Second opinion and time to knee arthroplasty: a prospective cohort study of 142 patients

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to determine the impact of obtaining a second opinion consultation on time to knee arthroplasty (KA). We further examined the frequency of KA and the determinants of KA following the second opinion.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

The second opinion programme was implemented at the Ludwig Maximilian University Hospital in Munich.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants comprised patients with knee osteoarthritis who were insured with one of the largest statutory health insurance Allgemeine Ortskrankenkasse Bayern (mean age 64.3±9.6 years). Patients participated in a second-opinion programme and completed questionnaires on site before and after personal presentation for the second opinion consultation. Follow-up questionnaires were delivered by post at 3 and 12 months after the second opinion consultation. Of the 142 patients included in the study, 47 (33.1%) underwent KA within 12 months after obtaining the second opinion.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome measure was time until patients received KA. Cox proportional hazard modelling was used to calculate the associations between the selected predictors and time that elapsed between receipt of the second opinion to KA.

RESULTS

Mean time until KA was 17 weeks. Kaplan-Meier curves showed significant differences in time to KA according to the recommendation given at second opinion consultation, knee-related quality of life and Kellgren-Lawrence grade. In multivariate Cox proportional hazard modelling, second opinion recommendation (HR 5.33, 95% CI 1.16, 24.41) and knee-related quality of life (HR 1.03, 95% CI 1.01, 1.06) were significant predictors of time from second opinion to KA.

CONCLUSIONS

Obtaining a second opinion had significant impact on time to knee replacement. Those who were recommended immediate surgery also underwent surgery more quickly after the second opinion. The effect of knee-related quality of life supports the importance of patient-reported outcome measures in the decision for or against KA.

Effects of a medical second opinion programme on patients' decision for or against knee arthroplasty and their satisfaction with the programme

BACKGROUND

German social legislation gives patients the right to obtain a second opinion before elective surgery and defines quality criteria for reimbursement by statutory health insurances. However, the effects of second opinions before elective surgery are largely unknown. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of a second opinion programme in patients recommended for knee arthroplasty.

METHODS

The largest statutory health insurance funds in Bavaria offered patients who had been recommended to have knee arthroplasty the opportunity to partake in a second opinion programme which consisted of an in person presentation to an experienced knee surgeon. In this cohort study, consecutive patients from this second opinion programme who signed informed consent were included from 07/10/2016 to 14/02/2020. Data were collected before and after the second opinion visit.

RESULTS

A total of 141 (66%) of 215 patients who presented for a second opinion participated in the evaluation study. The second opinion physician recommended knee arthroplasty to 40% of the patients, later knee arthroplasty if the conditions worsened to 40%, and no knee arthroplasty to 20%. After receiving the second opinion 28 of 56 (41%) undecided patients preferred knee arthroplasty, 14 no knee arthroplasty, 14 remained undecided. Four of 46 patients with a preference for "arthroplasty" changed their decision to "no arthroplasty", five of 35 patients from "no arthroplasty" to "arthroplasty". The patients were more confident in their decision according to the decision confidence scale (before: 5.4 ± 3.0; after: 7.8 ± 2.5; p < 0.001). They rated their satisfaction with the second opinion programme with a mean grade of 1.35 (± 0.60) (best:1; worst:6). Logistic regression analyses showed that the recommendation of the second opinion physician for joint arthroplasty was associated with the guideline criteria radiological severity of osteoarthritis (p = 0.001) and knee-joint-specific quality of life (p = 0.041).

CONCLUSION

The second opinion of an experienced knee surgeon frequently deviates from the initial recommendation for knee arthroplasty. The association of guideline criteria to the second recommendation suggests a high quality of the second opinion. From the patient perspective, the second opinion reduces uncertainties in their treatment decision.