Cargando…

Patient-reported outcome measures in total joint arthroplasty: defining the optimal collection window

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine the optimal window for collection of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) after total joint arthroplasty (TJA). METHODS: Our prospectively collected institutional joint registry was queried for patients who underwent primary, unilateral TJA...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Canfield, Michael, Savoy, Lawrence, Cote, Mark P., Halawi, Mohamad J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Elsevier 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7083724/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32211477
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.artd.2019.10.003
_version_ 1783508579457695744
author Canfield, Michael
Savoy, Lawrence
Cote, Mark P.
Halawi, Mohamad J.
author_facet Canfield, Michael
Savoy, Lawrence
Cote, Mark P.
Halawi, Mohamad J.
author_sort Canfield, Michael
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine the optimal window for collection of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) after total joint arthroplasty (TJA). METHODS: Our prospectively collected institutional joint registry was queried for patients who underwent primary, unilateral TJAs. The primary outcomes were the net changes in WOMAC, SF-12 MCS, SF-12 PCS, OHS, KSCRS, and UCLA activity rating system at 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. Secondary outcomes were data acquisition costs and follow-up attrition rates. RESULTS: Eight hundred sixty-six procedures (450 total hip arthroplasties, 416 TKAs) were analyzed. A consistent plateau in all PROMs was noted by 6 months postoperatively–except for SF-12 MCS which showed no significant changes at any time interval. For TKA, the percentage of overall improvement achieved by 6 months was 88.7%, 84.5%, 100%, and 90.5% for the WOMAC, SF-12 PCS, UCLA, and KSCRS, respectively. For total hip arthroplasty, these values were 92.7%, 83.5%, 88.0%, and 89.8% for WOMAC, SF-12 PCS, UCLA, and OHS, respectively. There were marginal improvements from 6 to 12 months and no improvement from 12 to 24 months. Follow-up rates at 6, 12, and 24 months were 85%, 69%, and 40%, respectively. Our institutional costs for collecting a complete data set per patient were $128, $158, and $272 for 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the improvement in PROMs after primary TJA occurs within the first 6 months. In addition, limiting PROMs collection to 6 months appears to be cost-efficient owing to increased attrition rates beyond this time interval.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7083724
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Elsevier
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-70837242020-03-24 Patient-reported outcome measures in total joint arthroplasty: defining the optimal collection window Canfield, Michael Savoy, Lawrence Cote, Mark P. Halawi, Mohamad J. Arthroplast Today Brief Communication BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine the optimal window for collection of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) after total joint arthroplasty (TJA). METHODS: Our prospectively collected institutional joint registry was queried for patients who underwent primary, unilateral TJAs. The primary outcomes were the net changes in WOMAC, SF-12 MCS, SF-12 PCS, OHS, KSCRS, and UCLA activity rating system at 6, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. Secondary outcomes were data acquisition costs and follow-up attrition rates. RESULTS: Eight hundred sixty-six procedures (450 total hip arthroplasties, 416 TKAs) were analyzed. A consistent plateau in all PROMs was noted by 6 months postoperatively–except for SF-12 MCS which showed no significant changes at any time interval. For TKA, the percentage of overall improvement achieved by 6 months was 88.7%, 84.5%, 100%, and 90.5% for the WOMAC, SF-12 PCS, UCLA, and KSCRS, respectively. For total hip arthroplasty, these values were 92.7%, 83.5%, 88.0%, and 89.8% for WOMAC, SF-12 PCS, UCLA, and OHS, respectively. There were marginal improvements from 6 to 12 months and no improvement from 12 to 24 months. Follow-up rates at 6, 12, and 24 months were 85%, 69%, and 40%, respectively. Our institutional costs for collecting a complete data set per patient were $128, $158, and $272 for 6, 12, and 24 months, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the improvement in PROMs after primary TJA occurs within the first 6 months. In addition, limiting PROMs collection to 6 months appears to be cost-efficient owing to increased attrition rates beyond this time interval. Elsevier 2019-11-25 /pmc/articles/PMC7083724/ /pubmed/32211477 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.artd.2019.10.003 Text en © 2019 The Authors http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
spellingShingle Brief Communication
Canfield, Michael
Savoy, Lawrence
Cote, Mark P.
Halawi, Mohamad J.
Patient-reported outcome measures in total joint arthroplasty: defining the optimal collection window
title Patient-reported outcome measures in total joint arthroplasty: defining the optimal collection window
title_full Patient-reported outcome measures in total joint arthroplasty: defining the optimal collection window
title_fullStr Patient-reported outcome measures in total joint arthroplasty: defining the optimal collection window
title_full_unstemmed Patient-reported outcome measures in total joint arthroplasty: defining the optimal collection window
title_short Patient-reported outcome measures in total joint arthroplasty: defining the optimal collection window
title_sort patient-reported outcome measures in total joint arthroplasty: defining the optimal collection window
topic Brief Communication
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7083724/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32211477
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.artd.2019.10.003
work_keys_str_mv AT canfieldmichael patientreportedoutcomemeasuresintotaljointarthroplastydefiningtheoptimalcollectionwindow
AT savoylawrence patientreportedoutcomemeasuresintotaljointarthroplastydefiningtheoptimalcollectionwindow
AT cotemarkp patientreportedoutcomemeasuresintotaljointarthroplastydefiningtheoptimalcollectionwindow
AT halawimohamadj patientreportedoutcomemeasuresintotaljointarthroplastydefiningtheoptimalcollectionwindow