Transcultural validation of the Risk Assessment and Predictor Tool (RAPT) to predict discharge outcomes after total hip replacement.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the relevance of the RAPT (Risk Assessment and Prediction Tool), among a cohort of patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA). METHOD: Prospective study of a cohort of patients evaluated before and after THA. The difference between the postoperative orientation predicted by the RAPT and the real one is assessed. Clinical, environmental and psychosocial criteria that could significantly change the orientation are discussed. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-four patients (94 women and 40 men) were included. The average age was 71.6 (±10) years. Primary hip osteoarthritis was the indication for surgery in 78% of cases. The average length of stay in the surgery ward was 10 (±3) days. It was significantly higher for patients referred to a rehabilitation ward (P<0.0001). Sixty-six percent of patients were referred to a rehabilitation ward and 34% returned directly home. The average length of stay in rehabilitation ward was 27 (±13) days. The validity of the RAPT as a help decision tool has been confirmed. Thus, a low RAPT score was significantly associated with more frequent referral to a rehabilitation ward, conversely, a high RAPT score is significantly related to more frequent direct return to home. CONCLUSION: This study confirmed the usefulness of the RAPT to help in patient orientation decision after total hip arthroplasty. The patient preference remains the main variable for orientation after THA. By the way, the patient preference must not be integrated into the RAPT, but need to be collected and be discussed with the patient.

Validation of an educational booklet targeted to patients candidate for total knee arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Knee osteoarthritis is a highly prevalent condition and the leading reason for total knee arthroplasty (TKA). No consensus exists about the optimal content of preoperative patient information and, to the best of our knowledge, no validated information document is available. Our objective here was to obtain validation by healthcare professionals and patients of an educational booklet for patients awaiting TKA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The booklet was developed and validated in six phases: systematic literature review, drafting of the first version, critical revision by a panel of experts, modification of the booklet, validation by a multidisciplinary panel of experts, and validation by two groups of patients, one composed of patients awaiting TKA and the other of patients in the immediate post-TKA period. We assessed the impact of the booklet based on knowledge and belief scores before and 2 days after receiving the booklet. RESULTS: Critical revision of the first draft led to changes to meet the concerns voiced by the experts. Knowledge improved only in the patient group given the booklet preoperatively (from 6/10 to 9/10, P=0.005). The booklet did not modify beliefs in either patient group. DISCUSSION: We used a rigorous methodology to develop and validate the contents of an educational booklet. Receiving this document before TKA resulted in improved patient knowledge but had no impact on beliefs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV.