Recall of preoperative Oxford Hip and Knee Scores one year after arthroplasty is an alternative and reliable technique when used for a cohort of patients

Hip Arthroscopy Improves Sexual Function in Receptive Partners with Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome

BACKGROUND

Hip pain due to femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) is thought to adversely impact sexual satisfaction because of exacerbation of symptoms with hip ROM. However, the effect of FAI on sexual satisfaction and improvement after surgery to treat FAI is largely absent from published studies, despite patients' apparent interest in it as registered by the frequent appearance of these topics on online anonymous discussion platforms. In addition, details regarding its impact on the decision to pursue surgery and the success of hip arthroscopy in alleviating FAI-related sexual dysfunction based on the specific role assumed during intercourse (penetrative versus receptive) remains unknown.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

Given that sexual intercourse involves different amounts of hip ROM depending on whether patients assume the penetrative or receptive role, this study evaluated the effect of FAI and hip arthroscopy on sexual activity based on role. Compared with patients who participate in the penetrative role during sexual intercourse, do patients who participate in the receptive role (1) experience greater difficulty with sexual function because of FAI symptoms, (2) take longer to return to sexual intercourse after hip arthroscopy, and (3) experience greater improvements in reported sexual function after hip arthroscopy for FAI?

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for FAI. Between January 2017 and December 2021, 293 patients were treated with hip arthroscopy for FAI and enrolled in our longitudinally maintained database. Among all patients treated surgically, 184 patients were determined to be potentially eligible for study inclusion based on a minimum follow-up of 6 months postoperatively. The 6-month timepoint was chosen based on published data suggesting that at this timepoint, nearly 100% of patients resumed sexual intercourse with minimal pain after hip arthroscopy. Of the potentially eligible patients, 33% (61 patients) could not be contacted by telephone to obtain verbal consent for participation and 9% (17 patients) declined participation, leaving 106 eligible patients. Electronic questionnaires were sent to all eligible patients and were returned by 58% (61 patients). Forty-two percent of eligible patients (45) did not respond to the questionnaire and were therefore excluded from the analysis. Two percent (2) completed most survey questions but did not specify their role during intercourse and were therefore excluded. The mean age of included patients was 34 ± 9 years, and 56% were women The mean follow-up time was 2 ± 1 years. In total, 63% of included patients reported participating in the receptive role during sexual intercourse (49% receptive only and 14% both receptive and penetrative). Hip symptoms during sexual intercourse preoperatively and postoperatively were evaluated using a questionnaire created by our team to answer our study questions, drawing from one of the only published studies on the matter and combining the questionnaire with sexual position-specific questions garnered from arthroplasty research. Patients who reported participating in the receptive role during intercourse (either exclusively or in addition to the penetrative role) were compared with those who participated exclusively in the penetrative role. There were no specific postoperative recommendations in terms of the timing of return to sexual intercourse, other than to resume when comfortable.

RESULTS

Overall, 61% of patients (36 of 59) reported that hip pain somewhat or greatly interfered with sexual intercourse preoperatively. Patients who participated in receptive intercourse were more likely to experience preoperative hip pain that interfered with intercourse than patients who participated exclusively in penetrative intercourse (odds ratio 5 [95% confidence interval 2 to 15]; p = <0.001). Postoperatively, there was no difference in time until return to sexual activity between those in the penetrative group (median 6 weeks [range 2 to 14 weeks]) and those in the receptive group (median 6 weeks [range 4 to 14 weeks]; p = 0.28). Postoperatively, a greater number of patients participating in the penetrative role reported no or very little pain, compared with patients participating in the receptive role (67% [14 of 21] versus 49% [17 of 35]). However, with regard to preoperative to postoperative improvement, patients who participated in the receptive role had greater pain with positions involving more hip flexion and abduction and experienced a greater improvement than their penetrative counterparts in these positions postoperatively. Despite this improvement, however, 33% of patients (7 of 21) participating in the penetrative role and 51% of patients (18 of 35) participating in the receptive role continued to report either some or a great amount of pain at final follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Hip pain secondary to FAI interferes with sexual relations, particularly for partners who participate in the receptive role. Postoperatively, both patients participating in receptive and penetrative intercourse resumed sexual intercourse at a median of 6 weeks. After hip arthroscopy, the greatest improvement in pain was seen in receptive partners during sexual positions that involved more hip flexion and abduction. Despite this improvement, most patients, regardless of sexual role assumed, reported some degree of residual pain. Patients planning to undergo arthroscopic surgery for FAI, particularly those who participate in receptive intercourse, should be appropriately counseled about reasonable postoperative expectations based on our findings.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

Do Patients Accurately Recall Their Preoperative Symptoms After Elective Orthopedic Procedures?

Patient-reported outcome measures are a frequent tool used to assess orthopedic surgical outcomes. However, recall bias is a potential limitation of these tools when used retrospectively, as they rely on patients to accurately recall their preoperative symptoms. A database search of Cochrane Library, PubMed, Medline Ovid, and Scopus until May 2021 was completed in duplicate by two reviewers. Studies considered eligible for inclusion were those which reported on patient recall bias associated with orthopedic surgery. The primary outcome of interest investigated was the accuracy of patient recollection of preoperative health status. Any factors that were identified as affecting patient recall were secondary outcomes of interest. Of the 4,065 studies initially screened, 20 studies with 3,454 patients were included in the final analysis. Overall, there were 2,371 (69%) knee and hip patients, 422 (12%) shoulder patients, 370 (11%) spine patients, 208 (6%) other upper extremity patients, and 83 (2%) foot and ankle patients. Out of the eight studies that evaluated patient recall within three months postoperatively, seven studies concluded that patient recall is accurate. Out of the 13 studies that evaluated patient recall beyond three months postoperatively, nine studies concluded that patient recall is inaccurate. The accuracy of patient recall of preoperative symptoms after elective orthopedic procedures is not reliable beyond three months postoperatively.

High recall bias in retrospective assessment of the pediatric International Knee Documentation Committee Questionnaire (Pedi-IKDC) in children with knee pathologies

PURPOSE

The increasing incidence of knee injuries among children is well known by sports physicians. Papers dealing with this topic have often collected patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) in a retrospective manner; this limitation could lead to a misinterpretation of the results, because pediatric patients might not remember their preoperative conditions adequately. This study aims to evaluate the reliability and the reproducibility of the IKDC pediatric score when administered retrospectively at a 12-month follow-up.

METHODS

From September 2018 and June 2019, all patients aged 7-18 scheduled for surgery due to different knee pathologies in a single center were considered eligible. Parents were contacted by phone for consent. An open-source platform was implemented to collect the responses: two surveys were created (Q1, Q2). They included general information and the Pedi-IKDC score. Q1 was completed prospectively, while Q2 was completed 12 months after surgery. The two questionnaires were identical, and patients were carefully advised to complete Q2 recalling their health status before surgery. ICC and the concordance correlation coefficient (ρ_c) were used to assess the reproducibility between the prospective and recalled scores.

RESULTS

Sixty-six patients responded to Q1 and Q2, and the mean age was 12.9 ± 2.2 years at Q1 and 14.1 ± 2.2 years at Q2. The mean time between Q1 and Q2 was 14.1 ± 2.1 months. Between prospective-IKDC and recall-IKDC, the ICC coefficient was "poor" at 0.32 (CI 0.09 to 0.5) and the ρ_c was "poor" at 0.4 (CI 0.29 to 0.51). Mean prospective-IKDC was 76.8 ± 23.52 mean recalled-IKDC was 60.4 ± 11.5 (P < 0.0001), while mean difference was -16.3 ± 2.09. Simple linear regression models showed that Δ-IKDC is independently associated with age at Q1 (R² = 0.2676; P0.0001)  and prospective-IKDC (R² = 0.653; P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Retrospective collection of the Pedi-IKDC score is not reliable and has high recall bias. This should be avoided in children with knee conditions.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Mapping analysis to predict the associated EuroQol five-dimension three-level utility values from the Oxford Knee Score : a prediction and validation study

Aims

The aims of this study were to assess mapping models to predict the three-level version of EuroQoL five-dimension utility index (EQ-5D-3L) from the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and validate these before and after total knee arthroplasty (TKA).

Methods

A retrospective cohort of 5,857 patients was used to create the prediction models, and a second cohort of 721 patients from a different centre was used to validate the models, all of whom underwent TKA. Patient characteristics, BMI, OKS, and EQ-5D-3L were collected preoperatively and one year postoperatively. Generalized linear regression was used to formulate the prediction models.

Results

There were significant correlations between the OKS and EQ-5D-3L preoperatively (r = 0.68; p < 0.001) and postoperatively (r = 0.77; p < 0.001) and for the change in the scores (r = 0.61; p < 0.001). Three different models (preoperative, postoperative, and change) were created. There were no significant differences between the actual and predicted mean EQ-5D-3L utilities at any timepoint or for change in the scores (p > 0.090) in the validation cohort. There was a significant correlation between the actual and predicted EQ-5D-3L utilities preoperatively (r = 0.63; p < 0.001) and postoperatively (r = 0.77; p < 0.001) and for the change in the scores (r = 0.56; p < 0.001). Bland-Altman plots demonstrated that a lower utility was overestimated, and higher utility was underestimated. The individual predicted EQ-5D-3L that was within ± 0.05 and ± 0.010 (minimal clinically important difference (MCID)) of the actual EQ-5D-3L varied between 13% to 35% and 26% to 64%, respectively, according to timepoint assessed and change in the scores, but was not significantly different between the modelling and validation cohorts (p ≥ 0.148).

Conclusion

The OKS can be used to estimate EQ-5D-3L. Predicted individual patient utility error beyond the MCID varied from one-third to two-thirds depending on timepoint assessed, but the mean for a cohort did not differ and could be employed for this purpose.

Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(7):573–581.

Patient Preferences for Surgical Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis: A Discrete-Choice Experiment Evaluating Total and Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a common treatment for end-stage knee osteoarthritis but is associated with increased complication rates compared with unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). UKA offers better functional outcomes but is associated with a higher risk of revision. The purpose of this study was to apply good-practice, stated-preference methods to quantify patient preferences for benefit-risk tradeoffs associated with arthroplasty treatments for end-stage knee osteoarthritis.

METHODS

A discrete-choice experiment was developed with the following attributes: chance of complications, functional ability, awareness of the knee implant, and chance of needing another operation within 10 years. Patients included those aged 40 to 80 years with knee osteoarthritis. A pivot design filtered respondents into 1 of 2 surveys on the basis of self-reported functional ability (good compared with fair or poor) as measured by the Oxford Knee Score. Treatment-preference data were collected, and relative attribute-importance weights were estimated.

RESULTS

Two hundred and fifty-eight completed survey instruments from 92 males and 164 females were analyzed, with 72 respondents in the good-function cohort and 186 in the fair/poor-function cohort. Patients placed the greatest value or relative importance on serious complications and rates of revision in both cohorts. Preference weights did not vary between cohorts for any attribute. In the good-function cohort, 42% of respondents chose TKA and 58% chose UKA. In the fair/poor-function cohort, 54% chose TKA and 46% chose UKA.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient preferences for various treatment attributes varied among patients in a knee osteoarthritis population. Complication and revision rates were the most important factors to patients, suggesting that physicians should focus on these areas when discussing treatments. The proportion of patients who chose UKA suggests that the current trend of increased UKA utilization is aligned with patient preferences.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Systematic elicitation of patient preferences for knee arthroplasty procedures, which lays out evidence-based risks and benefits of different treatments, indicates a larger subset of the knee osteoarthritis population may prefer UKA than would be suggested by the current rates of utilization of the procedure. Arthroplasty treatment should align with patient preferences and eligibility criteria to better deliver patient-centered care.

Robotic-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty has a greater early functional outcome when compared to manual total knee arthroplasty for isolated medial compartment arthritis

Aims

The primary aim of the study was to compare the knee-specific functional outcome of robotic unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (rUKA) with manual total knee arthroplasty (mTKA) for the management of isolated medial compartment osteoarthritis. Secondary aims were to compare length of hospital stay, general health improvement, and satisfaction between rUKA and mTKA.

Methods

A powered (1:3 ratio) cohort study was performed. A total of 30 patients undergoing rUKA were propensity score matched to 90 patients undergoing mTKA for isolated medial compartment arthritis. Patients were matched for age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and preoperative function. The Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D) were collected preoperatively and six months postoperatively. The Forgotten Joint Score (FJS) and patient satisfaction were collected six months postoperatively. Length of hospital stay was also recorded.

Results

There were no significant differences in the preoperative demographics (p ⩾ 0.150) or function (p ⩾ 0.230) between the groups. The six-month OKS was significantly greater in the rUKA group when compared with the mTKA group (difference 7.7, p < 0.001). There was also a greater six-month postoperative EQ-5D (difference 0.148, p = 0.002) and FJS (difference 24.2, p < 0.001) for the rUKA when compared to the mTKA. No patient was dissatisfied in the rUKA group and five (6%) were dissatisfied in the mTKA, but this was not significant (p = 0.210). Length of stay was significantly (p < 0.001) shorter in the rUKA group (median two days, interquartile range (IQR) 1 to 3) compared to the mTKA (median four days, IQR 3 to 5).

Conclusion

Patients with isolated medial compartment arthritis had a greater knee-specific functional outcome and generic health with a shorter length of hospital stay after rUKA when compared to mTKA.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2019;9(1):15–22.

Patients Undergoing Shoulder Stabilization Procedures Do Not Accurately Recall Their Preoperative Symptoms at Short- to Midterm Follow-up

Background:

A patient’s ability to recall symptoms is poor in some elderly populations, but we considered that the recall of younger patients may be more accurate. The accuracy of recall in younger patients after surgery has not been reported to date.

Purpose:

To assess younger patients’ abilities to recall their preoperative symptoms after having undergone shoulder stabilization surgery. We used 2 disease-specific, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs)—the Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI) and the Melbourne Instability Shoulder Score (MISS)—at a period of up to 2 years postoperatively.

Study Design:

Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 2.

Methods:

Participants (N = 119) were stratified into 2 groups: early recall (at 6-8 months postoperatively; n = 58) and late recall (at 9-24 months postoperatively; n = 61). All patients completed the PROMs with instructions to recall preoperative function. The mean and absolute differences between the preoperative scores and recalled scores for each PROM were compared using paired t tests. Correlations between the actual and recalled scores of the subsections for each PROM were calculated using an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The number of individuals who recalled within the minimal detectable change (MDC) of each PROM was calculated.

Results:

Comparison between the means of the actual and recalled preoperative scores for both groups did not demonstrate significant differences (early recall differences, MISS 1.05 and WOSI –38.64; late recall differences, MISS –0.25 and WOSI –24.02). Evaluation of the absolute difference, however, revealed a significant difference between actual and recalled scores for both the late and early groups (early recall absolute differences, MISS 12.26 and WOSI 216.71; late recall absolute differences, MISS 12.84 and WOSI 290.08). Average absolute differences were above the MDC scores of both PROMs at both time points. Subsections of each PROM demonstrated weak to moderate correlations between actual and recalled scores (ICC range, 0.17-0.61). Total scores for the PROMs reached moderate agreement between actual and recalled scores.

Conclusion:

Individual recall after shoulder instability surgery was not accurate. However, the mean recalled PROM scores of each group were not significantly different from the actual scores collected preoperatively, and recall did not deteriorate significantly over 2 years. This suggests that recall of the individual, even in this younger group, cannot be considered accurate for research purposes.

Measurement of patient-reported outcomes. 2: Are current measures failing us?

All instruments designed to measure latent (unobservable) variables, such as patient-reported outcomes (PROs), have three major requirements; a coherent construct theory, a specification equation, and the application of an appropriate response model. The theory guides the selection of content for the questionnaire and the specification equation links the construct theory to scores produced with the instrument. For the specification equation to perform this role, the patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) must employ a response model that generates values for its individual items. The most commonly applied response model in PROM development is the Rasch model. To date this level of measurement sophistication has not been achieved in PRO measurement. Consequently, it is not possible to establish a PROM's true construct validity. However, the development of the Lexile Framework for Reading has demonstrated that such objective measurement is possible for latent variables. This article argues that higher quality PROM development is needed if meaningful and valid PRO measurement is to be achieved. It describes the current state of PROM development, shows that published reviews of PROMs adopt inappropriate criteria for judging their quality, and illustrates how the use of traditional PROMs can lead to incorrect (and possibly dangerous) conclusions being drawn about the efficacy of interventions.