Prevalence of knee and hip osteoarthritis and the appropriateness of joint replacement in an older population.

BACKGROUND: Relatively little is known about the prevalence of knee and hip osteoarthritis in the general population. METHODS: To estimate the prevalence of knee and hip osteoarthritis and the appropriateness of joint replacement in a general population of older individuals, the validated Knee and Hip OsteoArthritis Screening Questionnaire (KHOA-SQ) was sent to a random sample of individuals aged 60 to 90 years, stratified by age and sex, living in a single province in Spain. Respondents positive for knee or hip osteoarthritis on the KHOA-SQ were invited to be examined by an orthopedic surgeon. Diagnosis of knee or hip osteoarthritis was based on clinical and radiographic data. For respondents judged as having osteoarthritis, the appropriateness of knee or hip replacement was evaluated using published explicit criteria. RESULTS: Of 11 002 individuals contacted, 7577 completed the KHOA-SQ. The derived prevalence of hip osteoarthritis was approximately 7.4%. It was slightly higher in women (8.0%) than in men (6.7%) and tended to increase with age. The estimated appropriateness rate for hip replacement was 37.7% in men and 52.7% in women with osteoarthritis. The derived prevalence of knee osteoarthritis was 12.2%; it was significantly higher in women (14.9%) than in men (8.7%) and tended to increase with age. The estimated appropriateness rate for knee replacement was 11.8% in men and 17.9% in women with osteoarthritis. CONCLUSIONS: Knee and hip osteoarthritis are highly prevalent diseases in the older population. The estimation of appropriateness for hip replacement seems to be significantly higher than that for knee replacement.

Health-related quality of life and appropriateness of knee or hip joint replacement.

BACKGROUND: We studied the association between explicit appropriateness criteria for total hip joint replacement (THR) and total knee replacement (TKR) with changes in health-related quality of life of patients undergoing these procedures. METHODS: Prospective observational study of 1576 consecutive patients with diagnoses of osteoarthritis on waiting lists to undergo THR or TKR. Explicit appropriateness criteria using the RAND appropriateness method were applied. Patients completed 2 questionnaires that measured health-related quality of life, the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), before the procedure and 6 months afterward. RESULTS: Patients who were considered appropriate candidates for these procedures had greater improvements than those who were considered inappropriate candidates in all 3 WOMAC domains (pain, functional limitation, and stiffness; THR: 43.0, 40.6, and 40.4 vs 14.7, 19.1, and 15.9; TKR: 34.9, 32.5, and 30.2 vs 23.2, 18.9, and 17.1; P<.001 for all comparisons). Patients who underwent THR and were judged to be appropriate candidates had greater improvements in the physical function, role-physical, bodily pain, and social function domains of the SF-36 than those judged to be inappropriate candidates (34.4, 35.1, 33.1, and 26.6 vs 19.6, 9.2, 5.7, and 7.0; P = .04, P = .03, P < .001, and P < .001, respectively). Appropriate candidates for TKR demonstrated greater improvement in the social function domain of the SF-36 after the procedure than those deemed inappropriate candidates (19.9 vs 7.9; P = .004) but not in the other domains of functional status. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest a direct relationship between explicit appropriateness criteria and better health-related quality-of-life outcomes after THR and TKR surgery. Our results support the use of these criteria for clinical guidelines or evaluation purposes.

Appropriateness of total hip joint replacement.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the appropriateness of the use of total hip joint replacements. DESIGN: Observational study of consecutive patients with a diagnosis of hip osteoarthritis and who had undergone total hip arthroplasty over a 1-year period from seven hospitals. MAIN MEASURES: The appropriateness of the use of hip replacement was judged by explicit criteria developed by a panel of experts using RAND methodology. The length of hospital stay during the admission and complications were recorded 6 months post-operatively. Patients were also surveyed 6 months after discharge to determine whether they believed they had recovered or their satisfaction with the intervention. Appropriateness results of this study were compared with a previous study performed with the same criteria 4 years previously. RESULTS: In total, 784 patients participated in the study. Indications for surgery were considered necessary in 52.2% of cases, appropriate in 21.3%, uncertain in 21.4%, and inappropriate in 5.1%. Differences were found in the rates of appropriateness exclusively from one hospital. At 6 months after discharge, differences between centres were found for the proportion of patients that reported they had recovered from surgery (range 57.7-24.8%) and in the length of hospital stay during admission (range 10-16 days). Improvement in the appropriateness rates were found for all participant hospitals during both periods. CONCLUSIONS: We identified a low percentage of inappropriate indications and differences in some outcomes between centres. Compared with previously, there has been improvement in the use of this technique, although both periods are not methodologically comparable.

Use of explicit criteria for total hip joint replacement fixation techniques.

We developed a tool to judge the appropriateness of indications and fixation mechanisms for total hip joint replacement (THJR) and applied it to a sample of patients. Criteria were developed using a modified Delphi panel judgment process, following the RAND methodology (RAM). We recruited, during 1 year, patients with a diagnosis of osteoarthritis undergoing THJR in five public hospitals. The appropriateness of the THJR intervention and the fixation mechanism was judged by the explicit criteria developed by a panel of experts. Of the 216 scenarios scored by the panel for the use of each of three fixation mechanisms, the cemented fixation was considered inappropriate in 69.5%, versus just 33.3% for the non cemented. Of those scenarios considered appropriate, the most appropriate mechanism of fixation was considered to be non cemented (74.4%), while cemented (17.8%) and hybrid (7.8%) scenarios were scored as appropriate less often. The previous explicit criteria were applied to 583 real patients. After evaluation of the interventions, 30% of the fixation mechanisms used were considered appropriate, while 21.8% inappropriate. Appropriate use of fixation mechanisms varied among hospitals. RAM can provide explicit criteria to help in clinical decision making and evaluating indications for a THJR intervention. Nevertheless, in the case of the appropriateness of fixation mechanisms, due to the lack of evidence, the panel criteria were biased towards the non cemented technique, which had important implications for the evaluation of some hospitals.