The aim of this study was to determine the floor and ceiling effects for both the QuickDASH and PRWE following a fracture of the distal radius. Secondary aims were to determine the degree to which patients with a floor or ceiling effect felt that their wrist was ‘normal’, and if there were patient factors associated with achieving a floor or ceiling effect. A retrospective cohort study of patients sustaining a distal radius fracture and managed at the study centre during a single year was undertaken. Outcome measures included the QuickDASH, the PRWE, EuroQol-5 Dimension-3 Levels (EQ-5D-3L), and the normal wrist score. There were 526 patients with a mean age of 65yrs (20–95) and 421 (77%) were female. Most patients were managed non-operatively (73%, n=385). The mean follow-up was 4.8yrs (4.3–5.5). A ceiling effect was observed for both the QuickDASH (22.3%) and PRWE (28.5%). When defined to be within the minimum clinical important difference of the best available score, the ceiling effect increased to 62.8% for the QuickDASH and 60% for the PRWE. Patients that achieved a ceiling score for the QuickDASH and PRWE subjectively felt their wrist was only 91% and 92% normal, respectively. On logistic regression analysis, a dominant hand injury and better health-related quality of life were the common factors associated with achieving a ceiling score for both the QuickDASH and PRWE (all p<0.05). The QuickDASH and PRWE demonstrate ceiling effects when used to assess the outcome of fractures of the distal radius. Patients achieving ceiling scores did not consider their wrist to be ‘normal’. Future patient-reported outcome assessment tools for fractures of the distal radius should aim to limit the ceiling effect, especially for individuals or groups that are more likely to achieve a ceiling score

The Oxford Hip Score (OHS), the Harris Hip Score (HHS) and WOMAC are examples of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) have well documented ceiling effects, with many patients clustered close to full marks following arthroplasty. Any arthroplasty that offers superior function would therefore fail to be detectable using these metrics. Two recent well conducted randomised clinical trials made exactly this error, by using OHS and WOMAC to detect a differences in outcome between hip resurfacing and hip arthroplasty despite published data already showing in single arm studies that these two procedures score close to full marks using both PROMS. We had observed that patients with hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) were able to walk faster and with more normal stride length than patients with well performing hip replacements, but that these objective differences in gait were not captured by PROMs. In an attempt to capture these differences, we developed a patient centred outcome measure (PCOM) using a method developed by Philip Noble's group. This allows patients to select the functions that matter to them personally against which the success of their own operation will be measured. Our null hypothesis was that this PCOM would be no more successful than the OHS in discriminating between types of hip arthroplasty. 22 patients with a well performing Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty were identified. These were closely matched by age, sex, BMI, height, preop diagnosis with 22 patients with a well performing conventional THA. Both were compared with healthy controls using the novel PCOM and in a gait lab. Results. PROMs for the two groups were similar, while HRA scored higher in the PCOM. The 9% difference was significant (p<0.05). At top walking speed, HRA were 10% faster, with a 9% longer stride length. Discussion. Outcome measures should be able to detect differences that are clinically relevant to patients and their surgeons. The currently used hip scores are not capable of delivering this distinction, and assume that most hip replacements are effectively perfect. While the function of hip replacements is indeed very good, with satisfaction rates high, objective measures of function are essential for innovators who are trying to deliver improved functional outcome. The 9% difference in PCOM found in this small study reflects the higher activity levels reported by many, and of similar magnitude to the 10% difference in top walking speed, despite no detectable difference in conventional PROMS. PCOMs may offer further insight into differences in function. For investigators who wish to develop improvements to hip arthroplasty, PCOMs and objective measures of gait may describe differences that matter more to patients than conventional hip scores

Assessing patients' functional outcomes following total hip arthroplasty with traditional scoring systems is limited by their ceiling effects. The Forgotten Joint Score (FJS) has been suggested as a more discriminating option. The actual score in the FJS which constitutes a “forgotten joint”, however, has not been defined. The emerging concept of joint perception led to the development of the Patient's Joint Perception question (PJP) to assess the patient's opinion of their prosthetic joint. Two hundred fifty-seven THAs were assessed at a mean of 68 months follow-up (range 57–79). Outcomes included the WOMAC, FJS and the PJP. Correlation of the scores as well as the ceiling effects were analysed. The mean FJS was 88.5 (range 27.1–100). PJP was correlated with the FJS and WOMAC (Spearman's rho: −0.510 and 0.465 respectively). Fifty-two percent of the patients felt their hip as a natural joint (FJS CI 95% 93.3–96), 24.1% as an artificial joint with no restriction (FJS CI 95% 83.1–90.5), and 23.3% as an artificial joint with minor restrictions (FJS CI 95% 73.8–82.2). Only 0.8% had major restrictions and none reported a non-functional joint. The ceiling effect was high with both the WOMAC and FJS, with 27.2% and 31.9%. In addition, 28.6% of the patients had a WOMAC >10 and 23.4% a FJS of < 9 0 while reporting having a natural hip. Furthermore, 21.5% with a perfect WOMAC or 21.9% with a perfect FJS, reported having an artificial joint with or without limitation. A forgotten hip perception corresponds to a FJS >93. In 20–30% of the cases, the WOMAC and FJS failed to identify the forgotten joint, or reached the maximum score when the patients did not feel their hip was natural. The PJP is a simple and reliable tool that enables identification of patients that feel their hip is natural

Background. Assessing patients’ functional outcomes following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with traditional scoring systems is limited by their ceiling effects. The Forgotten Joint Score (FJS) has been suggested as a more discriminating option. The actual score in the FJS which constitutes a “forgotten joint,” however, has not been defined. The emerging concept of joint perception led to the development of the Patient's Joint Perception question (PJP) to assess the patient's opinion of their prosthetic joint. Methods. 101 TKA were assessed at a mean of 41 months of follow-up (range 29=51). Outcomes included the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), FJS, and PJP. Correlation of the scores as well as the ceiling effects were analyzed. Results. The mean FJS was 79.0 (range 0=100). PJP was correlated with the FJS and WOMAC (Spearman's rho −0.720 and 0.684, respectively). 34% of the patients felt their prosthetic knee as a natural joint (FJS: 95% confidence interval [CI] 92.2–97.9), 15% as an artificial joint with no restriction (FJS: 95% CI 69.6–93.5), and 40% as an artificial joint with minor restrictions (FJS: 95% CI 65.4–78.3). 11% had major restrictions and none reported a non-functional joint. The ceiling effect was high with both the WOMAC and FJS, where 17% and 18% achieved the maximal score respectively. In addition, 13% of the patients had a WOMAC >10 and 22% an FJS < 90 while reporting having a natural knee. Furthermore, 19% with a perfect WOMAC reported having an artificial joint with or without limitation. Conclusion. With a TKA, a forgotten knee perception corresponds to an FJS >92. In 13%–22% of the cases, the WOMAC and FJS failed to identify the forgotten joint, or reached the maximum score when the patients did not feel their knee was natural. The PJP is a simple and reliable tool that enables identification of patients who feel replaced knee is natural

Introduction. Historically, the outcomes of knee replacement were evaluated based on implant longevity, major complications and range of motion. Over the last recent years however, there has been an intensively growth of interest in the patient's perception of functional outcome. However, the currently used patient related outcome (PRO) scores are limited by ceiling effects which limit the possibility to distinguish between good and excellent results post knee arthroplasty. The Forgotten Joint Score (FJS) is a new PRO score which is not influenced by ceiling effects, therefore making it the ideal instrument to compare functional outcome between various types of implants. It is based on the thought that the ultimate goal in joint arthroplasty is the ability of a patient to forget their artificial joint in everyday life. The aim of this study is to compare the FJS between patients who undergo TKA and patients who undergo medial UKA at least 12 months post-operatively. We hypothesized that the UKA which is less extensive surgical procedure will present better FJS than TKA, even 12 month postoperative. Methods. All patients who underwent medial UKA or TKA were contacted 12 months post-operatively. They were asked to complete the FJS, the Western Ontario and McMasters Universities Osteoarthritis index (WOMAC) and the EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D). A priori power analysis was conducted using two-sample t-test. 64 patients in each group were needed to reach 80% power for detecting a 12 point (SD 24) significant difference on the FJS scale with a two-sided significant level of 0.05. A p-value <0.05 was considered as statistically significant. Results. 128 patients were included. 64 underwent medial UKA and 64 TKA. At an average of 1.5 years follow-up in the UKA group and 1.4 years in the TKA group, the FJS was significantly higher in the UKA group (73.0±23.3) than the TKA group (59.1±26.8). No significant differences were noted for all 3 WOMAC domains (figure 1) and 5 EQ-5D domains (figure 2). Conclusion. Our data suggests that patients who undergo UKA are better capable of forgetting their artificial joint in daily life and therefore are more satisfied. Furthermore our data suggests that the FJS should be used in future studies since it has the ability to detect top-end differences where the conventional PRO scores are unable to distinguish between good and excellent results following knee replacement

Purpose. The measurement of functional outcomes in pelvic fracture patients remains difficult for authors. We aimed to test the construct validity, respondent burden, and patient perception of three previously published pelvic outcome questionnaires. Method. Subjects completed three pelvic specific, and three general functional outcome instruments. Time for each pelvic instrument was recorded, as was which score the patient felt best addressed their symptoms. Patients stated the three most significant impacts the pelvic fracture had on their life. Results. We recruited 33 patients, who were a mean of 61 months from surgery (13–115 months). Mobility difficulty (26), emotional stress (20), employment difficulty (15), sleep and anxiety (7), sexual function (4), were the most important consequences of their injuries. All pelvic questionnaires correlated with the physical component summary of the SF-36 (Majeed 0.877, Iowa 0.876, Orlando 0.868). None correlated with the mental component summary. The Iowa and Majeed questionnaires demonstrated ceiling effects, with 24% and 21% having the highest possible scores. Time was 3.6 + 0.4 minutes (Iowa), 7.4 + 0.4 (Orlando) and 2.6 + 0.2 (Majeed). Twelve patients each preferred the Iowa and Orlando, and 9 preferred the Majeed. Conclusion. All three previously published pelvic outcome instruments demonstrated strong construct validity with high correlation the PCS the SF-36, but ceiling effects and respondent burden limit the utility of the current instruments. Mental and emotional outcomes were important consequences of the injuries; however, none of the pelvic questionnaires measure these domains, as they all correlate poorly with the MCS of the SF-36

Introduction. The alternative kinematic alignment (KA) technique for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) aims at restoring the native joint line orientation and laxity of the knee. The goal is to generate a more physiological prosthetic knee enabling higher functional performance and satisfaction for the patient. KA TKA have only been reported so far with cruciate retaining and posterior-stabilised designs. Similarly, medial pivot design for TKA has been recently developed to enable more natural knee kinematics and antero-posterior stability. The superiority of KA technique and medial pivot implant design is still controversial when compared to current practice. Our study aims to assess the value of KA TKA when performed with medial pivot implants. Methods. We conducted a retrospectively matched case-control study. Clinical data was prospectively collected on patients as part of an ongoing ODEP study. Thirty-three non-selected consecutive KA TKAs performed by the lead author were matched to a control group of 33 measured resection with mechanically aligned (MA) TKAs performed by other consultant surgeons. Patients were matched for sex, age, BMI and pre-operative Oxford Knee Score (OKS). Pre-operative median OKS was 21 points (max 48), mean age was 69, mean BMI 31, and there were 21 female patients in both arms. The medial pivot GMK Sphere implant (Medacta, Switzerland) was used in all cases. OKS and EQ-5D scores were measured pre-operatively and at 1-year post-op. Patient outcome satisfaction scores were assessed at 1-year follow-up using a visual analogic scale (VAS). Pre- and post-operative knee radiographs were analysed using TraumaCad software. Results. No reoperation or revision was recorded in either group. KA patients were found to have higher OKS (median 44 Vs 42, p=0.78), satisfaction (median 99/100 Vs 90/100, p=0.28), and EQ-5D improvement (mean 0.34 Vs 0.28, p=0.21) compared to MA patients; however, none of the differences discovered were statistically significant. In addition, KA patients had a femoral component that was on average, 3.5° more valgus orientated (aLDFA 84° Vs 80°, p<0.05) and 2.1° more flexed (4.4° Vs 2.3°, p=NS), and a tibial component with 3.6° (aMPTA 86° Vs 89.6°, p<0.05) and 3.9° (5.5° Vs 1.6°, p<0.05) increased varus orientation and posterior slope, respectively. Conclusion/Discussion. KA TKA performed with medial pivot implant design has shown good safety and efficacy at early-term. The physiological implantation provided by the KA technique seems to be clinically beneficial compared to MA implantation, although, the measured differences did not show statistical significance. Having a low study power and high ceiling effect of outcome measure tools may partly explain our results. Early results for KA TKA are encouraging and longer follow-up is warranted to assess longevity of results. For any figures or tables, please contact authors directly

Background:. Recently a new version of the Knee Society Knee Scoring System has been developed, adapted to the lifestyle and activities of contemporary patients with a Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA). It is subdivided into 4 domains including an Objective Knee Score, a Satisfaction Score, an Expectations Score and a Functional Activity Score. Before this scale can be used in non-English speaking populations, it has to be translated and validated for specific populations. The aim of this study was to translate and validate the New Knee Society Knee Scoring System (new KSS) for Dutch speaking populations. Materials and Methods:. A Dutch translation of the New KSS was established using a forward-backward translation protocol. 137 patients undergoing TKA were asked to complete the Dutch translation of the New KSS as well as the Dutch WOMAC, Dutch KOOS and the Dutch SF12. To determine the test-retest reliability, 53 patients were asked to fill out a second questionnaire with one-week interval. We tested the test-retest reliability of the subjective domains of the New KSS by assessing the intra-class coefficient and the Pearson correlation coefficient between the first and second questionnaires. Systematic differences between the first and second questionnaires were investigated with T-tests and non-parametric statistics. Internal consistency of the Dutch new KSS was evaluated with Cronbach's alpha. The construct validity of the Dutch New KSS was determined by comparing it to the Dutch WOMAC, Dutch KOOS and Dutch SF12 using Pearson correlation coefficients. Content validity was assessed by examining the distribution and the floor and ceiling effects of the Dutch version of the new KSS. Results:. The reliability of the Dutch translation of the New KSS proved excellent with an ICC ranging from 0.75 to 0.92 for single measures and from 0.85 to 0.96 for average measures in the different domains. Cronbach's alpha ranged from 0.86 to 0.96 indicating good to excellent internal consistency. Paired t-tests and non-parametric statistics revealed no significant differences between the first and second questionnaires while paired samples correlations were highly significant (p < 0.001). The Dutch New KSS correlated well with the Dutch WOMAC score (r = 0.81; p < 0.001), the Dutch KOOS (r = 0.77; p < 0.001), and the Dutch SF12 (r = 0.62; p < 0.001). Content validity was good with a normal distribution of the calculated scores and absence of floor or ceiling effects. Conclusions:. The validation procedure demonstrated that the proposed Dutch version of the New Knee Society Knee Scoring System is a reliable and valid instrument for evaluating symptoms, function, expectations and satisfaction after TKA in Dutch speaking patients

Background. Hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) and total hip arthroplasty (THA) are treatments of end-stage hip disease. Gait analysis studies comparing HRA and THA have demonstrated that HRA results in a more normal gait than THA. The reasons may include the larger, more anatomic head diameter or the preservation of the neck of the femur with restoration of the anatomical position of the hip centre and normal proprioception. This study investigated (1) whether femoral head size diameter affects gait; (2) whether gait still differs between THA and HRA patients even with comparable head diameters. Methods. We retrospectively analysed the gait of 33 controls and 50 patients with a unilateral hip replacement, operated by the same surgeon. Follow-up ranged from 9–68 months. In 27 hips a small femoral head size was used (≤ 36mm); in 23 hips a large head size (>36mm). The small size group consisted of 11 long femoral stem THA and 16 short-stem THA and the large group of 5 long-stem THA, 8 short-stem THA and 10 HRA patients. There were 14 females/19 males in the control group; 22 females/5 males in the small size group; 13 females/10 males in the large size group. Results. (1) We found a significant difference in the step-length between the small head size group and the controls (p<0.01) at speeds ranging from 4.0 to 5.5 km/h but no difference between the larger head size and the controls. There was no significant difference in maximum speed, weight acceptance, push-off, mid-stance, impulse and cadence between the groups. (2) Analysis between THA and HRA in the large head size group revealed that there was a significant difference in the maximum speed (p=0.021) between the long-stem THA (6.338 km/h± 1.542) and HRA (7.756km/h± 0.7604) patients. At 5.5 km/h there was a significantly better weight acceptance (p=0.009) and mid-stance (p=0.041) of the HRA compared to short-stems. Impulse was significantly higher for HRA compared to long-stem THA (p<0.05) at all speeds ranging 4 to 5.5 km/h. (3) Males (7.1972 km/h ± .9700) had significantly higher maximum speeds compared to females (6.6524km/h± 1.019) (p=0.017) and lower gait impulse (p<0.01) at speeds ranging from 4 to 5.5km/h. (4) There was no significant difference in the Oxford Hip Score (OHS) and EQ-5D of patients in the small compared to the large head size group. Conclusions. Gait analysis demonstrated a significant difference in step length between THA patients with head size ≤ 36mm and normal controls. There was no difference in step length between normal controls and THA patients with larger head sizes. Compared to larger head size THA, the HRA still revealed higher maximum speeds and better weight acceptance. Males had significantly higher maximum speeds compared to females (controls and hip replacement patients). We could not demonstrate a correlation between better gait and Oxford scores or EQ-5D scores but these scores are known to have a ceiling effect. In a former study, better gait parameters such as longer step length and higher maximum speed have been associated with higher patient satisfaction

Any arthroplasty that offers superior function needs to be assessed using metrics that are capable of detecting those functions. The Oxford Hip Score (OHS), the Harris Hip Score (HHS) and WOMAC are patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) with well documented ceiling effects: following hip arthroplasty, many patients are clustered close to full marks following surgery. Two recent well conducted randomised clinical trials made exactly this error, by using OHS and WOMAC to detect a differences in outcome between hip resurfacing and hip arthroplasty despite published data already showing in single arm studies that these two procedures score close to full marks using either of these PROMS. We have already reported that patients with hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) were able to walk faster and with more normal stride length than patients with well performing hip replacements. In an attempt to relate this functional superiority to an outcome measure that does not rely upon the use of expensive machinery, we developed a patient centred outcome measure (PCOM) based upon a method developed by Philip Noble's group, and the University of Arizona's Metabolic Equivalent of Task Index (MET). This PCOM allows patients to select the functions that matter to them personally against which the success of their own operation will be measured, with greater sensitivity to intensity than is achieved by the UCLA. Our null hypothesis was that this PCOM would be no more successful than the PROMs in routine use in discriminating between types of hip arthroplasty, and that there would be no difference in gait between patients following these procedures. From our database of over 800 patients whose gait has been assessed in the lab, we identified 22 patients with a well performing conventional THAs, and matched them for age, sex, BMI, height, preop diagnosis with 22 patients with a well performing conventional THA. Both were compared with healthy controls using the novel PCOM and in a gait lab. Results. PROMs for the two groups were almost identical, while HRA scored higher in the PCOM. The 9% difference was significant (p<0.05). At top walking speed, HRA were 10% faster, with a 9% longer stride length, both of these metrics also reached significance. Discussion. Function following hip replacement is very good, with high satisfaction rates, but the use of a PCOM, and objective measures of function reveal substantial inferiority of THA over THR in two well matched groups. This 9% difference is well over the 5% difference that is considered ‘clinically relevant’. When coupled with the very strong data regarding life expectancy and infection, this functional data makes a compelling case for the use of resurfacing in active adults

TKA is among the fastest growing interventions in medicine, with procedure incidence increasing the most in younger patients. Global knee scores have a ceiling effect and do not capture the presence of difficulty or dissatisfaction with specific activities important to patients. We quantified the degree of residual symptoms and specific functional deficits in young patients who had undergone TKA. In a national multicenter study, we quantified the degree of residual symptoms and specific functional deficits in 661 young patients (mean age, 54 years; range, 19–60 years; 61% female) at 1 to 4 years after primary TKA. To eliminate observer bias, satisfaction and function data were collected by an independent, third-party survey center with expertise in administering medical outcomes questionnaires. Overall, 89% of patients were satisfied with their ability to perform normal daily living activities, and 91% were satisfied with their pain relief. After TKA, 66% of patients indicated their knees felt normal, 33% reported some degree of pain, 41% reported stiffness, 33% reported grinding/other noises, 33% reported swelling/tightness, 38% reported difficulty getting in and out of a car, 31% reported difficulty getting in and out of a chair, and 54% reported difficulty with stairs. After recovery, 47% reported complete absence of a limp and 50% had participated in their most preferred sport or recreational activity in the past 30 days. When interviewed by an independent third party, about 1/3 of young patients reported residual symptoms and limitations after modern TKA. We recommend informing patients considering surgery about the high likelihood of residual symptoms and limitations after contemporary TKA, even when performed by experienced surgeons in high-volume centers, and taking specific steps to set patients’ expectations to a level that is likely to be met by the procedure as it now is performed

Purpose. The development of skills in arthroscopic surgery is essential to the training of modern orthopedic surgeons. Few validated, objective tools exist which track improvement in arthroscopic skills. The purpose of this study was to validate an objective global assessment of arthroscopic skills employing videotape footage of diagnostic arthroscopy performed by participants of various skill levels on a cadaveric knee. Method. A total of 22 participants with varying arthroscopic experience performed a recorded diagnostic knee arthroscopy on a cadaveric knee. Recorded footage of the procedures from an arthroscopic and external view was assessed by five blinded evaluators and scored on a global skills evaluation and checklist evaluation form. Interclass correlation coefficient analyses were used to determine the inter-rater reliability. Mean scores of novice and experienced residents and practicing arthroscopists (based on rank and experience) were compared using a students t-test. Results. Interclass correlation coefficient for the five raters on the global rating scale was 0.626 indicating moderate to good agreement. Interclass correlation coefficient for visual analogue scale skill measurement was 0.645. Discriminant validity was shown by the ability of the global assessment to differentiate novice (95% CI=24-29%) and experienced residents (95% CI=33-59%) from fellows (95% CI=70-87%) and knee arthroscopy staff (95% CI=79-84%). There was a ceiling effect based on the inability to differentiate fellows from knee arthroscopy staff. Conclusion. The Objected Assessment of Arthroscopic Skills global rating scale is a valid, reliable measure of arthroscopic skills in residents. It could be used for evaluative or educational purposes in orthopedic training. The method of blinded evaluation of participants provides a feasible method for the evaluation of resident arthroscopic skills with limited bias which could be implemented in training programs

Background. Many scoring systems exist that assess ankle function, none of them are validated for use in a group of higher demand patients. This group of patients there have potential problems with ceiling effects, not being able to detect change or that a sports-subscale is not included. This study was to create a validated self-administered scoring system for ankle injuries in athletes by studying existing scoring systems and key-informant interviews. Methods. The Sports Athlete Foot and Ankle Score (SAFAS) was developed from interviews with athletes as well as expert-opinions. Initially 26 patients were interviewed before creating the scoring system, this was modified from the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score, this had been partially validated previously and the subjects regarded the content as relevant but incomplete. Secondly, SAFAS the content was validated in a group of 25 patients with a range of injuries and 14 athletes without ankle injury. It is a self-administered region specific sports foot and ankle score that containing four subscales assessing the levels of symptoms, pain, daily living and sports. Results. Spearman correlation coefficients between SAFAS and the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM) are 0.88 for activities of daily living and 0.78 for sports. Content validity gave high satisfaction at 75%. There was good internal consistency of each subscale; symptoms 0.77, pain 0.92, daily living 0.92 and sports 0.88. SAFAS has shown to be able to differentiate between injured and non-injured athletes. Conclusion. SAFAS is a measurement a suitable tool to assess differences in ankle function and disability between injured and non-injured athletes. It is valid to be used as a score in those clinical conditions which affect the high levels of ankle and hind foot function

Aims

Patients undergoing limb reconstruction surgery often face a challenging and lengthy process to complete their treatment journey. The majority of existing outcome measures do not adequately capture the patient-reported outcomes relevant to this patient group in a single measure. Following a previous systematic review, the Stanmore Limb Reconstruction Score (SLRS) was designed with the intent to address this need for an effective instrument to measure patient-reported outcomes in limb reconstruction patients. We aim to assess the face validity of this score in a pilot study.

Aims

Patient-reported outcome measures have become an important part of routine care. The aim of this study was to determine if Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures can be used to create patient subgroups for individuals seeking orthopaedic care.