对侧THA间隔超过1年:每次手术后PROMs和医疗保健利用不同吗?

IF 4.2 2区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® Pub Date : 2024-12-06 DOI:10.1097/CORR.0000000000003339
Alvaro Ibaseta, Ignacio Pasqualini, Shujaa T Khan, Chao Zhang, Alison K Klika, Nicolas S Piuzzi
{"title":"对侧THA间隔超过1年:每次手术后PROMs和医疗保健利用不同吗?","authors":"Alvaro Ibaseta, Ignacio Pasqualini, Shujaa T Khan, Chao Zhang, Alison K Klika, Nicolas S Piuzzi","doi":"10.1097/CORR.0000000000003339","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patients who undergo a second THA at least 1 year after the first one may experience different recovery courses after each THA. It is unknown what the clinically relevant improvements and healthcare utilization are after each THA in patients undergoing contralateral THA > 1 year apart.</p><p><strong>Questions/purposes: </strong>(1) Do patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) differ at baseline and 1 year after THA for the first and second hip arthroplasty? (2) Does the likelihood of achieving minimum clinically important difference (MCID) and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) thresholds differ for the first and second hip arthroplasty? (3) Does utilization of healthcare within 90 days of THA, using discharge disposition, length of stay (LOS), and 90-day readmission risk as proxies, differ between the first and second hip arthroplasty?</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Between January 2016 and December 2021, a total of 14,023 primary THAs for hip osteoarthritis were performed at a large tertiary academic center, and data from each were longitudinally maintained in an institutional database. In this retrospective study, we excluded nonelective (n = 265), simultaneous bilateral (n = 89), staged bilateral < 1 year apart (n = 1856), unilateral THAs (n = 7541), and those who were lost prior to the minimum study follow-up of 1 year or had incomplete data sets (n =3618), leaving 654 contralateral THAs > 1 year apart (327 patients) for analysis here. The median (range) patient age was 64 years (26 to 88) at the time of the first THA and 66 years (27 to 88) at the second THA. The mean (IQR) time from first THA to second THA was 696 days (488 to 1008). In all, 62% (204 of 327) of patients were women, and 89% (286 of 321) were White. The median (range) BMI was 29 kg/m2 (first THA 16 to 60, second THA 18 to 56) at both THAs. PROMs were obtained preoperatively and at 1 year after each of the THAs and included Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score pain (HOOS-pain), physical function (HOOS-PS), and joint replacement (HOOS-JR) scores, as well as the Veterans Rand 12-Item Health Survey mental component summary score. Each was scored from 0 to 100, with higher scores representing better patient perceived outcomes. A distribution-based method was used to calculate the MCID thresholds (HOOS-pain 8.35, HOOS-PS 9.47, and HOOS-JR 7.76), while an anchor-based method was utilized for the PASS thresholds (HOOS-pain 80.6, HOOS-PS 83.6, and HOOS-JR 83.6). Healthcare utilization outcomes included discharge disposition, LOS, and 90-day readmission rates.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Patients had slightly lower baseline PROM scores in all HOOS subdomains before the first THA compared with the second THA (median HOOS-pain 38 versus 42, p < 0.001; HOOS-PS 54 versus 58, p < 0.001; HOOS-JR 43 versus 47, p < 0.001). The difference between baseline and 1-year postoperative scores was slightly larger in all HOOS subdomains after the first THA (median HOOS-pain difference 52 versus 50, p < 0.001; HOOS-PS difference 38 versus 31, p < 0.001; HOOS-JR difference 42 versus 39, p < 0.001). There was no difference in the percentage of patients achieving the MCID in HOOS-pain (97% versus 97%; p = 0.93), HOOS-PS (92% versus 88%; p = 0.17), and HOOS-JR (96% versus 94%; p = 0.18) between the first and second THAs. Although there was also no difference in the percentage of patients achieving PASS thresholds in HOOS-pain (81% versus 77%; p = 0.11), HOOS-PS (82% versus 79%; p = 0.055), and HOOS-JR (71% versus 71%; p = 0.39) between the first and second THAs, considerably fewer patients were reaching the PASS threshold in both THAs. After the second THA, slightly more patients were discharged home (95% versus 91%; p = 0.03) and had a very slightly shorter LOS (1.28 versus 1.35 days; p < 0.001). There was no difference in 90-day readmission rates between the first and second THA (4% versus 5%; p = 0.84).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In patients undergoing contralateral THA > 1 year apart, baseline PROMs were slightly worse before the first THA, and improvements were slightly greater compared with the second THA, although these differences were likely not clinically significant. Clinically meaningful improvements, based on MCID and PASS thresholds, were similar at 1 year for both THAs, yet 20% to 25% of patients reported inadequate pain relief after both surgeries. Healthcare utilization was also comparable between both procedures. Surgeons can use these findings to counsel patients on the likely similar outcomes following both their THAs. Future studies should explore factors contributing to inadequate pain relief and identify strategies to improve patient outcomes after both THAs.Level of Evidence Level III, therapeutic study.</p>","PeriodicalId":10404,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Contralateral THA More Than 1 Year Apart: Do PROMs and Healthcare Utilization Differ After Each Surgery?\",\"authors\":\"Alvaro Ibaseta, Ignacio Pasqualini, Shujaa T Khan, Chao Zhang, Alison K Klika, Nicolas S Piuzzi\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/CORR.0000000000003339\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patients who undergo a second THA at least 1 year after the first one may experience different recovery courses after each THA. It is unknown what the clinically relevant improvements and healthcare utilization are after each THA in patients undergoing contralateral THA > 1 year apart.</p><p><strong>Questions/purposes: </strong>(1) Do patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) differ at baseline and 1 year after THA for the first and second hip arthroplasty? (2) Does the likelihood of achieving minimum clinically important difference (MCID) and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) thresholds differ for the first and second hip arthroplasty? (3) Does utilization of healthcare within 90 days of THA, using discharge disposition, length of stay (LOS), and 90-day readmission risk as proxies, differ between the first and second hip arthroplasty?</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Between January 2016 and December 2021, a total of 14,023 primary THAs for hip osteoarthritis were performed at a large tertiary academic center, and data from each were longitudinally maintained in an institutional database. In this retrospective study, we excluded nonelective (n = 265), simultaneous bilateral (n = 89), staged bilateral < 1 year apart (n = 1856), unilateral THAs (n = 7541), and those who were lost prior to the minimum study follow-up of 1 year or had incomplete data sets (n =3618), leaving 654 contralateral THAs > 1 year apart (327 patients) for analysis here. The median (range) patient age was 64 years (26 to 88) at the time of the first THA and 66 years (27 to 88) at the second THA. The mean (IQR) time from first THA to second THA was 696 days (488 to 1008). In all, 62% (204 of 327) of patients were women, and 89% (286 of 321) were White. The median (range) BMI was 29 kg/m2 (first THA 16 to 60, second THA 18 to 56) at both THAs. PROMs were obtained preoperatively and at 1 year after each of the THAs and included Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score pain (HOOS-pain), physical function (HOOS-PS), and joint replacement (HOOS-JR) scores, as well as the Veterans Rand 12-Item Health Survey mental component summary score. Each was scored from 0 to 100, with higher scores representing better patient perceived outcomes. A distribution-based method was used to calculate the MCID thresholds (HOOS-pain 8.35, HOOS-PS 9.47, and HOOS-JR 7.76), while an anchor-based method was utilized for the PASS thresholds (HOOS-pain 80.6, HOOS-PS 83.6, and HOOS-JR 83.6). Healthcare utilization outcomes included discharge disposition, LOS, and 90-day readmission rates.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Patients had slightly lower baseline PROM scores in all HOOS subdomains before the first THA compared with the second THA (median HOOS-pain 38 versus 42, p < 0.001; HOOS-PS 54 versus 58, p < 0.001; HOOS-JR 43 versus 47, p < 0.001). The difference between baseline and 1-year postoperative scores was slightly larger in all HOOS subdomains after the first THA (median HOOS-pain difference 52 versus 50, p < 0.001; HOOS-PS difference 38 versus 31, p < 0.001; HOOS-JR difference 42 versus 39, p < 0.001). There was no difference in the percentage of patients achieving the MCID in HOOS-pain (97% versus 97%; p = 0.93), HOOS-PS (92% versus 88%; p = 0.17), and HOOS-JR (96% versus 94%; p = 0.18) between the first and second THAs. Although there was also no difference in the percentage of patients achieving PASS thresholds in HOOS-pain (81% versus 77%; p = 0.11), HOOS-PS (82% versus 79%; p = 0.055), and HOOS-JR (71% versus 71%; p = 0.39) between the first and second THAs, considerably fewer patients were reaching the PASS threshold in both THAs. After the second THA, slightly more patients were discharged home (95% versus 91%; p = 0.03) and had a very slightly shorter LOS (1.28 versus 1.35 days; p < 0.001). There was no difference in 90-day readmission rates between the first and second THA (4% versus 5%; p = 0.84).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In patients undergoing contralateral THA > 1 year apart, baseline PROMs were slightly worse before the first THA, and improvements were slightly greater compared with the second THA, although these differences were likely not clinically significant. Clinically meaningful improvements, based on MCID and PASS thresholds, were similar at 1 year for both THAs, yet 20% to 25% of patients reported inadequate pain relief after both surgeries. Healthcare utilization was also comparable between both procedures. Surgeons can use these findings to counsel patients on the likely similar outcomes following both their THAs. Future studies should explore factors contributing to inadequate pain relief and identify strategies to improve patient outcomes after both THAs.Level of Evidence Level III, therapeutic study.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10404,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000003339\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000003339","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在第一次髋关节置换术后至少1年接受第二次髋关节置换术的患者可能在每次髋关节置换术后经历不同的恢复过程。目前尚不清楚对侧髋关节置换术间隔10年的患者每次髋关节置换术后的临床相关改善和医疗保健利用情况。问题/目的:(1)患者报告的结果测量(PROMs)在第一次和第二次髋关节置换术的基线和术后1年是否不同?(2)第一次和第二次髋关节置换术实现最小临床重要差异(MCID)和患者可接受症状状态(PASS)阈值的可能性是否不同?(3)使用出院处置、住院时间(LOS)和90天再入院风险作为替代指标,髋关节置换术后90天内的医疗保健利用情况在第一次和第二次髋关节置换术之间是否存在差异?方法:在2016年1月至2021年12月期间,在一家大型三级学术中心共进行了14023例髋关节骨关节炎的原发性tha手术,并将每个手术的数据纵向保存在机构数据库中。在这项回顾性研究中,我们排除了非选择性(n = 265),同时双侧(n = 89),分阶段双侧间隔< 1年(n = 1856),单侧tha (n = 7541),以及在最短研究随访1年之前丢失或数据集不完整的患者(n =3618),留下654例对侧tha(327例)进行分析。第一次THA时患者年龄中位数(范围)为64岁(26 - 88岁),第二次THA时为66岁(27 - 88岁)。从第一次THA到第二次THA的平均(IQR)时间为696天(488 ~ 1008)。总的来说,62%(327例中有204例)的患者是女性,89%(321例中有286例)是白人。两组患者的BMI中位数(范围)均为29 kg/m2(第一次为16 ~ 60,第二次为18 ~ 56)。在术前和每次tha后1年获得PROMs,包括髋关节残疾和骨关节炎结局评分疼痛(HOOS-pain),身体功能(HOOS-PS)和关节置换术(HOOS-JR)评分,以及退伍军人兰德12项健康调查心理成分总结评分。每项评分从0到100分,得分越高,患者感知到的结果越好。采用基于分布的方法计算MCID阈值(HOOS-pain 8.35、HOOS-PS 9.47和HOOS-JR 7.76),采用基于锚点的方法计算PASS阈值(HOOS-pain 80.6、HOOS-PS 83.6和HOOS-JR 83.6)。医疗保健利用结果包括出院处理、LOS和90天再入院率。结果:与第二次THA相比,患者在第一次THA前所有HOOS子域的基线PROM评分略低(HOOS-pain中位数38比42,p < 0.001;HOOS-PS 54比58,p < 0.001;HOOS-JR 43比47,p < 0.001)。第一次THA后所有HOOS子域的基线评分与术后1年评分的差异略大(HOOS-pain中位数差为52比50,p < 0.001;HOOS-PS差异38比31,p < 0.001;HOOS-JR差异42比39,p < 0.001)。在hos -pain中达到MCID的患者百分比没有差异(97% vs 97%;p = 0.93), HOOS-PS(92%对88%;p = 0.17), HOOS-JR(96%对94%;p = 0.18)。尽管在hoos疼痛中达到PASS阈值的患者百分比也没有差异(81%对77%;p = 0.11), HOOS-PS (82% vs 79%;p = 0.055), HOOS-JR(71%对71%;p = 0.39),两种tha中达到PASS阈值的患者明显减少。第二次全髋关节置换术后,出院回家的患者略多(95% vs 91%;p = 0.03), LOS略短(1.28天vs 1.35天;P < 0.001)。第一次和第二次THA的90天再入院率没有差异(4%对5%;P = 0.84)。结论:在间隔1年的对侧THA患者中,第一次THA前的基线PROMs略差,与第二次THA相比,改善略大,尽管这些差异可能没有临床意义。基于MCID和PASS阈值,两种tha术后1年的临床意义改善相似,但20%至25%的患者报告两次手术后疼痛缓解不足。两种程序之间的医疗保健利用率也具有可比性。外科医生可以利用这些发现,就两种tha术后可能出现的相似结果向患者提供建议。未来的研究应该探索导致疼痛缓解不足的因素,并确定改善两种tha后患者预后的策略。证据等级:III级,治疗性研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Contralateral THA More Than 1 Year Apart: Do PROMs and Healthcare Utilization Differ After Each Surgery?

Background: Patients who undergo a second THA at least 1 year after the first one may experience different recovery courses after each THA. It is unknown what the clinically relevant improvements and healthcare utilization are after each THA in patients undergoing contralateral THA > 1 year apart.

Questions/purposes: (1) Do patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) differ at baseline and 1 year after THA for the first and second hip arthroplasty? (2) Does the likelihood of achieving minimum clinically important difference (MCID) and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) thresholds differ for the first and second hip arthroplasty? (3) Does utilization of healthcare within 90 days of THA, using discharge disposition, length of stay (LOS), and 90-day readmission risk as proxies, differ between the first and second hip arthroplasty?

Methods: Between January 2016 and December 2021, a total of 14,023 primary THAs for hip osteoarthritis were performed at a large tertiary academic center, and data from each were longitudinally maintained in an institutional database. In this retrospective study, we excluded nonelective (n = 265), simultaneous bilateral (n = 89), staged bilateral < 1 year apart (n = 1856), unilateral THAs (n = 7541), and those who were lost prior to the minimum study follow-up of 1 year or had incomplete data sets (n =3618), leaving 654 contralateral THAs > 1 year apart (327 patients) for analysis here. The median (range) patient age was 64 years (26 to 88) at the time of the first THA and 66 years (27 to 88) at the second THA. The mean (IQR) time from first THA to second THA was 696 days (488 to 1008). In all, 62% (204 of 327) of patients were women, and 89% (286 of 321) were White. The median (range) BMI was 29 kg/m2 (first THA 16 to 60, second THA 18 to 56) at both THAs. PROMs were obtained preoperatively and at 1 year after each of the THAs and included Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score pain (HOOS-pain), physical function (HOOS-PS), and joint replacement (HOOS-JR) scores, as well as the Veterans Rand 12-Item Health Survey mental component summary score. Each was scored from 0 to 100, with higher scores representing better patient perceived outcomes. A distribution-based method was used to calculate the MCID thresholds (HOOS-pain 8.35, HOOS-PS 9.47, and HOOS-JR 7.76), while an anchor-based method was utilized for the PASS thresholds (HOOS-pain 80.6, HOOS-PS 83.6, and HOOS-JR 83.6). Healthcare utilization outcomes included discharge disposition, LOS, and 90-day readmission rates.

Results: Patients had slightly lower baseline PROM scores in all HOOS subdomains before the first THA compared with the second THA (median HOOS-pain 38 versus 42, p < 0.001; HOOS-PS 54 versus 58, p < 0.001; HOOS-JR 43 versus 47, p < 0.001). The difference between baseline and 1-year postoperative scores was slightly larger in all HOOS subdomains after the first THA (median HOOS-pain difference 52 versus 50, p < 0.001; HOOS-PS difference 38 versus 31, p < 0.001; HOOS-JR difference 42 versus 39, p < 0.001). There was no difference in the percentage of patients achieving the MCID in HOOS-pain (97% versus 97%; p = 0.93), HOOS-PS (92% versus 88%; p = 0.17), and HOOS-JR (96% versus 94%; p = 0.18) between the first and second THAs. Although there was also no difference in the percentage of patients achieving PASS thresholds in HOOS-pain (81% versus 77%; p = 0.11), HOOS-PS (82% versus 79%; p = 0.055), and HOOS-JR (71% versus 71%; p = 0.39) between the first and second THAs, considerably fewer patients were reaching the PASS threshold in both THAs. After the second THA, slightly more patients were discharged home (95% versus 91%; p = 0.03) and had a very slightly shorter LOS (1.28 versus 1.35 days; p < 0.001). There was no difference in 90-day readmission rates between the first and second THA (4% versus 5%; p = 0.84).

Conclusion: In patients undergoing contralateral THA > 1 year apart, baseline PROMs were slightly worse before the first THA, and improvements were slightly greater compared with the second THA, although these differences were likely not clinically significant. Clinically meaningful improvements, based on MCID and PASS thresholds, were similar at 1 year for both THAs, yet 20% to 25% of patients reported inadequate pain relief after both surgeries. Healthcare utilization was also comparable between both procedures. Surgeons can use these findings to counsel patients on the likely similar outcomes following both their THAs. Future studies should explore factors contributing to inadequate pain relief and identify strategies to improve patient outcomes after both THAs.Level of Evidence Level III, therapeutic study.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.00
自引率
11.90%
发文量
722
审稿时长
2.5 months
期刊介绍: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® is a leading peer-reviewed journal devoted to the dissemination of new and important orthopaedic knowledge. CORR® brings readers the latest clinical and basic research, along with columns, commentaries, and interviews with authors.
期刊最新文献
CORR Insights®: Does Resilience Change in Patients Undergoing Shoulder Surgery? A Retrospective Comparative Study Utilizing the Brief Resilience Scale. Editorial: The Goal is Health, Not Surgery. Do Surgeons Experience Moral Dissonance When There Is Misalignment Between Evidence and Action? A Survey and Scenario-based Study. Does Cannabis-based Medicine Improve Pain and Sleep Quality in Patients With Traumatic Brachial Plexus Injuries? A Triple-blind, Crossover, Randomized Controlled Trial. What Are the Relative Associations of Surgeon Performance and Prosthesis Quality With THA Revision Rates?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1