.88 (-6.28, -5.47). The proportion of people who achieved the MIC in OHS and OKS, respectively, decreased from 92 and 86% among fit individuals to 84 and 78% among those with severe frailty. Patient-reported success following hip and knee arthroplasty, respectively, decreased from 97 and 93% among fit individuals to 90 and 83% among those with severe frailty.

CONCLUSION

frailty adversely impacts on patient-reported outcomes following hip and knee arthroplasty. However, even among those with severe frailty, the large majority achieved the MIC in OHS/OKS and reported a successful outcome.

No exponential rise in revision knee replacement surgery over the past 15 years: an analysis from the National Joint Registry

OBJECTIVE

To investigate trends in the incidence rate and the main indication for revision knee replacement (rKR) over the past 15 years in the UK.

METHOD

Repeated national cross-sectional study from 2006 to 2020 using data from the National Joint Registry (NJR). Crude incidence rates were calculated using population statistics from the Office for National Statistics.

RESULTS

Annual total counts of rKR increased from 2,743 procedures in 2006 to 6,819 procedures in 2019 (149% increase). The incidence rate of rKR increased from 6.3 per 100,000 adults in 2006 (95% CI 6.1 to 6.5) to 14 per 100,000 adults in 2019 (95% CI 14 to 14) (122% increase). Annual increases in the incidence rate of rKR became smaller over the study period. There was a 43.6% reduction in total rKR procedures in 2020 (during the Covid-19 pandemic) compared to 2019. Aseptic loosening was the most frequent indication for rKR overall (20.7% procedures). rKR for aseptic loosening peaked in 2012 and subsequently decreased. rKR for infection increased incrementally over the study period to become the most frequent indication in 2019 (2.7 per 100,000 adults [95% CI 2.6 to 2.9]). Infection accounted for 17.1% first linked rKR, 36.5% second linked rKR and 49.4% third or more linked rKR from 2014 to 2019.

CONCLUSIONS

Recent trends suggest slowing of the rate of increase in the incidence of rKR. Infection is now the most common indication for rKR, following recent decreases in rKR for aseptic loosening. Infection was prevalent in re-revision KR procedures.

Poor Knee-specific and Generic Patient-reported Outcome Measure Scores at 6 Months Are Associated With Early Revision Knee Arthroplasty: A Study From the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry

BACKGROUND

The ability to identify which patients are at a greater risk of early revision knee arthroplasty has important practical and resource implications. Many international arthroplasty registries administer patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to provide a holistic assessment of pain, function, and quality of life. However, few PROM scores have been evaluated as potential indicators of early revision knee arthroplasty, and earlier studies have largely focused on knee-specific measures.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

This national registry-based study asked: (1) Which 6-month postoperative knee-specific and generic PROM scores are associated with early revision knee arthroplasty (defined as revision surgery performed 6 to 24 months after the primary procedure)? (2) Is a clinically important improvement in PROM scores (based on thresholds for the minimal important change) after primary knee arthroplasty associated with a lower risk of early revision?

METHODS

Preoperative and 6-month postoperative PROM scores for patients undergoing primary knee arthroplasty were sourced from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) and Arthroplasty Clinical Outcomes Registry National. Between January 2013 and December 2020, PROM data were available for 19,402 primary total knee arthroplasties; these data were linked to AOANJRR data on revision knee arthroplasty. Of these, 3448 procedures were excluded because they did not have 6-month PROM data, they had not reached the 6-month postoperative point, they had died before 24 months, or they had received revision knee arthroplasty before the 6-month PROMs assessment. After these exclusions, data were analyzed for 15,954 primary knee arthroplasties. Associations between knee-specific (knee pain, Oxford Knee Score, and 12-item Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [KOOS-12]) or generic PROM scores (5-level EuroQol quality of life instrument [EQ-5D], EQ VAS, perceived change, and satisfaction) and revision surgery were explored using t-tests, chi-square tests, and regression models. Ninety-four revision procedures were performed at 6 to 24 months, most commonly for infection (39% [37 procedures]). The early revision group was younger than the unrevised group (mean age 64 years versus 68 years) and a between-group difference in American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade was noted. Apart from a small difference in preoperative low back pain for the early revision group (mean low back pain VAS 4.2 points for the early revision group versus 3.3 points for the unrevised group), there were no between-group differences in preoperative knee-specific or generic PROM scores on univariate analysis. As the inclusion of ASA grade or low back pain score did not alter the model results, the final multivariable model included only the most clinically plausible confounders (age and gender) as covariates. Multivariable models (adjusting for age and gender) were also used to examine the association between a clinically important improvement in PROM scores (based on published thresholds for minimal important change) and the likelihood of early revision.

RESULTS

After adjusting for age and gender, poor postoperative knee pain, Oxford, KOOS-12, EQ-5D, and EQ VAS scores were all associated with early revision. A one-unit increase (worsening) in knee pain at 6 months was associated with a 31% increase in the likelihood of revision (RR 1.31 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 1.43]; p < 0.001). Reflecting the reversed scoring direction, a one-unit increase (improvement) in Oxford or KOOS-12 score was associated with a 9% and 5% reduction in revision risk, respectively (RR for Oxford: 0.91 [95% CI 0.90 to 0.93]; p < 0.001; RR for KOOS-12 summary: 0.95 [95% CI 0.94 to 0.97]; p < 0.001). Patient dissatisfaction (RR 6.8 [95% CI 3.7 to 12.3]) and patient-perceived worsening (RR 11.7 [95% CI 7.4 to 18.5]) at 6 months were also associated with an increased likelihood of early revision. After adjusting for age and gender, patients who did not achieve a clinically important improvement in PROM scores had a higher risk of early revision (RR 2.9 for the knee pain VAS, RR 4.2 for the Oxford Knee Score, RR 6.3 to 8.6 for KOOS-12, and RR 2.3 for EQ-5D) compared with those who did (reference group).

CONCLUSION

Knee-specific and generic PROM scores offer an efficient approach to identifying patients at greater risk of early revision surgery, using either the 6-month score or the magnitude of improvement. These data indicate that surgeons can use single- and multi-item measures to detect a patient-perceived unsuccessful surgical outcome at 6 months after primary knee arthroplasty. Surgeons should be alert to poor PROM scores at 6 months or small improvements in scores (for example, less than 2 points for knee pain VAS or less than 10.5 points for Oxford Knee Score), which signal a need for direct patient follow-up or expedited clinical review.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

How do Patient-reported Outcome Scores in International Hip and Knee Arthroplasty Registries Compare?

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are the only systematic approach through which the patient's perspective can be considered by surgeons (in determining a procedure's efficacy or appropriateness) or healthcare systems (in the context of value-based healthcare). PROMs in registries enable international comparison of patient-centered outcomes after total joint arthroplasty, but the extent to which those scores may vary between different registry populations has not been clearly defined.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) To what degree do mean change in general and joint-specific PROM scores vary across arthroplasty registries, and to what degree is the proportion of missing PROM scores in an individual registry associated with differences in the mean reported change scores? (2) Do PROM scores vary with patient BMI across registries? (3) Are comorbidity levels comparable across registries, and are they associated with differences in PROM scores?

METHODS

Thirteen national, regional, or institutional registries from nine countries reported aggregate PROM scores for patients who had completed PROMs preoperatively and 6 and/or 12 months postoperatively. The requested aggregate PROM scores were the EuroQol-5 Dimension Questionnaire (EQ-5D) index values, on which score 1 reflects "full health" and 0 reflects "as bad as death." Joint-specific PROMs were the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and the Oxford Hip Score (OHS), with total scores ranging from 0 to 48 (worst-best), and the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Physical Function shortform (HOOS-PS) and the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Physical Function shortform (KOOS-PS) values, scored 0 to 100 (worst-best). Eligible patients underwent primary unilateral THA or TKA for osteoarthritis between 2016 and 2019. Registries were asked to exclude patients with subsequent revisions within their PROM collection period. Raw aggregated PROM scores and scores adjusted for age, gender, and baseline values were inspected descriptively. Across all registries and PROMs, the reported percentage of missing PROM data varied from 9% (119 of 1354) to 97% (5305 of 5445). We therefore graphically explored whether PROM scores were associated with the level of data completeness. For each PROM cohort, chi-square tests were performed for BMI distributions across registries and 12 predefined PROM strata (men versus women; age 20 to 64 years, 65 to 74 years, and older than 75 years; and high or low preoperative PROM scores). Comorbidity distributions were evaluated descriptively by comparing proportions with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status classification of 3 or higher across registries for each PROM cohort.

RESULTS

The mean improvement in EQ-5D index values (10 registries) ranged from 0.16 to 0.33 for hip registries and 0.12 to 0.25 for knee registries. The mean improvement in the OHS (seven registries) ranged from 18 to 24, and for the HOOS-PS (three registries) it ranged from 29 to 35. The mean improvement in the OKS (six registries) ranged from 15 to 20, and for the KOOS-PS (four registries) it ranged from 19 to 23. For all PROMs, variation was smaller when adjusting the scores for differences in age, gender, and baseline values. After we compared the registries, there did not seem to be any association between the level of missing PROM data and the mean change in PROM scores. The proportions of patients with BMI 30 kg/m 2 or higher ranged from 16% to 43% (11 hip registries) and from 35% to 62% (10 knee registries). Distributions of patients across six BMI categories differed across hip and knee registries. Further, for all PROMs, distributions also differed across 12 predefined PROM strata. For the EQ-5D, patients in the younger age groups (20 to 64 years and 65 to 74 years) had higher proportions of BMI measurements greater than 30 kg/m 2 than older patients, and patients with the lowest baseline scores had higher proportions of BMI measurements more than 30 kg/m 2 compared with patients with higher baseline scores. These associations were similar for the OHS and OKS cohorts. The proportions of patients with ASA Class at least 3 ranged across registries from 6% to 35% (eight hip registries) and from 9% to 42% (nine knee registries).

CONCLUSION

Improvements in PROM scores varied among international registries, which may be partially explained by differences in age, gender, and preoperative scores. Higher BMI tended to be associated with lower preoperative PROM scores across registries. Large variation in BMI and comorbidity distributions across registries suggest that future international studies should consider the effect of adjusting for these factors. Although we were not able to evaluate its effect specifically, missing PROM data is a recurring challenge for registries. Demonstrating generalizability of results and evaluating the degree of response bias is crucial in using registry-based PROMs data to evaluate differences in outcome. Comparability between registries in terms of specific PROMs collection, postoperative timepoints, and demographic factors to enable confounder adjustment is necessary to use comparison between registries to inform and improve arthroplasty care internationally.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

Interpretation threshold values for the Oxford Knee Score in patients undergoing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Developing meaningful thresholds for the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) advances its clinical use. We determined the minimal important change (MIC), patient acceptable symptom state (PASS), and treatment failure (TF) values as meaningful thresholds for the OKS at 3-, 12-, and 24-month follow-up in patients undergoing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This is a cohort study with data from patients undergoing UKA collected at a hospital in Denmark between February 2016 and September 2021. The OKS was completed preoperatively and at 3, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. Interpretation threshold values were calculated with the anchor-based adjusted predictive modeling method. Non-parametric bootstrapping was used to derive 95% confidence intervals (CI).

RESULTS

Complete 3-, 12-, and 24-month postoperative data was obtained for 331 of 423 (78%), 340 of 479 (71%), and 235 of 338 (70%) patients, median age of 68-69 years (58-59% females). Adjusted OKS MIC values were 4.7 (CI 3.3-6.0), 7.1 (CI 5.2-8.6), and 5.4 (CI 3.4- 7.3), adjusted OKS PASS values were 28.9 (CI 27.6-30.3), 32.7 (CI 31.5-33.9), and 31.3 (CI 29.1-33.3), and adjusted OKS TF values were 24.4 (CI 20.7-27.4), 29.3 (CI 27.3-31.1), and 28.5 (CI 26.0-30.5) at 3, 12, and 24 months postoperatively, respectively. All values statistically significantly increased from 3 to 12 months but not from 12 to 24 months.

INTERPRETATION

The UKA-specific measurement properties and clinical thresholds for the OKS can improve the interpretation of UKA outcome and assist quality assessment in institutional and national registries.

Early patient-reported outcomes from primary hip and knee arthroplasty have improved over the past seven years : an analysis of the NHS PROMs dataset

AIMS

Routinely collected patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have been useful to quantify and quality-assess provision of total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in the UK for the past decade. This study aimed to explore whether the outcome following primary THA and TKA had improved over the past seven years.

METHODS

Secondary data analysis of 277,430 primary THAs and 308,007 primary TKAs from the NHS PROMs programme was undertaken. Outcome measures were: postoperative Oxford Hip/Knee Score (OHS/OKS); proportion of patients achieving a clinically important improvement in joint function (responders); quality of life; patient satisfaction; perceived success; and complication rates. Outcome measures were compared based on year of surgery using multiple linear and logistic regression models.

RESULTS

For primary THA, multiple linear regression modelling found that more recent year of surgery was associated with higher postoperative OHS (unstandardized coefficient (B) 0.15 points (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 0.17); p < 0.001) and higher EuroQol five-dimension index (EQ-5D) utility (B 0.002 (95% CI 0.001 to 0.002); p < 0.001). The odds of being a responder (odds ratio (OR) 1.02 (95% CI 1.02 to 1.03); p < 0.001) and patient satisfaction (OR 1.02 (95% CI 1.01 to 1.03); p < 0.001) increased with year of surgery, while the odds of any complication reduced (OR 0.97 (95% CI 0.97 to 0.98); p < 0.001). No trend was found for perceived success (p = 0.555). For primary TKA, multiple linear regression modelling found that more recent year of surgery was associated with higher postoperative OKS (B 0.21 points (95% CI 0.19 to 0.22); p < 0.001) and higher EQ-5D utility (B 0.002 (95% CI 0.002 to 0.003); p < 0.001). The odds of being a responder (OR 1.04 (95% CI 1.03 to 1.04); p < 0.001), perceived success (OR 1.02 (95% CI 1.01 to 1.02); p < 0.001), and patient satisfaction (OR 1.02 (95% CI 1.01 to 1.02); p < 0.001) all increased with year of surgery, while the odds of any complication reduced (OR 0.97 (95% CI 0.97 to 0.97); p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Nearly all patient-reported outcomes following primary THA/TKA improved by a small amount over the past seven years. Due to the high proportion of patients achieving good outcomes, PROMs following THA and TKA may need to focus on better discrimination of patients achieving high scores to be able to continue to measure improvement in outcomes. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(6):687-695.

Between-hospital and between-surgeon variation in thresholds for hip and knee replacement

BACKGROUND

Total hip replacement (THR) and total knee replacement (TKR) are cost-effective interventions to reduce pain and disability associated with osteoarthritis, however there is no clear guidelines available to determine appropriate patient selection and the timing of surgery. This prospective cohort study aimed to evaluate the hospital- and surgeon-level variation in the severity of patient-reported symptoms prior to THR and TKR.

METHODS

Patients undergoing primary THR (n = 4330) or TKR (n = 7054) for osteoarthritis who participated in a national registry-led Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) pilot program were included in the analysis. Pre-operative Oxford Hip Score (OHS) and Oxford Knee Score (OKS) (range 0-48; representing worst to best hip/knee pain and function) data were examined for variation between private and public hospitals and between surgeons using linear mixed models.

RESULTS

Pre-operative mean OHS was significantly higher (better) in patients whose surgery was performed in a private hospital compared to public hospitals; 21.39 versus 18.11 (mean difference 3.27, 95% CI 1.75, 4.79). For OKS, the difference between private hospital and public hospital scores was dependent on BMI and gender. Most of the variation in pre-operative OHS and OKS was not at the individual hospital- or surgeon-level, which explained only a negligible proportion of the model variance (⟨5%) for THR and TKR.

CONCLUSION

Apart from a difference between private and public hospitals, there was little between-hospital or between-surgeon symptom variation in joint-specific pain and function prior to THR or TKR. The findings suggest consistency in the surgical thresholds for patients being offered hip and knee joint replacement procedures.

Excellent and Good Results Treating Stiffness with Early and Late Manipulation after Unrestricted Caliper-Verified Kinematically Aligned TKA

Manipulation under anesthesia (MUA) for stiffness within 6 to 12 weeks after mechanically aligned total knee arthroplasty (TKA) generally yields better outcome scores than an MUA performed later. However, the timing of MUA after unrestricted, caliper-verified, kinematically aligned (KA) TKA remains uncertain. A retrospective review identified 82 of 3558 (2.3%) KA TKA patients treated with an MUA between 2010 and 2017. Thirty patients treated with an MUA within 3 months of the TKA (i.e., early) and 24 in the late group (i.e., >3 months) returned a questionnaire after a mean of 6 years and 5 years, respectively. Mean outcome scores for the early vs. late group were 78 vs. 62 for the Forgotten Joint Score (FJS) (p = 0.023) and 42 vs. 39 for the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) (p = 0.037). Subjectively, the early vs. late group responses indicated that 83% vs. 67% walked without a limp, 73% vs. 54% had normal extension, and 43% vs. 25% had normal flexion. An MUA within 3 months after unrestricted KA TKA provided excellent FJS and OKS at final follow-up relative to a late MUA. A late MUA performed after 3 months is worth consideration because of the good FJS and OKS scores, albeit with a risk of a persistent limp and limitation in knee extension and flexion.

The association between pre-operative patient-reported health status and post-operative survey completion following arthroplasty: a registry-based cohort study. (Preprint)

Background

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are commonly used to report outcomes after hip and knee arthroplasty, but response rates are rarely complete. Given that preoperative health status (as measured by PROMs) is a strong predictor of outcomes (using the same measures) and that these outcomes may influence the response rate, it is possible that postoperative response rates (the proportion of patients providing preoperative PROMs who also provide postoperative PROMs) may be influenced by preoperative health status.

Objective

This study aims to test the association between preoperative PROMs and postoperative response status following hip and knee arthroplasty.

Methods

Data from the PROMs program of the Australian national joint registry were used. The preoperative PROMs were the Oxford Hip Score or Oxford Knee Score, The EQ-5D Utility Index, and the EQ visual analog scale (VAS) for overall health. Logistic regression, adjusting for age, sex, BMI, and the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Physical Status Classification System, was used to test the association between each preoperative PROM and response status for the 6-month postsurgery survey.

Results

Data from 9499 and 16,539 patients undergoing elective total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) for osteoarthritis, respectively, were included in the analysis. Adjusting for age, sex, BMI, and ASA, there was no significant difference in response status at the postoperative follow-up based on the preoperative Oxford Hip or Knee Scores (odds ratio [OR] 1.00, 95% CI 0.99-1.01 for both; P=.70 for THA and P=.85 for TKA). Healthier patients (based on the EQ VAS scores) preoperatively were more likely to respond postoperatively, but this difference was negligible (OR 1.00, 95% CI 1.00-1.01 for THA and TKA; P=.004 for THA and P<.001 for TKA). The preoperative EQ Utility Index was not associated with the postoperative response rate for THA (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.96-1.36; P=.13) or TKA patients (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.91-1.22; P=.49).

Conclusions

The likelihood of responding to a postoperative PROMs survey for patients undergoing hip or knee arthroplasty was not associated with clinically important differences in preoperative patient-reported joint pain, function, or health-related quality of life. This suggests that the assessment of postoperative outcomes in hip and knee arthroplasty is not biased by differences in preoperative health measures between responders and nonresponders.