Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 3 of 3
Results per page:
Applied filters
Content I can access

Include Proceedings
Dates
Year From

Year To
Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 102-B, Issue SUPP_9 | Pages 60 - 60
1 Oct 2020
Yousef M Franklin P Zheng H Ayers DC
Full Access

Introduction

Patient satisfaction is an important outcome measure after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and is the ultimate goal of surgery. However, patient satisfaction reflects a complex construct of the patient's personal expectations and preferences in addition to subjective evaluation of outcome after TKA. Multiple studies have found a patient dissatisfaction rate of approximately 20% at 1 year after TKA. The purpose of this study is to determine whether there is an association between a single-item validated TKA satisfaction score and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at 3 time points (1, 2, and 5 years after TKA) and to determine if dissatisfaction rate after TKA varies over time.

Methods

A multi-center, prospective cohort of 12,952 patients (8,078 patients were assessed at 1-year, 702 patients at 2-year, and 4,172 patients at 5-year) undergoing primary TKA were enrolled by 230 surgeons in 28 states between 2012–2015. Surgeons practices varied in size, reimbursement models, and geographic setting ensuring that the cohort included diverse patient populations and delivery models. Surgeons agreed to invite all TKA patients to participate and sporadic audits of surgical logs validated that all patients were invited and > 90% of patients were included. Demographic and clinical data [age, gender, body mass index (BMI), and modified Charlson co-morbidity index (CCI)] were collected. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were collected pre-op and post-op at 1, 2, and 5 years using an internet-based platform including the KOOS (total score, and pain, ADL, QoL sub scores), KOOS Jr, SF-36 (PCS and MCS). We used the single-item satisfaction scale which was tested and validated by the Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Registry. The patients' responses were made on 5-point Likert scale (very satisfied, somewhat satisfied, neutral, somewhat dissatisfied, very dissatisfied). Patients were classified into 2 categories: satisfied group for patients who answered satisfied or very satisfied and dissatisfied group for patients answered neutral, somewhat dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied. Univariate analysis of the difference between the satisfied and dissatisfied patients' groups was performed using Mann-Whitney U test for continuous variables and chi-square test for categorical variables. Logistic regression model was performed to study the correlation between the satisfaction and PROMs with 95% confidence interval.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 101-B, Issue SUPP_12 | Pages 22 - 22
1 Oct 2019
Ayers DC Zheng H Yang W Franklin PD
Full Access

Introduction

US payers offer incentives to hospitals to report patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) for total hip arthroplasty (THA). We report THA norms for pre-op and one-year PROMs in a large multi-center cohort and compare global, hip specific scores, and abbreviated PROM measures acceptable to meet payer requirements. The HOOS 12 is a new form of the HOOS containing 12 questions that allows separate determination of pain and ADL sub-scores in addition to the total score.

Methods

Between 2011–2015, 7895 primary elective THA patients enrolled in the FORCE-TJR research consortium from over 200 surgeons in 28 states. Patients completed pre-op demographics, clinical risks, PROMs, and one-year outcomes. Over 95% completed pre-op PROMs; 83% post-op. Generic and hip specific (HOOS full and HOOS-12 sub-scores, and HOOS JR global) PROMs were compared.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 100-B, Issue SUPP_13 | Pages 65 - 65
1 Oct 2018
Ayers DC Zheng H Lemay C Yang W Franklin PD
Full Access

Introduction

Historically, US arthroplasty revision rates are based on CMS data that cannot verify initial surgery date in patients under 65 years or laterality of revision. We calculated US one-year revision rates for primary total hip replacement (THR) using a representative cohort. Reasons for revision were documented.

Methods

A multi-center cohort from US surgeons in 28 states collected sociodemographic data; medical, emotional, musculoskeletal comorbidities; BMI; and patient-reported pain and function (SF36, HOOS) for elective THR patients. Cases in 2011–2013 were matched with CMS data to ascertain 1 year revision through 2014. Predictors of revision were identified. Chart reviews to verify reasons for revision were performed.