header advert
Results 1 - 3 of 3
Results per page:
Applied filters
Content I can access

Include Proceedings
Dates
Year From

Year To
Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 105-B, Issue SUPP_3 | Pages 117 - 117
23 Feb 2023
Zhou Y Shadbolt C Rele S Spelman T Dowsey M Choong P Schilling C
Full Access

Utility score is a preference-based measure of general health state – where 0 is equal to death, and 1 is equal to perfect health. To understand a patient's smallest perceptible change in utility score, the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) can be calculated. However, there are multiple methods to calculate MCID with no consensus about which method is most appropriate. The aim of this study is to calculate MCID values for the Veterans-RAND 12 (VR12) utility score using varying methods. Our hypothesis is that different methods will yield different MCID values.

A tertiary institutional registry (SMART) was used as the study cohort. Patients who underwent unilateral TKA for osteoarthritis from January 2012 to January 2020 were included. Utility score was calculated from VR12 responses using the standardised Brazier's method. Distribution and anchor methods were used for the MCID calculation. For distribution methods, 0.5 standard deviations of the baseline and change scores were used. For anchor methods, the physical and emotional anchor questions in the VR12 survey were used to benchmark utility score outcomes. Anchor methods included mean difference in change score, mean difference in 12 month score, and receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis with the Youden index.

Complete case analysis of 1735 out of 1809 eligible patients was performed. Significant variation in the MCID estimates for VR12 utility score were reported dependent on the calculation method used. The MCID estimate from 0.5 standard deviations of the change score was 0.083. The MCID estimate from the ROC analysis method using physical or emotional anchor question improvement was 0.115 (CI95 0.08-0.14; AUC 0.656).

Different MCID calculation methods yielded different MCID values. Our results suggest that MCID is not an umbrella concept but rather many distinct concepts. A general consensus is required to standardise how MCID is defined, calculated, and applied in clinical practice.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 105-B, Issue SUPP_3 | Pages 86 - 86
23 Feb 2023
Rele S Shadbolt C Elsiwy Y Naufal E Gould D Bazargan A Lorenzo Y Choong P Dowsey M Stevens J
Full Access

Use of anticoagulants for thromboembolic prophylaxis is strongly supported by evidence. However, the use of these medications beyond the prophylactic period is poorly understood.

We identified anticoagulant naïve patients that underwent hip or knee replacement between 2012 and 2019 from an arthroplasty registry and probabilistically linked 3,018 surgeries with nationwide pharmaceutical claims data. Rates of anticoagulation use were examined during the early (<= 60 days post-discharge), mid-term (61–180 days post-discharge) and long-term (181–360 days post-discharge) periods. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify patient- and surgery-related factors associated with long-term anticoagulant use.

Anticoagulants were supplied to 20% of arthroplasties within 60 days of discharge, 7% between 61–180 days, and 10% between 181–360 days. Older age, obesity, increased comorbidity burden, a longer length of stay, occurrence of a complication necessitating anticoagulation and dispensation of an anticoagulant within 60 days of discharge were all risk factors for long-term anticoagulant use.

Given the risks associated with unnecessary use of these medications, certain patients who are prescribed anticoagulants beyond prophylactic period may benefit from specialist medication review in the months following surgery.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 105-B, Issue SUPP_3 | Pages 109 - 109
23 Feb 2023
Naufal E Shadbolt C Elsiwy Y Thuraisingam S Lorenzo Y Darby J Babazadeh S Choong P Dowsey M Stevens J
Full Access

This study aimed to evaluate the month-to-month prevalence of antibiotic dispensation in the 12 months before and after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and total hip arthroplasty (THA) and to identify factors associated with antibiotic dispensation in the month immediately following the surgical procedure.

In total, 4,115 THAs and TKAs performed between April 2013 and June 2019 from a state-wide arthroplasty referral centre were analysed. A cross-sectional study used data from an institutional arthroplasty registry, which was linked probabilistically to administrative dispensing data from the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Multivariable logistic regression was carried out to identify patient and surgical risk factors for oral antibiotic dispensation.

Oral antibiotics were dispensed in 18.3% of patients following primary TKA and 12.0% of patients following THA in the 30 days following discharge. During the year after discharge, 66.7% of TKA patients and 58.2% of THA patients were dispensed an antibiotic at some point. Patients with poor preoperative health status were more likely to have antibiotics dispensed in the month following THA or TKA. Older age, undergoing TKA rather than THA, obesity, inflammatory arthritis, and experiencing an in-hospital wound-related or other infectious complications were associated with increased antibiotic dispensation in the 30 days following discharge.

A high rate of antibiotic dispensation in the 30 days following THA and TKA has been observed. Although resource constraints may limit routine wound review for all patients by a surgeon, a select cohort may benefit from timely specialist review postoperatively. Several risk factors identified in this study may aid in identifying appropriate candidates for such changes to follow-up care.