Time to Achieve the Minimal Clinically Important Difference in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: Comparison of Anterior and Posterior Surgical Approaches.

BACKGROUND: Controversy remains over outcomes between total hip arthroplasty approaches. This study aimed to compare the time to achieve the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Physical Function Short Form (HOOS-PS) and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Global-Physical for patients who underwent anterior and posterior surgical approaches in primary total hip arthroplasty. METHODS: Patients from 2018 to 2021 with preoperative and postoperative HOOS-PS or PROMIS Global-Physical questionnaires were grouped by approach. Demographic and MCID achievement rates were compared, and survival curves with and without interval-censoring were used to assess the time to achieve the MCID by approach. Log-rank and weighted log-rank tests were used to compare groups, and Weibull regression analyses were performed to assess potential covariates. RESULTS: A total of 2,725 patients (1,054 anterior and 1,671 posterior) were analyzed. There were no significant differences in median MCID achievement times for either the HOOS-PS (anterior: 5.9 months, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.6 to 6.4; posterior: 4.4 months, 95% CI: 4.1 to 5.1, P = .65) or the PROMIS Global-Physical (anterior: 4.2 months, 95% CI: 3.5 to 5.3; posterior: 3.5 months, 95% CI: 3.4 to 3.8, P = .08) between approaches. Interval-censoring revealed earlier times of achieving the MCID for both the HOOS-PS (anterior: 1.509 to 1.511 months; posterior: 1.7 to 2.3 months, P = .87) and the PROMIS Global-Physical (anterior: 3.0 to 3.1 weeks; posterior: 2.7 to 3.3 weeks, P = .18) for both surgical approaches. CONCLUSIONS: The time to achieve the MCID did not differ by surgical approach. Most patients will achieve clinically meaningful improvements in physical function much earlier than previously believed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, Retrospective Comparative Study.

Mental Health Effects on the Minimal Clinically Important Difference in Total Joint Arthroplasty.

INTRODUCTION: The effect of mental health on patient-reported outcome measures is not fully understood in total joint arthroplasty (TJA). Thus, we investigated the relationship between mental health diagnoses (MHDs) and the Minimal Clinically Important Difference for Improvement (MCID-I) and Worsening (MCID-W) in primary TJA and revision TJA (rTJA). METHODS: Retrospective data were collected using relevant Current Procedural Terminology and MHDs International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, codes with completed Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Physical Function Short Form, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Physical Function Short Form, Patient-reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS)-Physical Function Short Form 10a, PROMIS Global-Mental, or PROMIS Global-Physical questionnaires. Logistic regressions and statistical analyses were used to determine the effect of a MHD on MCID-I/MCID-W rates. RESULTS: Data included 4,562 patients (4,190 primary TJAs/372 rTJAs). In primary total hip arthroplasty (pTHA), MHD-affected outcomes for Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Physical Function Short Form (MCID-I: 81% versus 86%, P = 0.007; MCID-W: 6.0% versus 3.2%, P = 0.008), Physical Function Short Form 10a (MCID-I: 68% versus 77%, P < 0.001), PROMIS Global-Mental (MCID-I: 38% versus 44%, P = 0.009), and PROMIS Global-Physical (MCID-I: 61% versus 73%, P < 0.001; MCID-W: 14% versus 7.9%, P < 0.001) versus pTHA patients without MHD. A MHD led to lower rates of MCID-I for PROMIS Global-Physical (MCID-I: 56% versus 63%, P = 0.003) in primary total knee arthroplasty patients. No effects from a MHD were observed in rTJA patients. DISCUSSION: The presence of a MHD had a prominent negative influence on pTHA patients. Patients who underwent rTJA had lower MCID-I rates, higher MCID-W rates, and lower patient-reported outcome measure scores despite less influence from a MHD. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative study.

Patients Consistently Report Worse Outcomes Following Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty Compared to Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Differences in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) between primary TKA (pTKA) and revision TKA (rTKA) have not been well-studied. Therefore, we compared pTKA and rTKA patients by the rates of achieving the Minimal Clinically Important Difference for Improvement (MCID-I) and Worsening (MCID-W). METHODS: A total of 2,448 patients (2,239 pTKAs/209 rTKAs) were retrospectively studied. Patients who completed the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Physical Function Short Form (KOOS-PS), Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function Short Form 10a (PF10a), PROMIS Global-Mental, or PROMIS Global-Physical questionnaires were identified by Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes. Patient-reported outcome measures and MCID-I/MCID-W rates were compared. Multivariate logistic regression models measured relationships between surgery type and postoperative outcomes. RESULTS: Patients who underwent rTKA (all causes) had lower rates of improvement and higher rates of worsening compared to pTKA patients for KOOS-PS (MCID-I: 54 versus 68%, P < .001; MCID-W: 18 versus 8.6%, P < .001), PF10a (MCID-I: 44 versus 65%, P < .001; MCID-W: 22 versus 11%, P < .001), PROMIS Global-Mental (MCID-I: 34 versus 45%, P = .005), and PROMIS Global-Physical (MCID-I: 51 versus 60%, P = .014; MCID-W: 29 versus 14%, P < .001). Undergoing revision was predictive of worsening postoperatively for KOOS-PS, PF10a, and PROMIS Global-Physical compared to pTKA. Postoperative scores were significantly higher for all 4 PROMs following pTKA. CONCLUSION: Patients reported significantly less improvement and higher rates of worsening following rTKA, particularly for PROMs that assessed physical function. Although pTKA patients did better overall, the improvement rates may be considered relatively low and should prompt discussions on improving outcomes following pTKA and rTKA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative study.

Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty Demonstrate Less Improvement and Significantly Higher Rates of Worsening Compared to Primaries.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) provide the patient's perspective following total hip arthroplasty (THA), although differences between primary THA (pTHA) and revision THA (rTHA) remain unclear. Thus, we compared the Minimal Clinically Important Difference for Improvement (MCID-I) and Worsening (MCID-W) in pTHA and rTHA patients. METHODS: Data from 2,159 patients (1,995 pTHAs/164 rTHAs) who had completed Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Physical Function Short Form (HOOS-PS), Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function Short Form 10a (PF10a), PROMIS Global-Mental, or PROMIS Global-Physical questionnaires were analyzed. The PROMs and MCID-I/MCID-W rates were compared using statistical tests and multivariate logistic regressions. RESULTS: Compared to the pTHA group, the rTHA group had lower rates of improvement and higher rates of worsening for almost all PROMs, including HOOS-PS (MCID-I: 54 versus 84%, P < .001; MCID-W: 24 versus 4.4%, P < .001), PF10a (MCID-I: 44 versus 73%, P < .001; MCID-W: 22 versus 5.9%, P < .001), PROMIS Global-Mental (MCID-W: 42 versus 28%, P < .001), and PROMIS Global-Physical (MCID-I: 41 versus 68%, P < .001; MCID-W: 26 versus 11%, P < .001). Odds ratios supported rates of worsening following revision for the HOOS-PS (Odds Ratio (OR): 8.25, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 5.62 to 12.4, P < .001), PF10a (OR: 8.34, 95% CI: 5.63 to 12.6, P < .001), PROMIS Global-Mental (OR: 2.16, 95% CI: 1.41 to 3.34, P < .001), and PROMIS Global-Physical (OR: 3.69, 95% CI: 2.46 to 5.62, P < .001). CONCLUSION: Patients reported higher rates of worsening and lower rates of improvement following rTHA than pTHA, with significantly less score improvement and lower postoperative scores for all PROMs after revision. Most patients reported improvements following pTHA, with few worsening postoperatively. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative study.