Chelsea A Harris1, Melissa J Shauver1, Frank Yuan2, Jacob Nasser1, Kevin C Chung3. 1. Section of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI. 2. Department of Surgery, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA. 3. Section of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI. Electronic address: kecchung@med.umich.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We sought to compare preferences for arthroplasty versus arthrodesis among patients with proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint osteoarthritis (OA) by quantifying the patient-assigned utility of each operation's attributes. METHODS: We undertook a multistep process to identify relevant surgical attributes, including a literature review, surgeon survey, and pretest patient pilot test to build a set of discrete choice experiments. Patients with PIP joint osteoarthritis were identified using a single university electronic medical record and were recruited via electronic message or postcard. Participants completed a demographic survey and 11 discrete choice experiments designed using Sawtooth Software's Discover tool. Utility and importance scores were generated for each attribute. RESULTS: Pretest analysis identified out-of-pocket cost, joint stiffness, need for future surgery, change in grip strength, and total recovery time as the most important surgical attributes. Initial response rate to the conjoint survey was 75% and survey completion rate was 61%. The study sample was predominantly white (91%) and female (72%), mean age 64.3 years (range, 34-90 years), and mean daily pain score was 4.32 (range, 0-10). Attribute importance scores demonstrated that joint stiffness (32%) and grip strength (29%) were most important to patients. Cost (17%) and need for future surgery (19%) were intermediate patient-preference drivers. Recovery time was the least important attribute (2%). CONCLUSIONS: In aggregate, patients prefer surgical attributes characteristic of arthroplasty (ability to preserve joint motion and grip strength) relative to those associated with arthrodesis (decreased need for reoperation, lower costs, and shorter reoperation times). TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Economic/Decision Analysis III.
PURPOSE: We sought to compare preferences for arthroplasty versus arthrodesis among patients with proximal interphalangeal (PIP) joint osteoarthritis (OA) by quantifying the patient-assigned utility of each operation's attributes. METHODS: We undertook a multistep process to identify relevant surgical attributes, including a literature review, surgeon survey, and pretest patient pilot test to build a set of discrete choice experiments. Patients with PIP joint osteoarthritis were identified using a single university electronic medical record and were recruited via electronic message or postcard. Participants completed a demographic survey and 11 discrete choice experiments designed using Sawtooth Software's Discover tool. Utility and importance scores were generated for each attribute. RESULTS: Pretest analysis identified out-of-pocket cost, joint stiffness, need for future surgery, change in grip strength, and total recovery time as the most important surgical attributes. Initial response rate to the conjoint survey was 75% and survey completion rate was 61%. The study sample was predominantly white (91%) and female (72%), mean age 64.3 years (range, 34-90 years), and mean daily pain score was 4.32 (range, 0-10). Attribute importance scores demonstrated that joint stiffness (32%) and grip strength (29%) were most important to patients. Cost (17%) and need for future surgery (19%) were intermediate patient-preference drivers. Recovery time was the least important attribute (2%). CONCLUSIONS: In aggregate, patients prefer surgical attributes characteristic of arthroplasty (ability to preserve joint motion and grip strength) relative to those associated with arthrodesis (decreased need for reoperation, lower costs, and shorter reoperation times). TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Economic/Decision Analysis III.
Authors: Nicholas Fuggle; Nathalie Bere; Olivier Bruyère; Mario Manuel Rosa; María Concepción Prieto Yerro; Elaine Dennison; Fitnat Dincer; Cem Gabay; Ida K Haugen; Gabriel Herrero-Beaumont; Mickaël Hiligsmann; Marc C Hochberg; Andrea Laslop; Radmila Matijevic; Emmanuel Maheu; Alberto Migliore; Jean-Pierre Pelletier; Régis Pierre Radermecker; François Rannou; Brigitte Uebelhart; Daniel Uebelhart; Nicola Veronese; Mila Vlaskovska; René Rizzoli; Ali Mobasheri; Cyrus Cooper; Jean-Yves Reginster Journal: Aging Clin Exp Res Date: 2022-07-21 Impact factor: 4.481
Authors: Karishma Shah; Xiaotian Yang; Jennifer C E Lane; Gary S Collins; Nigel K Arden; Dominic Furniss; Stephanie R Filbay Journal: Rheumatol Int Date: 2020-08-24 Impact factor: 2.631