This analysis aims to provide an update of the Level-IV Partners Arthroplasty Registry (PAR), a quality-improvement initiative and research data repository. The Harris Joint Registry was founded in 1969 and has since expanded to become the Partners Arthroplasty Registry (PAR). Today, the PAR captures data on total hip and total knee arthroplasties conducted at seven hospitals in Massachusetts. Over time, data has been sourced through independent collection at a single hospital, retrospective sourcing through the Research Patient Data Registry (RPDR), and currently through the Enterprise Data Warehouse (EDW). Various statistical methods analyzed changing trends of care provided to patients across affiliated institutions. PROMs collected in the PAR are the PROMIS Physical Function and Global Health Short Forms, the HOOS and KOOS. The registry is an associate member of ISAR and will incorporate the international implant library.Introduction
Methods
Within the field of arthroplasty, the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) is becoming increasingly ubiquitous in an effort to employ more patient-centered methods of evaluating success. PROMs may be used to assess general health, joint-specific pain or function, or mental health. General and joint-specific questionnaires are most often used in arthroplasty research, but the relationship between arthroplasty and mental health is less well understood. Furthermore, longitudinal reports of PROM changes after arthroplasty are lacking in the literature. Our primary aim was to quantify the improvement in general, joint-specific, and mental health PROMs following total hip arthroplasty (THA) as well as the extent of any deterioration through the 7 years follow-up. Our secondary aim was to identify predictors of clinically significant PROM decline. A total of 864 patients from 17 centers across 8 countries were enrolled into a prospective study. Patients were treated with components from a single manufacturer, which have been shown to be well-functioning in other studies. Patients completed a battery of PROMs preoperatively, and at one, three, five, and seven years post-THA. Changes in PROMs between study visits were assessed via paired tests. Postoperative trends for each PROM were determined for each subject by the slope of the best-fit line of the four postoperative data points. Significant PROM deterioration was defined as one literature-defined minimum clinically important difference over 5-years. Binary logistic regressions were used to identify independent predictors of significant decline in the EuroQol (EQ-5D) visual analogue scale (VAS) for Health State, 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36) physical composite summary (PCS), and SF-36 mental composite summary (MCS).Introduction
Methods
The goal of the current study was to determine if SES affects PROMs in patients treated with THA. Specifically, we sought to determine any potential differences between low and high SES patients in pre-surgical PROMs, post-surgical PROMs, and PROM improvement after surgery while controlling for any potential confounding demographic factors. Patients were selected from a clinical registry at an urban tertiary academic medical center. All patients undergoing primary THA between January 1, 2000 and April 1, 2016 were eligible for this study. During this period, patients were asked to complete the Harris Hip Score (HHS), Euro-QoL 5 Dimension (EQ-5D), 0–10 Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) Pain, 0–10 NRS Satisfaction (only given postoperatively), the Charnley Classifier, and the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) Activity Score. To determine SES, patients were matched by zip code to corresponding median household income as reported by the United States Census Bureau. Patients were then dichotomized into low and high SES groups using 2016 median household income of $57,617 USD as a cutoff point. Statistical differences between low and high SES patients were determined for demographic factors, preoperative PROMs, postoperative PROMs, and PROM change. Non-parametric variables were tested with the Mann Whitney U test and categorical variables were tested with the Chi squared test. Multivariate models were created to determine if SES group was independently predictive of achieving a minimal clinically important improvement (MCII) in PROMs (18.0 for HHS, −2.0 for NRS Pain, and 0.92 for UCLA). As potential confounders, we tested body mass index (BMI), preoperative health state from EQ-5D visual analog scale (EQ VAS), age at surgery, preoperative Charnley class, sex, and time between PROMs.Introduction
Methods
As orthopaedics shifts towards value-based models of care, methods of evaluating the value of procedures such as a total hip arthroplasty (THA) will become crucial. Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) can offer a meaningful way for patient-centered input to factor into the determination of value. Despite their benefits, PROMs can be difficult to interpret as statistically significant, but not clinically relevant, differences between groups can be found. One method of correcting this issue is by using a minimal clinically important improvement (MCII), defined as the smallest improvement in a PROM determined to be important to patients. This study aims to find demographic and surgical factors that are independently predictive of failing to achieve a MCII in pain and physical function at 1-year following THA. A total of 976 patients were enrolled into a prospective international, multicenter study evaluating the long-term clinical performance of two acetabular shells and two polyethylene liners from a single manufacturer. All patients consented to be followed with plain radiographs and a set of PROMs preoperatively and at 1-year after surgery. The outcomes considered in this study were achieving literature-defined MCIIs in pain and physical function at one year after THA. The MCII in pain was defined as achieving a 2-point decrease on the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS)-Pain or reporting a 1-year NRS-Pain value of 0, indicating no pain. The MCII in physical function was defined as achieving an 8.29-point increase on the SF-36 Physical Function subscore. Univariate analyses were conducted to determine if there were statistically significant differences between patients who did achieve and did not achieve a MCII. Variables tested included: demographic and surgical factors, general and mental health state, and preoperative radiographic findings such as deformity and joint space width (JSW). Significant variables were entered into a multivariable binary logistic regression. Receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) analysis was used to generate cutoff values for significant continuous variables. Youden's index was used to identify cutoff points that maximized both specificity and sensitivity.Introduction
Methods
Acetabular component orientation has been linked to hip stability as well as bearing mechanics such as wear. Previous studies have demonstrated wide variations of cup placement in hip arthroplasty using conventional implantation techniques which rely upon either anatomic landmarks or the use of commercial positioning guides. Enabling technologies such as navigation have been used to improve precision and accuracy. Newer technologies such as robotic guidance have been postulated to further improve accuracy. The goal of our study was to evaluate the clinical reproducibility of a consecutive series of haptically guided THR. 119 patients at 4 centers were enrolled. All patients had preoperative CT scans for the purpose of planning cup placement in lateral opening and version using proprietary software (Mako, Ft. Lauderdale, FL). All procedures were performed using a posterolateral approach. Following bone registration, acetabular preparation and component position is performed using haptic guidance. Final implant postion is ascertained by obtaining 5 points about the rim of the acetabular component and recorded. At 6 weeks, all patients had AP and cross-table lateral radiographs which were then analyzed for cup abduction and anteversion using the Hip Analysis Suite software. The goal was to determine the variability between desired preoperative plan, intraoperative measurement and postoperative results.Introduction:
Methods:
In total hip arthroplasty, the positioning of the acetabular cup, in particular, has been shown to play an important role in the survivorship of the prosthetic joint. The commonly accepted “safe zone” extends from 5–30° of anteversion to 30–50° of inclination. However, several studies have utilized a more restrictive safe zone of 5–25° of anteversion and 30–45° of inclination, a modification of the Lewinnek zone. Many attempts have been made to develop a more reliable method of positioning the acetabular component. Robotic-assisted surgery is one such method. The purpose of this study was to compare the resulting position of the acetabular component after robotic-assisted surgery with the intraoperative robotic data to determine if improved accuracy can be achieved with the robotic-assisted method. One hundred and nineteen patients received THA, at four different medical centers in the United States, using a haptic robotic arm. Pre-operative CT scans were obtained for all patients and used during the planning of the procedure, at which point the proposed component size and positioning was determined. Preparation of the acetabular bone bed, as well as impaction of the acetabular component itself, was performed using the robotic device. Using an AP Pelvis and Cross-Table Lateral radiograph, each patient's resulting acetabular inclination and version was measured using the Hip Analysis Suite software. The component position retrieved from the robot was compared to the measured values from the radiographs. The positioning data was compared to two safe zones described above.Introduction
Methods
