Predictors of Low Patient-Reported Outcomes Response Rates in the California Joint Replacement Registry.

Total joint arthroplasty registries are increasingly collecting Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROM) to more directly measure clinical success after surgery. Obtaining these valuable, complete pre- and post-operative surveys is challenging. We sought to identify specific patient or provider characteristics that are associated with low-reporting of PROM surveys in the California Joint Replacement Registry (CJRR). All reported total hip and knee arthroplasties (n=6861) during 2011-2014 were retrospectively reviewed. PROMs were prospectively collected to determine factors associated with non-participation. The critical factor in predicting ongoing participation post-operatively was the collection of PROM surveys pre-operatively. Specific patient demographics (race, discharge disposition, occurrence of a complication) and surgeon volume were predictive of non-response and are potential targets for increasing reporting rates.

Orthopedic surgery fellowships: the effects of interviewing and how residents establish a rank list.

The Orthopaedic Fellowship Match was established in 2008 to streamline and improve the process of matching residents and fellowships. The purpose of this study was to quantify the factors that affect the application process and to determine how residents establish a rank list. The Orthopaedic Fellowship Match has improved the ability of residents and programs to consider their options more carefully and to focus on finding the best match. However, this process introduces new factors for all parties involved to consider. The costs of the interview process and time away from service for residents may be larger than anticipated. Ultimately, residents value operative experience and staff members at a fellowship more than all other factors when selecting a fellowship.

The Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Outcomes Research (OFAR) network: feasibility of a multicenter network for patient outcomes assessment in foot and ankle.

INTRODUCTION: There is an increasing need for orthopaedic practitioners to measure and collect patient-reported outcomes data. In an effort to better understand outcomes from operative treatment, the American Orthopaedic Foot & Ankle Society (AOFAS) established the Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Outcomes Research (OFAR) Network, a national consortium of foot and ankle orthopaedic surgeons. We hypothesized that the OFAR Network could successfully collect, aggregate, and report patient-reported outcome (PRO) data using the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). METHODS: Ten sites enrolled consecutive patients undergoing elective surgery for 1 of 6 foot/ankle disorders. Outcome instruments were collected preoperatively and at 6 months postoperatively using the PROMIS online system: Foot and Ankle Ability Measure (FAAM), Foot Function Index (FFI), and PROMIS physical function (PF) and pain computerized adaptive tests (CAT). During the 3-month period, 328 patients were enrolled; 249 (76%) had completed preoperative patient-reported outcomes data and procedure-specific data. Of these, 140 (56%) also completed 6-month postoperative patient- reported outcomes data. RESULTS: Ankle arthritis and flatfoot demonstrated consistently worse preoperative scores. Five of 6 disorders showed significant improvement at 6 months on PF CAT and FAAM, 4 of 6 showed improvement on pain interference CAT, and no disorders showed improvement on FFI. Ankle arthritis and flatfoot demonstrated the greatest magnitude of change on most patient-reported outcomes scales. CONCLUSION: We were able to enroll large numbers of patients in a short enrollment period for this preliminary study. Data were easily aggregated and analyzed. Substantial loss of follow-up data indicates a critical area requiring further effort. The AOFAS OFAR Network is undergoing expansion with goals to ultimately facilitate large, prospective multicenter studies and optimize the quality and interpretation of available outcome instruments for the foot and ankle population. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, prospective comparative study.

Which factors influence preservation of the osteonecrotic femoral head?

BACKGROUND: Although surgeons use many procedures to preserve the femoral head in patients with hip osteonecrosis, there is no consensus regarding the best procedure. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We raised the following questions: (1) Is one surgical treatment preferred based on published data? (2) What are the rates of radiographic progression or conversion to THA after treatment of pre- and postcollapse hips? (3) Does lesion size in the femoral head influence progression? And (4) does the extent of involvement of the weightbearing surface of the femoral head influence outcome? METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and Scopus for articles published between 1998 and 2010. We included only articles assessing an operative intervention for hip osteonecrosis and having a level of evidence of I to IV. We included 54 of the 488 reviewed manuscripts. RESULTS: No procedure was superior to others. In pre- and postcollapse hips, 264 of 864 hips (31%) and 419 of 850 hips (49%), respectively, exhibited radiographic disease progression. There were lower failure rates when the lesion involved less than 15% of the femoral head or had a necrotic angle of less than 200° (14%-25%) and when the osteonecrotic lesion involved only the medial 1/3 of the weightbearing surface (4.6%). CONCLUSIONS: The best treatment of precollapse lesions is difficult to determine due to the limitations of the available literature. However, the data suggest operative intervention prevents collapse of small lesions of the femoral head or when there is a limited amount of the weightbearing surface involved. Patients with head collapse have a high progression rate after a femoral head-saving procedure.

Comparison of the responsiveness of the SF-36 and WOMAC in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty.

This study examines the responsiveness of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and Short Form-36 (SF-36) in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty. Eighty-nine patients completed the WOMAC and SF-36 preoperatively and postoperatively. Standardized response means (SRMs) and effect sizes (ES) were used to measure responsiveness. Mean follow-up was 17 months. The SRMs for the WOMAC ranged from -0.93 to -1.49, and the ES ranged from -1.02 to -1.53. The SRMs for the SF-36 ranged from 0.22 to 1.64, and the ES ranged from 0.20 to 1.97. The highest values occurred with the physical functioning, bodily pain, and Physical Component Summary Scales. This study demonstrates a similar level of responsiveness of the WOMAC and several components of the SF-36. This suggests that the isolated use of the SF-36 may be adequate to monitor outcomes after total hip arthroplasty. There may still be a role for the WOMAC when comparing outcomes of specific designs or techniques of total hip arthroplasty.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of core decompression.

Core decompression is widely used to treat the early stages of osteonecrosis of the hip. The purpose of this analysis is to assist orthopedic surgeons in judging whether currently available data support the use of core decompression as cost-effective. A decision model was created for the treatment of osteonecrosis of the femoral head. Literature review was used to identify possible outcomes and their probability after initial treatment with either observation or core decompression. This model demonstrates core decompression must delay the need for total hip arthroplasty for a minimum of 5 years to maintain an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio lower than 50,000 dollars per quality-adjusted life year gained. Treatment options with ratios higher than 50,000 dollars per quality-adjusted life year are generally considered to have limited cost-effectiveness. This study demonstrates that core decompression has the potential to be a highly cost-effective alternative if it is leads to a delay in the need for total hip arthroplasty of 5 years or longer.

Optimal timeframe for reporting short-term complication rates after total knee arthroplasty.

This study attempts to identify the optimal follow-up period to report short-term complication rates after primary total knee arthroplasty. Discharge data from 1991 through 2001 was obtained from California and linked to state death records. Rates of mortality, infection, and pulmonary embolism were determined at 30-day intervals for up to 1 year postoperatively. An analysis of 222,684 primary total knee arthroplasties was performed. The peak rate and a large proportion of the complications that occurred during the first year after surgery were seen within the initial 30-day postoperative period. Regression analyses demonstrated that the patient and hospital characteristics predictive of outcome differed when comparing the results at 1 year postoperatively to shorter-term follow-up periods. The findings of this study indicate that 30- and 60-day follow-up periods provide an adequate accounting for adverse events related to mortality, infection, and pulmonary embolism. However, the regression results highlight the continued importance of reporting long-term outcomes.

Evaluation of the validity of the AOFAS Clinical Rating Systems by correlation to the SF-36.

This study evaluates the validity of the AOFAS Clinical Rating Systems by examining their level of correlation to the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 (SF-36) in patients with foot and ankle complaints. The SF-36 is an extensively validated outcomes tool that has been used as a benchmark in examining the validity of outcomes instruments designed for the upper extremity, knee, shoulder, and general orthopaedic conditions. The study sample was 91 patients seen at the foot and ankle clinic of a university-based orthopaedic practice. Patients were administered both the AOFAS Clinical Rating Systems and SF-36 instruments. Pearson correlation coefficients of the AOFAS scores to the SF-36 sub-scales ranged from 0.02 to 0.36 in the overall study population. Correlation was higher for the sub-set of patients with ankle-hindfoot disorders (0.11 to 0.53) than patients with forefoot disorders (-0.05 to 0.25). The low levels of correlation seen in this study suggest poor construct validity of the AOFAS Clinical Rating Systems.

Evaluation of the construct validity of the DASH questionnaire by correlation to the SF-36.

The construct validity of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (DASH) questionnaire was evaluated by examining its correlation to the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 (SF-36). The study sample was 90 patients seen at the upper-extremity clinic of a university-based orthopedic practice. Patients were asked to complete a packet that included the DASH and SF-36 questionnaires. Pearson correlation coefficients of the DASH questionnaire to the SF-36 subscales ranged from -0.36 to -0.62. The DASH questionnaire had fewer ceiling and floor scores than most of the SF-36 subscales. These results support the DASH questionnaire as a valid measure of health status useful in patients with a wide variety of upper-extremity complaints.