BACKGROUND: Up to 15% of patients express dissatisfaction after total hip arthroplasty (THA). Preoperative patient-report outcome measures (PROMs) scores can potentially mitigate this by predicting postoperative satisfaction, identifying patients that will benefit most from surgery. The aim of this study was to (1) calculate the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) thresholds for Oxford Hip Score (OHS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and the Short Form-36 (SF-36) mental component summary (MCS) and physical component summary (PCS) scores and (2) identify the threshold values of these PROMs that could be used to predict patient satisfaction and expectation fulfilment. METHODS: Prospectively collected registry data of 1334 primary THA patients who returned for 2-year follow-up from 1998 to 2016 were reviewed. All patients were assessed preoperatively and postoperatively at 2 years using the OHS, WOMAC, and SF-36 PCS/MCS scores. The MCID for each PROMs was calculated, and the proportion of patients that attained MCID was recorded. The relationship between satisfaction, expectation fulfilment, and MCID attainment was analyzed using Spearman rank correlation. Optimal threshold scores for each PROM that predicted MCID attainment and satisfaction/expectation fulfilment at 2 years were calculated using receiver operating curve analysis. RESULTS: The calculated MCID for OHS, WOMAC, SF-36 PCS, and SF-36 MCS were 5.2, 10.8, 6.7, and 6.2, respectively. A threshold value of 24.5 for the preoperative OHS was predictive of achieving WOMAC MCID at 2 years after THA (area under the curve 0.80, P < .001). 93.1% of patients were satisfied, and 95.5% had expectations fulfilled at 2 years. None of the PROMs were able to predict satisfaction. CONCLUSION: OHS and WOMAC scores can be used to determine clinical meaningful improvement but are limited in their ability to predict patient satisfaction after THA.
BACKGROUND: Up to 15% of patients express dissatisfaction after total hip arthroplasty (THA). Preoperative patient-report outcome measures (PROMs) scores can potentially mitigate this by predicting postoperative satisfaction, identifying patients that will benefit most from surgery. The aim of this study was to (1) calculate the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) thresholds for Oxford Hip Score (OHS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and the Short Form-36 (SF-36) mental component summary (MCS) and physical component summary (PCS) scores and (2) identify the threshold values of these PROMs that could be used to predict patient satisfaction and expectation fulfilment. METHODS: Prospectively collected registry data of 1334 primary THA patients who returned for 2-year follow-up from 1998 to 2016 were reviewed. All patients were assessed preoperatively and postoperatively at 2 years using the OHS, WOMAC, and SF-36 PCS/MCS scores. The MCID for each PROMs was calculated, and the proportion of patients that attained MCID was recorded. The relationship between satisfaction, expectation fulfilment, and MCID attainment was analyzed using Spearman rank correlation. Optimal threshold scores for each PROM that predicted MCID attainment and satisfaction/expectation fulfilment at 2 years were calculated using receiver operating curve analysis. RESULTS: The calculated MCID for OHS, WOMAC, SF-36 PCS, and SF-36 MCS were 5.2, 10.8, 6.7, and 6.2, respectively. A threshold value of 24.5 for the preoperative OHS was predictive of achieving WOMAC MCID at 2 years after THA (area under the curve 0.80, P < .001). 93.1% of patients were satisfied, and 95.5% had expectations fulfilled at 2 years. None of the PROMs were able to predict satisfaction. CONCLUSION:OHS and WOMAC scores can be used to determine clinical meaningful improvement but are limited in their ability to predict patient satisfaction after THA.
Authors: Olivier Courage; Louise Strom; Floris van Rooij; Matthieu Lalevée; Donatien Heuzé; Pierre Emanuel Papin; Michael Butnaru; Jacobus Hendrik Müller Journal: EFORT Open Rev Date: 2021-11-19
Authors: Reinier Feitz; Yara E van Kooij; Marloes H P Ter Stege; Mark J W van der Oest; J Sebastiaan Souer; Robbert M Wouters; Harm P Slijper; Ruud W Selles; Steven E R Hovius Journal: EFORT Open Rev Date: 2021-06-28