Selecting, assessing and interpreting measures of function for patients with severe hip pathology: The need for caution

Same but Different? Exploring the Role of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures and Clinician-Reported Outcome Measures in Postoperative Knee and Hip Arthroplasty Rehabilitation

Background/Objectives: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and clinician-reported outcome measures (CROMs) are used in orthopaedic rehabilitation to evaluate patients' health status and recovery. However, controversy still exists regarding their relevance and validity. This evaluation was conducted to assess the effectiveness and role of PROMs and CROMs in the orthopaedic rehabilitation outcome of patients who have undergone either total knee arthroplasty or hip arthroplasty. Methods: Outcome measures of 409 patients (68.3 ± 9.3 years; 34.2% male) with total knee arthroplasty and 308 patients (68.1 ± 10.6 years; 36.3% male) with total hip arthroplasty (control group) were assessed at baseline and after 21 days of inpatient rehabilitation. Effect sizes and correlations were analysed as they related to the use of PROMs and CROMs. To reduce statistical distortions caused by ceiling effects, we used a performance score (T2D) relying on two scores taken at the beginning and end of rehabilitation. Results: Large effect sizes (d > 0.97) for CROMs and medium effect sizes (d ≥ 0.65) for PROMs were observed in both groups. The standardised mean difference across all outcomes was 0.83 ± 0.59. PROMs worsened in 13.1% of all patients, while almost no patients showed a deterioration in CROMs. Correlations were highest between the Timed Up and Go and the Health Assessment Questionnaire scores (ρ > 0.45). Conclusions: Different and complementary assessment modalities of PROMs and CROMs serve as valuable clinical tools, providing a valid basis for interpreting patients' health outcomes.

Psychometric Assessment of Modified Harris Hip Score for Femoral Neck Fracture in Indian Population

BACKGROUND

Objective of the study was to evaluate and compare psychometric properties such as validity, reliability, floor ceiling effects and interpretability of the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) and the Forgotten Joint Score (FJS) in patients undergoing bipolar hemiarthroplasty for femoral neck fracture in Indian patients, because this has not been done before.

METHODS

This observational study consisted of 40 consecutively operated patients. Construct validity and reliability were evaluated using correlation coefficient and Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), respectively. Interpretability was evaluated by describing mean and standard deviation of mHHS and FJS in five subgroups of patients based on their response to the global rating questions and assessment.

RESULTS

The mean follow-up duration was 15.7 months ± 10.4. There was very high correlation between mHHS and FJS (r = 0.92, p < 0.0001) suggesting convergent construct validity. The results of correlation coefficient were 100% and 66.7% in accordance with the pre-formulated hypotheses for mHHS and FJS, respectively. mHHS and FJS demonstrated adequate construct validity and inadequate construct validity, respectively. The ICC value for mHHS and FJS was 0.80 (p = 0.005) {adequate reliability} and 0.34 (p = 0.06) {inadequate reliability}, respectively. Both mHHS and FJS-12 demonstrated acceptable level of floor (0% for mHHS and 14.3% for FJS) and ceiling effects (12.5% for both mHHS and FJS). There was significant difference in the mHHS and FJS in the five subgroups of patients suggesting adequate interpretability.

CONCLUSION

We recommend the use of the modified Harris Hip Score over the Forgotten Joint Score for functional outcome evaluation of Indian patients from rural setting undergoing bipolar hemiarthroplasty for femoral neck fracture.

Variability in long-term pain and function trajectories after total knee replacement: A cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Previous research suggests that patient-reported outcomes plateau by one year after total knee replacement (TKR). Analysis of trajectories to date has predominately been based on changes in median/mean scores over the first post-operative year, rather than variability in trajectory patterns over the longer-term. The aim was to evaluate variability in long-term pain and function trajectories after TKR.

HYPOTHESIS

There will be variability in long-term pain and function trajectories after TKR.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In all, 266 patients undergoing a Triathlon® TKR because of osteoarthritis were recruited from one orthopaedic centre. Participants completed the WOMAC Pain and Function scales preoperatively and then at 3 months, 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, 5 years and 7 years post-operative. Longitudinal analyses evaluated patterns of clinically meaningful change.

RESULTS

Most patients had an improvement in pain and function during the first year post-operative; improvement was greatest in the first 3 months. By 1-year post-operative, 8% of patients had no change or a worsening of pain and 21% for function. Thereafter, approximately 15% of patients improved and 15% worsened between each assessment time. For those patients who had no change in symptoms from pre-operative to 1-year post-operative, one third had further improvement between 1 and 2 years post-operative.

DISCUSSION

This study identified clinically meaningful variability in long-term outcomes after TKR, which could be discussed with patients to ensure they have realistic expectations of their outcome. Further research is needed to evaluate determinants of this variability and whether patients who will do poorly can be identified early in their recovery pathway.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV, prospective cohort study.