Aims. This study aims to describe the pre- and postoperative self-reported health and quality of life from a national cohort of patients undergoing elective total conventional hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in Australia. For context, these data will be compared with patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) data from other international nation-wide registries. Methods. Between 2018 to 2020, and nested within a nationwide arthroplasty registry, preoperative and six-month postoperative PROMs were electronically collected from patients before and after elective THA and TKA. There were 5,228 THA and 8,299 TKA preoperative procedures as well as 3,215 THA and 4,982 TKA postoperative procedures available for analysis. Validated PROMs included the EuroQol five-dimension five-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L; range 0 to 100; scored worst-best health), Oxford Hip/Knee Scores (OHS/OKS; range 0 to 48; scored worst-best hip/knee function) and the 12-item Hip/Knee disability and Osteoarthritis
The primary aim of this prospective, multicentre study is to describe the rates of returning to golf following hip, knee, ankle, and shoulder arthroplasty in an active golfing population. Secondary aims will include determining the timing of return to golf, changes in ability, handicap, and mobility, and assessing joint-specific and health-related outcomes following surgery. This is a multicentre, prospective, longitudinal study between the Hospital for Special Surgery, (New York City, New York, USA) and Edinburgh Orthopaedics, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, (Edinburgh, UK). Both centres are high-volume arthroplasty centres, specializing in upper and lower limb arthroplasty. Patients undergoing hip, knee, ankle, or shoulder arthroplasty at either centre, and who report being golfers prior to arthroplasty, will be included. Patient-reported outcome measures will be obtained at six weeks, three months, six months, and 12 months. A two-year period of recruitment will be undertaken of arthroplasty patients at both sites.Aims
Methods
A substantial fraction of patients undergoing knee arthroplasty (KA) or hip arthroplasty (HA) do not achieve an improvement as high as the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), i.e. do not achieve a meaningful improvement. Using three patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), our aim was: 1) to assess machine learning (ML), the simple pre-surgery PROM score, and logistic-regression (LR)-derived performance in their prediction of whether patients undergoing HA or KA achieve an improvement as high or higher than a calculated MCID; and 2) to test whether ML is able to outperform LR or pre-surgery PROM scores in predictive performance. MCIDs were derived using the change difference method in a sample of 1,843 HA and 1,546 KA patients. An artificial neural network, a gradient boosting machine, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression, ridge regression, elastic net, random forest, LR, and pre-surgery PROM scores were applied to predict MCID for the following PROMs: EuroQol five-dimension, five-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L), EQ visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS), Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Physical Function Short-form (HOOS-PS), and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Physical Function Short-form (KOOS-PS).Aims
Methods
To review the evidence and reach consensus on recommendations for follow-up after total hip and knee arthroplasty. A programme of work was conducted, including: a systematic review of the clinical and cost-effectiveness literature; analysis of routine national datasets to identify pre-, peri-, and postoperative predictors of mid-to-late term revision; prospective data analyses from 560 patients to understand how patients present for revision surgery; qualitative interviews with NHS managers and orthopaedic surgeons; and health economic modelling. Finally, a consensus meeting considered all the work and agreed the final recommendations and research areas.Aims
Methods
The aims were to assess whether preoperative joint-specific function (JSF) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) were associated with level of clinical frailty in patients waiting for a primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) or knee arthroplasty (KA). Patients waiting for a THA (n = 100) or KA (n = 100) for more than six months were prospectively recruited from the study centre. Overall,162 patients responded to the questionnaire (81 THA; 81 KA). Patient demographics, Oxford score, EuroQol five-dimension (EQ-5D) score, EuroQol visual analogue score (EQ-VAS), Rockwood Clinical Frailty Score (CFS), and time spent on the waiting list were collected.Aims
Methods
Up to one in five patients undergoing primary total hip (THA) and knee arthroplasty (TKA) require contralateral surgery. This is frequently performed as a staged procedure. This study aimed to determine if outcomes, as determined by the Oxford Hip Score (OHS) and Knee Score (OKS) differed following second-side surgery. Over a five-year period all patients who underwent staged bilateral primary THA or TKA utilizing the same type of implants were studied. Eligible patients had both preoperative and one year Oxford scores and had their second procedure completed within a mean (2 SDs) of the primary surgery. Patient demographics, radiographs, and OHS and OKS were analyzed.Aims
Methods
To validate the English language Forgotten Joint Score-12 (FJS-12)
as a tool to evaluate the outcome of hip and knee arthroplasty in
a United Kingdom population. All patients undergoing surgery between January and August 2014
were eligible for inclusion. Prospective data were collected from
205 patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA) and 231 patients
undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Outcomes were assessed
with the FJS-12 and the Oxford Hip and Knee Scores (OHS, OKS) pre-operatively,
then at six and 12 months post-operatively. Internal consistency,
convergent validity, effect size, relative validity and ceiling
effects were determined.Aims
Patients and Methods
To assess the responsiveness and ceiling/floor effects of the Forgotten Joint Score -12 and to compare these with that of the more widely used Oxford Hip Score (OHS) in patients six and 12 months after primary total hip arthroplasty. We prospectively collected data at six and 12 months following total hip arthroplasty from 193 patients undergoing surgery at a single centre. Ceiling effects are outlined with frequencies for patients obtaining the lowest or highest possible score. Change over time from six months to 12 months post-surgery is reported as effect size (Cohen’s d).Objectives
Methods
The Oxford Hip and Knee Scores (OHS, OKS) have been demonstrated
to vary according to age and gender, making it difficult to compare
results in cohorts with different demographics. The aim of this
paper was to calculate reference values for different patient groups
and highlight the concept of normative reference data to contextualise an
individual’s outcome. We accessed prospectively collected OHS and OKS data for patients
undergoing lower limb joint arthroplasty at a single orthopaedic
teaching hospital during a five-year period.
T-scores were calculated based on the OHS and OKS distributions. Objectives
Methods
Satisfaction with care is important to both patients
and to those who pay for it. The Net Promoter Score (NPS), widely
used in the service industries, has been introduced into the NHS
as the ‘friends and family test’; an overarching measure of patient
satisfaction. It assesses the likelihood of the patient recommending
the healthcare received to another, and is seen as a discriminator
of healthcare performance. We prospectively assessed 6186 individuals
undergoing primary lower limb joint replacement at a single university
hospital to determine the Net Promoter Score for joint replacements
and to evaluate which factors contributed to the response. Achieving pain relief (odds ratio (OR) 2.13, confidence interval
(CI) 1.83 to 2.49), the meeting of pre-operative expectation (OR
2.57, CI 2.24 to 2.97), and the hospital experience (OR 2.33, CI
2.03 to 2.68) are the domains that explain whether a patient would
recommend joint replacement services. These three factors, combined
with the type of surgery undertaken (OR 2.31, CI 1.68 to 3.17),
drove a predictive model that was able to explain 95% of the variation
in the patient’s recommendation response. Though intuitively similar,
this ‘recommendation’ metric was found to be materially different
to satisfaction responses. The difference between THR (NPS 71) and
TKR (NPS 49) suggests that no overarching score for a department
should be used without an adjustment for case mix. However, the
Net Promoter Score does measure a further important dimension to
our existing metrics: the patient experience of healthcare delivery. Cite this article:
