Is the Patient Outcomes Of Surgery (POS)-Hand/Arm questionnaire a reliable, valid and responsive measurement of patient-based outcomes in hand and upper limb surgery?

Understanding the patient profile and health-related quality of life in patients presenting for hand surgery

The aim of this descriptive epidemiological study of patients, referred to and selected for surgery at a UK tertiary hand centre, was to investigate patterns of common hand disorders and their impact on those individuals. A prospective collection of patient-reported outcome scores was carried out in patients before operation using the Patient Outcomes of Surgery Hand/Arm and the Euro-Qol 5 dimension three-level measures. Patient participation was voluntary and data collected over a 4-year period are discussed. Patient-reported outcome scores were calculated using appropriate algorithms. The results show correlation between the number of comorbidities and both symptoms and activity domains of the Patient Outcomes of Surgery Hand/Arm; higher symptom scores were seen in women. There was no increase in scores for older patients or those from more deprived areas. Population-based research using recognized patient-reported outcome measurement tools could aid future health service planning. Level of evidence: IV.

Global doctor opinion versus a patient questionnaire for the outcome assessment of treated temporomandibular disorder patients

PURPOSE

Accurately assessing treatment outcomes has become increasingly important for maintaining hospital privileges. When these assessments are based on the judgment of the treating doctor, there is often an inherent positive bias. As a result, there has been increased interest in using patient-based assessments. The purpose of this study was to compare doctor's and patient's assessments of the outcomes of treatment in a series of patients with various temporomandibular disorders (TMDs).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Fifty-two consecutive TMD patients were initially given a questionnaire designed to evaluate their pain, problems eating and sleeping, the occurrence of headache and earache, the presence of temporomandibular joint pain and/or jaw stiffness in the morning, and interference with daily activity. The patients then filled out the same questionnaire at each post-treatment visit, and the findings were compared with the baseline information. At each visit, the treating doctor also recorded a global evaluation of the patient's progress as excellent, good, fair, or poor.

RESULTS

Comparison of the doctor's global evaluation with the patient's evaluation based on the questionnaire showed a discrepancy in 44% of the cases. When there was a discrepancy, the doctor scored the improvement better than the patient 54.5% of the time and worse than the patient 45.5% of the time.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study confirm the unreliability of using a global opinion by the treating doctor for outcome assessment in patients with various TMDs.

Comparison of trapeziectomy and trapeziectomy with ligament reconstruction and tendon interposition: a systematic literature review

BACKGROUND

Trapeziectomy with ligament reconstruction and tendon interposition is currently the most popular technique for operative treatment of trapeziometacarpal osteoarthritis. Based on the evidence, however, it is uncertain whether the addition of ligament reconstruction and tendon interposition to trapeziectomy confers any advantage. The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature and determine which procedure, trapeziectomy or trapeziectomy with ligament reconstruction and tendon interposition, offers the best results to patients.

METHODS

A literature search was undertaken of the following electronic databases: Cochrane, AMED, EMBASE, HaPI, HealthSTAR, MEDLINE, TRIP, and Proceedings First (2002 to 2009). Studies were selected by two independent assessors if (1) the study population included patients with trapeziometacarpal osteoarthritis and (2) the study was a randomized controlled trial or systematic review comparing the two procedures. Objective (i.e., range of motion, grip strength, pinch strength, health cost, and postoperative complications) and subjective (i.e., pain relief, hand function, overall satisfaction, and quality of life) outcomes were extracted. Statistical pooling and power analyses were performed with available data.

RESULTS

Two systematic reviews and four randomized controlled trials were identified and included. There were no statistically significant differences in postoperative grip strength (p = 0.77); tip pinch strength (p = 0.72); key pinch strength (p = 0.90); pain visual analogue scale score (p = 0.34); Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand score (p = 0.75); and number of adverse events (p = 0.13). No studies reported health costs or quality of life.

CONCLUSION

Neither procedure produced greater benefit in terms of outcomes investigated.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, II.(Figure is included in full-text article.).