MCID and PASS are thresholds driven from PROMS to reflect clinical effectiveness. Statistical significance can be derived from a change in PROMS, whereas MCID and PASS reflect clinical significance. Its role has been increasingly used in the world of young adult hip surgery with several publications determining the thresholds for Femoro-acetabular impingement FAI. To our knowledge MCID and PASS for patient undergoing PAO for dysplasia has not been reported. 593 PAOs between 1/2013 and 7/2023 were extracted from the Northumbria Hip Preservation Registry. Patients with available PROMS at 1year and/or 2years were included. PAOs for retroversion, residual Perthes and those combined with FO were excluded. MCID was calculated using the distribution method 0.5SD of baseline score(1). PASS was calculated using anchor method, ROC analysis performed, and value picked maximizing Youden index. A Logistic Regression analysis was performed to determine which independent variables correlated with achieving MCID and PASS. The MCID threshold for iHOt12 was 8.6 with 83.4 and 86.3 % of patients achieved it at 1 and 2 years respectively. The PASS score at 1 and 2 year follow up was 43 and 44 respectively, with 72.6 and 75.2% achieving it at 1 and 2 year postop. At 2 years a Higher preop iHOT 12 was associated with not achieving MCID and PASS (p<0.05). Preop acetabular version was negatively correlated with achieving MCID and previous hip arthroscopy was negatively correlated with PASS. The % of patients achieving MCID and PASS mimics that of FAI surgery (2). The negative correlation with preop iHOT12 reaffirms the importance of patient selection. The negative correlation of hip arthroscopy highlights the importance of having a high index of suspicion for dysplasia prior to hip arthroscopy and poorer outcomes of patients with mixed CAM and dysplasia pathology.
Objectives. To define
Aims. To compare the functional outcome, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and satisfaction of patients who underwent primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) and a single debridement, antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR) procedure for deep infection, using either the transgluteal or the posterior surgical approach for both procedures. Methods. The study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (ID: NCT03161990) on 15 May 2017. Patients treated with a single DAIR procedure for deep infection through the same operative approach as their primary THA (either the transgluteal or the posterior approach) were identified in the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register and given a questionnaire. Median follow-up after DAIR by questionnaire was 5.5 years in the transgluteal group (n = 87) and 2.5 years in the posterior approach group (n = 102). Results. Patients in the posterior approach group were less likely to limp after the DAIR procedure (17% vs 36% limped all the time; p = 0.005), had a higher mean Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) function score (80 vs 71; p = 0.013), and were more likely to achieve a
Purpose. Various alignment philosophies for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) have been described, all striving to achieve excellent long-term implant survival and good functional outcomes. In recent years, in search of higher functionality and patient satisfaction, a shift towards more patient-specific alignment is seen. Robotics is the perfect technology to tailor alignment. The purpose of this study was to describe ‘inverse kinematic alignment’ (iKA) technique, and to compare clinical outcomes of patients that underwent robotic-assisted TKA performed by iKA versus adjusted mechanical alignment (aMA). Methods. The authors analysed the records of a consecutive series of patients that received robotic assisted TKA with iKA (n=40) and with aMA (n=40). Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and satisfaction on a visual analogue scale (VAS) were collected at a follow-up of 12 months. Clinical outcomes were assessed according to
Integrated Regional Orthopaedic (MSK) Assessment clinics (ROAC) are now mandated in many provinces for the assessment and triage of patients referred for total joint arthroplasty (TJA). Their introduction underscores the lack of means for Primary Care Physicians (PCP) to appropriately refer patients for surgical consideration. Thus, problems arise when patients who are clear candidates for surgery are subject to a significant extra step in the care pathway by attending a ROAC while those who have insufficient problems are also seen, contributing to costs and crowding the access portal. We postulated that a patient reported outcome measure, decision aid combined with a validated grading of a weight bearing knee X-ray would provide an inexpensive yet effective tool to significantly improve the referral process for Knee OA (compared with the current mechanism). To date we have enrolled two hundred and forty-five consenting patients to the study, all referred by their PCP to the ROAC with a diagnosis of symptomatic Knee Osteoarthritis. All patients were evaluated as per the current ROAC protocol which included a medical history, physical examination and an X-ray (standing AP, lateral and patella-femoral skyline). Prior to the visit, subjects were sent a copy of a patient decision aid, Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and requested to answer whether their current clinical status described as
Purpose. Patient expectations of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) can be managed through education. E-learning is the application of information technology to education. Providing information to patients at the place and time of their choosing, e-learning has the potential to broaden the reach of existing services for patients. This study evaluated whether an e-learning tool could affect whether patients felt their expectations were met and whether they were satisfied with surgery one year following primary TKA. Method. We recruited consecutive patients with osteoarthritis and randomized them to either standard patient education (n=207), or to our standard patient education plus a new e-learning tool (n=209). Preoperative measures were completed following the patients’ Pre-Admission clinic (PAC) visit and prior to accessing the e-learning tool. Postoperative patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) were completed at six weeks, three months and one year after TKA. We used the Postoperative Expectation Questionnaire to measure the degree to which patient expectations had been met and the
Introduction. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of posterior tibial slope (PTS) and posterior condylar offset (PCO) on patient-reported pain and function one year after TKA. Methods. A total of 500 patients from 11 clinics in 6 countries were enrolled into a prospective, multicenter study. All patients were indicated for primary TKA for OA and received components from a single manufacturer. All liners were made from vitamin-E stabilized, highly crosslinked (95 kGy) polyethylene; 54.7% were posterior stabilized (PS) and the remaining were cruciate-retaining. The Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) was administered at the one-year follow-up visit. The KOOS pain and activities in daily life (ADL) sub-scores were dichotomized and served as the primary outcomes. Dichotomization was done with the
The December 2022 Sports Roundup360 looks at: Anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) repair with dynamic intraligamentary stabilization or anterior ACL at five years?; Femoroacetabular impingement in mild osteoarthritis: is hip arthroscopy the answer?; Steroids in Achilles tendinopathy: A randomized trial.
The aim of this study was to report the meaningful values of the EuroQol five-dimension three-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L) and EuroQol visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS) in patients undergoing primary knee arthroplasty (KA). This is a retrospective study of patients undergoing primary KA for osteoarthritis in a university teaching hospital (Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh) (1 January 2013 to 31 December 2019). Pre- and postoperative (one-year) data were prospectively collected for 3,181 patients (median age 69.9 years (interquartile range (IQR) 64.2 to 76.1); females, n = 1,745 (54.9%); median BMI 30.1 kg/m2 (IQR 26.6 to 34.2)). The reliability of the EQ-5D-3L was measured using Cronbach’s alpha. Responsiveness was determined by calculating the anchor-based minimal clinically important difference (MCID), the minimal important change (MIC) (cohort and individual), the patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) predictive of satisfaction, and the minimal detectable change at 90% confidence intervals (MDC-90).Aims
Methods
The aim of this study was to report the implant survival and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in a consecutive series of patients aged less than 50 years at the time of arthroplasty using the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing system (BHR), with a minimum follow-up of ten years. A total of 226 patients with osteoarthritis of the hip, who underwent BHR and presented to a single surgeon, were included in the study. Survival of the implant was confirmed by cross-checking with the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. Kaplan–Meier survival curves with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were constructed. Pre- and postoperative PROMs were compared with Aims
Patients and Methods
We compared the incidence of pseudotumours after
large head metal-on-metal (MoM) total hip arthroplasty (THA) with
that after conventional metal-on-polyethylene (MoP) THA and assessed
the predisposing factors to pseudotumour formation. From a previous randomised controlled trial which compared large
head (38 mm to 60 mm) cementless MoM THA with conventional head
(28 mm) cementless MoP THA, 93 patients (96 THAs: 41 MoM (21 males,
20 females, mean age of 64 years, standard deviation ( The incidence of pseudotumours, measured using a standardised
CT protocol was 22 (53.7%) after MoM THA and 12 (21.8%) after MoP
THA. Women with a MoM THA were more likely to develop a pseudotumour
than those with a MoP THA (15 Contrary to popular belief, pseudotumours occur frequently around
MoP THAs. Women with a MoM THA and an elevated cobalt level are
at greatest risk. In this study, pseudotumours had no effect on
the functional outcome after either large head MoM or conventional
MoP THA. Cite this article:
The April 2014 Research Roundup360 looks at: scientific writing needed in orthopaedic papers; antiseptics and osteoblasts; thromboembolic management in orthopaedic patients; nicotine and obesity in post-operative complications; defining the “Patient Acceptable Symptom State”; and cheap and nasty implants of poor quality.
The December 2013 Knee Roundup360 looks at: Conflict of interest and hyaluronic acid; Will time indeed tell in microfracture?; Contralateral knee pain and joint replacement outcomes; Patient satisfaction and knee replacement?; Hope in the cytokines for painful TKRs?; Pain severity, cytokines and osteoarthritis?; Quadriceps weakness and pain; and spontaneous osteonecrosis of the knee
We obtained information from the Elective Orthopaedic
Centre on 1523 patients with baseline and six-month Oxford hip scores
(OHS) after undergoing primary hip replacement (THR) and 1784 patients
with Oxford knee scores (OKS) for primary knee replacement (TKR)
who completed a six-month satisfaction questionnaire. Receiver operating characteristic curves identified an absolute
change in OHS of 14 points or more as the point that discriminates
best between patients’ satisfaction levels and an 11-point change
for the OKS. Satisfaction is highest (97.6%) in patients with an
absolute change in OHS of 14 points or more, compared with lower
levels of satisfaction (81.8%) below this threshold. Similarly,
an 11-point absolute change in OKS was associated with 95.4% satisfaction
compared with 76.5% below this threshold. For the six-month OHS
a score of 35 points or more distinguished patients with the highest
satisfaction level, and for the six-month OKS 30 points or more identified
the highest level of satisfaction. The thresholds varied according
to patients’ pre-operative score, where those with severe pre-operative
pain/function required a lower six-month score to achieve the highest
levels of satisfaction. Our data suggest that the choice of a six-month follow-up to
assess patient-reported outcomes of THR/TKR is acceptable. The thresholds
help to differentiate between patients with different levels of
satisfaction, but external validation will be required prior to
general implementation in clinical practice.