Vanessa Chan

Trends in Hip Arthroscopy Utilization in the United States

INTRODUCTION The purpose of this study was to evaluate the changing incidence of hip arthroscopy procedures among newly trained surgeons in the United States, the indications for hip arthroscopy, and the reported rate of post-operative complications. METHODS The ABOS database was used to evaluate the annual incidence of hip arthroscopy procedures between 2006-2010. Procedures were categorized by indication and type of procedure. The rate of surgical complications was calculated and compared between the published literature and hip arthroscopy procedures performed for femoroacetabular impingement (FAI)/osteoarthritis (OA) and for labral tears among the newly trained surgeon cohort taking the ABOS Part II Board exam. RESULTS The overall incidence of hip arthroscopy procedures performed by ABOS Part II examinees increased by over 600% during the 5-year period under study from approximately 83 in 2006 to 636 in 2010. The incidence of hip arthroscopy for FAI/OA increased steadily over the time period under study, while the incidence of hip arthroscopy for labral tears was variable over time. The rate of surgical complications was 5.9% for hip arthroscopy procedures for a diagnosis of FAI/OA vs. 4.4% for a diagnosis of labral tear (P=0.36). CONCLUSIONS The incidence of hip arthroscopy has increased dramatically over the past 5 years, particularly for the indication of FAI/OA. Reported surgical complication rates are relatively low, but appear higher than those rates reported in previously published series. Appropriate indications for hip arthroscopy remain unclear.

Shared decision making in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip and knee: results of a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND Despite evidence that shared decision-making tools for treatment decisions improve decision quality and patient engagement, they are not commonly employed in orthopaedic practice. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of decision and communication aids on patient knowledge, efficiency of decision making, treatment choice, and patient and surgeon experience in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. METHODS One hundred and twenty-three patients who were considered medically appropriate for hip or knee replacement were randomized to either a shared decision-making intervention or usual care. Patients in the intervention group received a digital video disc and booklet describing the natural history and treatment alternatives for hip and knee osteoarthritis and developed a structured list of questions for their surgeon in consultation with a health coach. Patients in the control group received information about the surgeons practice. Both groups reported their knowledge and stage in decision making and their treatment choice, satisfaction, and communication with their surgeon. Surgeons reported the appropriateness of patient questions and their satisfaction with the visit. The primary outcome measure tracked whether patients reached an informed decision during their first visit. Statistical analyses were performed to evaluate differences between groups. RESULTS Significantly more patients in the intervention group (58%) reached an informed decision during the first visit compared with the control group (33%) (p = 0.005). The intervention group reported higher confidence in knowing what questions to ask their doctor (p = 0.0034). After the appointment, there was no significant difference between groups in the percentage of patients choosing surgery (p = 0.48). Surgeons rated the number and appropriateness of patient questions higher in the intervention group (p < 0.0001), reported higher satisfaction with the efficiency of the intervention group visits (p < 0.0001), and were more satisfied overall with the intervention group visits (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS Decision and communication aids used in orthopaedic practice had benefits for both patients and surgeons. These findings could be important in facilitating adoption of shared decision-making tools into routine orthopaedic practice.

Quantifying the Burden of Revision Total Joint Arthroplasty for Periprosthetic Infection

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) represents substantial clinical and economic burdens. This study evaluated patient and procedure characteristics and resource utilization associated with revision arthroplasty for PJI. The Nationwide Inpatient Sample (Q4 2005-2010) was analyzed for 235,857 revision THA (RTHA) and 301,718 revision TKA (RTKA) procedures. PJI was the most common indication for RTKA, and the third most common reason for RTHA. PJI was most commonly associated with major severity of illness (SOI) in RTHA, and with moderate SOI in RTKA. RTHA and RTKA for PJI had the longest length of stay. Costs were higher for RTHA/RTKA for PJI than for any other diagnosis except periprosthetic fracture. Epidemiologic differences exist in the rank, severity and populations for RTHA and RTKA for PJI.

Risk Factors for Early Revision After Primary TKA in Medicare Patients

BackgroundPatient, surgeon, health system, and device factors are all known to influence outcomes in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, patient-related factors associated with an increased risk of early failure are not well understood, particularly in elderly patients.Questions/purposesThe purpose of this study was to identify specific comorbid conditions associated with increased risk of early revision in Medicare patients undergoing TKA.MethodsA total of 117,903 Medicare patients who underwent primary TKA between 1998 and 2010 were identified from the Medicare 5% national sample administrative database and used to determine the relative risk of revision within 12 months after primary TKA as a function of baseline medical comorbidities. Cox regression was used to evaluate the impact of 29 comorbid conditions on risk of early failure controlling for age, sex, race, census region, socioeconomic status, and all other baseline comorbidities.ResultsThe most significant independent risk factors for revision TKA within 12 months were chronic pulmonary disease, depression, alcohol abuse, drug abuse, renal disease, hemiplegia or paraplegia, and obesity.ConclusionsThis information could be valuable to patients and their surgeons when making shared medical decisions regarding elective TKA and for risk-stratifying publicly reported outcomes in Medicare patients undergoing TKA.Level of EvidenceLevel II, prognostic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Risk Factors for Periprosthetic Joint Infection Following Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Case Control Study

The purpose of this study was to identify the specific comorbidities and demographic factors that are independently associated with an increased risk of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in total hip arthroplasty (THA) patients. A case-control study design was used to compare 88 patients who underwent unilateral primary THA and developed PJI with 499 unilateral primary THA patients who did not develop PJI. The impact of 18 comorbid conditions and other demographic factors on PJI was examined. Depression, obesity, cardiac arrhythmia, and male gender were found to be independently associated with an increased risk of PJI in THA patients. This information is important to consider when counseling patients on the risks associated with elective THA, and for risk-adjusting publicly reported THA outcomes.

The Emerging Case for Shared Decision Making in Orthopaedics

The Institute of Medicine outlined a standard for patient-centered care, which has become the centerpiece of healthcare reform in the United States. Shared decision-making interventions, which include decision and communication aids, are formal embodiment of this philosophy. Although the concept of shared decision making has been shown to be an effective tool, and its relevance to orthopaedic medicine has been well documented, it has not been widely adopted by orthopaedic surgeons. It is helpful to examine the benefits of shared decision making, along with incentives to encourage adoption and implementation of this important philosophy.

Can Preoperative Patient-reported Outcome Measures Be Used to Predict Meaningful Improvement in Function After TKA?

BackgroundDespite the overall effectiveness of total knee arthroplasty (TKA), a subset of patients do not experience expected improvements in pain, physical function, and quality of life as documented by patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), which assess a patient’s physical and emotional health and pain. It is therefore important to develop preoperative tools capable of identifying patients unlikely to improve by a clinically important margin after surgery.Questions/purposesThe purpose of this study was to determine if an association exists between preoperative PROM scores and patients’ likelihood of experiencing a clinically meaningful change in function 1 year after TKA.MethodsA retrospective study design was used to evaluate preoperative and 1-year postoperative Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) and SF-12 version 2 (SF12v2) scores from 562 patients who underwent primary unilateral TKA. This cohort represented 75% of the 750 patients who underwent surgery during that time period; a total of 188 others (25%) either did not complete PROM scores at the designated times or were lost to follow-up. Minimum clinically important differences (MCIDs) were calculated for each PROM using a distribution-based method and were used to define meaningful clinical improvement. MCID values for KOOS and SF12v2 physical component summary (PCS) scores were calculated to be 10 and 5, respectively. A receiver operating characteristic analysis was used to determine threshold values for preoperative KOOS and SF12v2 PCS scores and their respective predictive abilities. Threshold values defined the point after which the likelihood of clinically meaningful improvement began to diminish. Multivariate regression was used to control for the effect of preoperative mental and emotional health, patient attributes quantified by SF12v2 mental component summary (MCS) scores, on patients’ likelihood of experiencing meaningful improvement in function after surgery.ResultsThreshold values for preoperative KOOS and SF12v2 PCS scores were a maximum of 58 (area under the curve [AUC], 0.76; p < 0.001) and 34 (AUC, 0.65; p < 0.001), respectively. Patients scoring above these thresholds, indicating better preoperative function, were less likely to experience a clinically meaningful improvement in function after TKA. When accounting for mental and emotional health with a multivariate analysis, the predictive ability of both KOOS and SF12v2 PCS threshold values improved (AUCs increased to 0.80 and 0.71, respectively). Better preoperative mental and emotional health, as reflected by a higher MCS score, resulted in higher threshold values for KOOS and SF12v2 PCS.ConclusionsWe identified preoperative PROM threshold values that are associated with clinically meaningful improvements in functional outcome after TKA. Patients with preoperative KOOS or SF12v2 PCS scores above the defined threshold values have a diminishing probability of experiencing clinically meaningful improvement after TKA. Patients with worse baseline mental and emotional health (as defined by SF12v2 MCS score) have a lower probability of experiencing clinically important levels of functional improvement after surgery. The results of this study are directly applicable to patient-centered informed decision-making tools and may be used to facilitate discussions with patients regarding the expected benefit after TKA.Level of EvidenceLevel III, prognostic study.

Factors that influence provider selection for elective total joint arthroplasty.

BackgroundThe growth of consumer-directed health plans has sparked increased demand for information regarding the cost and quality of healthcare services, including total joint arthroplasty (TJA). However, the factors that influence patients’ choice of provider when pursuing elective orthopaedic care, such as TJA, are poorly understood.Questions/purposesWe evaluated the factors patients consider when selecting an orthopaedic surgeon and hospital for TJA.MethodsTwo hundred fifty-one patients who sought treatment from either an academic or community-based orthopaedic practice for primary TJA completed a 37-item survey using a 5-point Likert scale rating (“unimportant” to “very important”) regarding seven established clinical and nonclinical dimensions of care patients considered when selecting a provider and hospital.ResultPatients rated physician manner (average Likert, 4.7) and physician quality (eg, outcomes) (average Likert, 4.6) as most important in their selection of surgeon and hospital for TJA. Despite the expressed importance of surgeon and hospital quality, only 46% of patients were able to find useful information to compare outcomes among surgeons, and 47% for hospitals that perform TJA.ConclusionsOur findings suggest physician manner and surgical outcomes are the most important considerations for patients when choosing a provider for elective TJA. Cost sharing is the least important criterion patients considered. Patients expressed high motivation to seek out provider quality information but indicated accessible and actionable sources of information are lacking. Future efforts should be directed at developing clinically relevant, easily interpretable, objective, risk-adjusted measures of physician and hospital quality.

Impact of Socioeconomic Factors on Informed Decision Making and Treatment Choice in Patients With Hip and Knee OA

It is unclear how socioeconomic (SES) status influences the effectiveness of shared decision making (SDM) tools. The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of SES on the utility of SDM tools among patients with hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA). We performed a secondary analysis of data from a randomized controlled trial of 123 patients with hip or knee OA. Higher education and higher income were independently associated with higher knowledge survey scores. Patients with private insurance were 2.7 times more likely than patients with Medicare to arrive at a decision after the initial office visit. Higher education was associated with lower odds of choosing surgery, even after adjusting for knowledge. Patient knowledge of their medical condition and treatment options varies with SES.

The Importance of Risk Adjustment in Reporting Total Joint Arthroplasty Outcomes

BACKGROUND This study describes and tests a risk adjustment model developed for the California Joint Replacement Registry to report predictors of complication rates. METHODS Complication rates were analyzed for 9960 patients enrolled in the California Joint Replacement Registry at 22 medical centers. Multivariable logistic risk models were created to analyze risks of postoperative complications. RESULTS Age and American Society of Anesthesiologists class were the strongest predictors of complication rates (P < .0001). Congestive heart failure and peripheral vascular disease were also statistically significant predictors of complications. Three hospitals were found to have statistically significantly worse than expected complication rates, and one was found to have a better than expected complication rate after case mix risk adjustment. CONCLUSION Adequate risk adjustment is a key element in objective comparison of surgeons, hospitals, and devices using total joint arthroplasty registry data.