Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: State of the Art in Patient-Reported Outcome Measure Application in Lower Extremity Orthopaedics.
Journal
The Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons
ISSN: 1940-5480
Titre abrégé: J Am Acad Orthop Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9417468
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 Oct 2023
15 Oct 2023
Historique:
received:
23
06
2023
accepted:
27
06
2023
medline:
6
10
2023
pubmed:
6
8
2023
entrez:
6
8
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
With an increasing shift toward a value-based and outcome-driven healthcare system, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) will continue to play a prominent role in assessing performance, making clinical decisions, shared decision making, and determining the comparative effectiveness of procedures such as total joint arthroplasty for lower extremity conditions, such as ankle, hip, and knee osteoarthritis. As the application of PROMs in evaluating surgical outcomes has evolved from that of a research setting to that of a clinical setting, their use in the decision-making process has become more prevalent. As a result, preoperative optimization, surgical indications, and improved outcomes after surgery have been greatly enhanced. To enable benchmarking, quality reporting, and performance measurement at an aggregate level, it is crucial to have a comprehensive PROM collection system. However, achieving this goal is contingent upon addressing the variability in reported PROMs and the patient-centered benchmarks used to analyze clinical significance.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37543754
doi: 10.5435/JAAOS-D-23-00586
pii: 00124635-202310150-00009
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e883-e889Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.
Références
Maredupaka S, Meshram P, Chatte M, Kim WH, Kim TK: Minimal clinically important difference of commonly used patient-reported outcome measures in total knee arthroplasty: Review of terminologies, methods and proposed values. Knee Surg Relat Res 2020;32:19.
Tanghe KK, Beiene ZA, McLawhorn AS, MacLean CH, Gausden EB: Metrics of clinically important changes in total hip arthroplasty: A systematic review. J Arthroplasty 2023;38:383-388.
Copay AG, Eyberg B, Chung AS, Zurcher KS, Chutkan N, Spangehl MJ: Minimum clinically important difference: Current trends in the orthopaedic literature, Part II: Lower extremity: A systematic review. JBJS Rev 2018;6:e2.
Çelik D, Çoban Ö, Kılıçoğlu Ö: Minimal clinically important difference of commonly used hip-, knee-, foot-, and ankle-specific questionnaires: A systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol 2019;113:44-57.
Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M: Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007;89:780-785.
Cody EA, Scott DJ, Easley ME: Total ankle arthroplasty: A critical analysis review. JBJS Rev 2018;6:e8.
Agarwalla A, Gowd AK, Cody EA, et al.: Timeline for maximal subjective outcome improvement following total ankle arthroplasty. Foot Ankle Surg 2021;27:305-310.
Orr MN, Klika AK, Emara AK; Cleveland Clinic Arthroplasty Group, Piuzzi NS: Dissatisfaction after total hip arthroplasty associated with preoperative patient-reported outcome phenotypes. J Arthroplasty 2022;37:S498-S509.
Nixon DC, Zhang C, Weinberg MW, Presson AP, Nickisch F: Relationship of press Ganey satisfaction and PROMIS function and pain in foot and ankle patients. Foot Ankle Int 2020;41:1206-1211.
Karzon AL, Kadakia RJ, Coleman MM, Bariteau JT, Labib SA: The rise of total ankle arthroplasty use: A database analysis describing case volumes and incidence trends in the United States between 2009 and 2019. Foot Ankle Int 2022;43:1501-1510.
Comprehensive care for joint replacement model. Available at: https://innovation.cms.gov/innovation-models/cjr . Accessed April 12, 2023.
Squitieri L, Bozic KJ, Pusic AL: The role of patient-reported outcome measures in value-based payment reform. Value Health 2017;20:834-836.
Hunt KJ, Lakey E: Patient-reported outcomes in foot and ankle surgery. Orthop Clin North Am 2018;49:277-289.
AAOS responds to 2023 final rules on Medicare payment systems. Available at: https://www.aaos.org/aaosnow/2022/dec/advocacy/advocacy04/ . Accessed April 12, 2023.
Hospital inpatient quality reporting program. Available at: https://www.cms.gov/Medicare/Quality-Initiatives-Patient-Assessment-Instruments/HospitalQualityInits/HospitalRHQDAPU . Accessed April 12, 2023.
Orr MN, Klika AK, Emara AK, Piuzzi NS; Cleveland Clinic Arthroplasty Group: Combinations of preoperative patient-reported outcome measure phenotype (pain, function, and mental health) predict outcome after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2022;37:S110-S120.e5.
Hossain FS, Konan S, Patel S, Rodriguez-Merchan EC, Haddad FS: The assessment of outcome after total knee arthroplasty: Are we there yet? Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:3-9.
Jayakumar P, Bozic KJ: Advanced decision-making using patient-reported outcome measures in total joint replacement. J Orthop Res 2020;38:1414-1422.
Bansback N, Trenaman L, MacDonald KV, et al.: An individualized patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) based patient decision aid and surgeon report for patients considering total knee arthroplasty: Protocol for a pragmatic randomized controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2019;20:89.
Bell JA, Emara AK, Barsoum WK, et al.: Should an age cutoff be considered for elective total knee arthroplasty patients? An analysis of operative success based on patient-reported outcomes. J Knee Surg 2022;36:1001-1011.
Hallstrom BR, Hughes RE, Huddleston JI III: State-based and national U.S. registries: The Michigan Arthroplasty Registry Collaborative Quality Initiative (MARCQI), California Joint Replacement Registry (CJRR), and American Joint Replacement Registry (AJRR). J Bone Joint Surg Am 2022;104:18-22.
Website. At comprehensive care for joint replacement model: CMS innovation center. Innovation Center. Available at: https://innovation.cms.gov/innovation-models/cjr . Accessed June 13, 2022.
Available at: https://www.aaos.org/globalassets/advocacy/issues/aaos-fy2023-ipps-rule-comments.pdf . Accessed April 12, 2023.
Orr MN, Klika AK, Gagnier JJ, Bhandari M, Piuzzi NS: A call for a standardized approach to reporting patient-reported outcome measures: Clinical relevance ratio. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2021;103:e91.
OME Cleveland Clinic Orthopaedics: Value in research: Achieving validated outcome measurements while mitigating follow-up cost. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2020;102:419-427.
Ramkumar PN, Navarro SM, Haeberle HS, Ng M, Piuzzi NS, Spindler KP: No difference in outcomes 12 and 24 months after lower extremity total joint arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty 2018;33:2322-2329.
Piuzzi NS; Cleveland Clinic O. M. E. Arthroplasty Group: Patient-reported outcomes at 1 and 2 years after total hip and knee arthroplasty: What is the minimum required follow-up? Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2022;142:2121-2129.
Anis HK, Strnad GJ, Klika AK, et al.; Cleveland Clinic OME Arthroplasty Group: Developing a personalized outcome prediction tool for knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint J 2020;102-B:1183-1193.
Klemt C, Uzosike AC, Esposito JG, et al.: The utility of machine learning algorithms for the prediction of patient-reported outcome measures following primary hip and knee total joint arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2023;143:2235-2245.
Schwartz FH, Lange J: Factors that affect outcome following total joint arthroplasty: A review of the recent literature. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med 2017;10:346-355.
Zhang S, Chen JY, Pang HN, Lo NN, Yeo SJ, Liow MHL: Development and internal validation of machine learning algorithms to predict patient satisfaction after total hip arthroplasty. Arthroplasty 2021;3:33.
Pronk Y, Peters MCWM, Brinkman J-M: Is patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty predictable using patient characteristics and preoperative patient-reported outcomes? J Arthroplasty 2021;36:2458-2465.
Grits D, Emara AK, Orr MN, et al.: Preoperative veteran RAND-12 mental composite score of >60 associated with increased likelihood of patient satisfaction after total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2022; December 11 [Epub ahead of print].
Kunze KN, Polce EM, Sadauskas AJ, Levine BR: Development of machine learning algorithms to predict patient dissatisfaction after primary total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2020;35:3117-3122.
Katakam A, Karhade AV, Collins A, et al.: Development of machine learning algorithms to predict achievement of minimal clinically important difference for the KOOS-PS following total knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Res 2022;40:808-815.
Ogawa T, Castelo-Branco L, Hatta K, Usui C: Association between step count measured with a smartphone app (Pain-Note) and pain level in patients with chronic pain: Observational study. JMIR Form Res 2022;6:e23657.
Classic home. AAOS AUC. Availble at: http://www.orthoguidelines.org/ . Accessed April 12, 2023.
Riddle DL, Perera RA: Appropriateness and total knee arthroplasty: An examination of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons appropriateness rating system. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2017;25:1994-1998.
Riddle DL, Perera RA: Appropriateness and total hip arthroplasty: Determining the structure of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons System of Classification. J Rheumatol 2019;46:1127-1133.
Berliner JL, Brodke DJ, Chan V, SooHoo NF, Bozic KJ: John charnley award: Preoperative patient-reported outcome measures predict clinically meaningful improvement in function after THA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2016;474:321-329.
Soares RW, Emara AK, Orr M, et al.: When do we perform elective total knee arthroplasty? General and demographic-specific trends of preoperative pain and function among 10,327 patients. J Knee Surg 2022; December 23 [Epub ahead of print].
Emara AK, Orr MN, Klika AK, McLaughlin JP, Molloy RM, Piuzzi NS: When is surgery performed? Trends, demographic associations, and phenotypical characterization of baseline patient-reported outcomes before total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2022;37:1083-1091.e3.
Roth A, Anis HK, Emara AK, et al.: The potential effects of imposing a body mass index threshold on patient-reported outcomes after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2021;36:S198-S208.
Cleveland Clinic OME Arthroplasty Group, Arnold N, Anis H, Barsoum WK, et al.: Preoperative cut-off values for body mass index deny patients clinically significant improvements in patient-reported outcomes after total hip arthroplasty. Bone Joint J 2020;102-B:683-692.
Siljander MP, McQuivey KS, Fahs AM, Galasso LA, Serdahely KJ, Karadsheh MS: Current trends in patient-reported outcome measures in total joint arthroplasty: A study of 4 major orthopaedic journals. J Arthroplasty 2018;33:3416-3421.
Bernstein DN, Nwachukwu BU, Bozic KJ: Value-based health care: Moving beyond “minimum clinically important difference” to a tiered system of evaluating successful clinical outcomes. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2019;477:945-947.
Fontana MA, Lyman S, Sarker GK, Padgett DE, MacLean CH: Can machine learning algorithms predict which patients will achieve minimally clinically important differences from total joint arthroplasty? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2019;477:1267-1279.