Preoperative Function Affects Ability to Achieve One-Year Minimum Clinically Important Difference for Patients Undergoing Total Knee Arthroplasty.
Minimum clinically important difference
Patient-reported outcomes
Preoperative function
Total knee arthroplasty
Journal
Arthroplasty today
ISSN: 2352-3441
Titre abrégé: Arthroplast Today
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101681808
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jun 2024
Jun 2024
Historique:
received:
21
09
2023
revised:
20
02
2024
accepted:
12
03
2024
medline:
24
4
2024
pubmed:
24
4
2024
entrez:
24
4
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Minimum clinically important difference (MCID) values are commonly used to measure treatment success for total knee arthroplasty (TKA). MCID values vary according to calculation methodology, and prior studies have shown that patient factors are associated with failure to achieve MCID thresholds. The purpose of this study was to determine if anchor-based 1-year Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Joint Replacement (KOOS-JR) MCID values varied among patients undergoing TKA based on patient-specific factors. This was a retrospective review of patients undergoing TKA from 2017-2018. Patients without baseline or 1-year KOOS-JR or Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System Global Health data or that underwent procedures other than primary TKA were excluded. MCIDs were calculated and compared between patient groups according to preoperative characteristics. Among the included 976 patients, 1-year KOOS-JR MCIDs were 26.6 for men, 28.2 for women, 30.7 for patients with a diagnosis of anxiety and/or depression, and 26.7 for patients without a diagnosis. One-year MCID values did not differ significantly according to gender ( The proportion of patients attaining KOOS-JR MCID values demonstrated an inverse relationship with preoperative baseline function. Future investigation may identify patient factors that allow surgeons to better capture patient satisfaction with their procedure despite failure to attain a 1-year MCID.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Minimum clinically important difference (MCID) values are commonly used to measure treatment success for total knee arthroplasty (TKA). MCID values vary according to calculation methodology, and prior studies have shown that patient factors are associated with failure to achieve MCID thresholds. The purpose of this study was to determine if anchor-based 1-year Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Joint Replacement (KOOS-JR) MCID values varied among patients undergoing TKA based on patient-specific factors.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
This was a retrospective review of patients undergoing TKA from 2017-2018. Patients without baseline or 1-year KOOS-JR or Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System Global Health data or that underwent procedures other than primary TKA were excluded. MCIDs were calculated and compared between patient groups according to preoperative characteristics.
Results
UNASSIGNED
Among the included 976 patients, 1-year KOOS-JR MCIDs were 26.6 for men, 28.2 for women, 30.7 for patients with a diagnosis of anxiety and/or depression, and 26.7 for patients without a diagnosis. One-year MCID values did not differ significantly according to gender (
Conclusions
UNASSIGNED
The proportion of patients attaining KOOS-JR MCID values demonstrated an inverse relationship with preoperative baseline function. Future investigation may identify patient factors that allow surgeons to better capture patient satisfaction with their procedure despite failure to attain a 1-year MCID.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38654887
doi: 10.1016/j.artd.2024.101377
pii: S2352-3441(24)00062-1
pmc: PMC11035092
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
101377Informations de copyright
© 2024 The Authors.
Références
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017 Sep;475(9):2228-2229
pubmed: 28421516
J Arthroplasty. 2012 Aug;27(7):1276-82
pubmed: 22226610
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2018 Dec;476(12):2432-2441
pubmed: 30179951
J Orthop Trauma. 2019 Nov;33 Suppl 7:S53-S55
pubmed: 31596786
Lancet. 2019 Feb 16;393(10172):655-663
pubmed: 30782341
World J Orthop. 2018 Mar 18;9(3):41-49
pubmed: 29564213
J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2021 Dec 15;29(24):e1417-e1426
pubmed: 34061813
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1999 Sep;81(9):1245-60
pubmed: 10505521
Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2012 Oct;26(5):649-58
pubmed: 23218429
Knee Surg Relat Res. 2016 Mar;28(1):1-15
pubmed: 26955608
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016 Feb;474(2):321-9
pubmed: 26201420
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2018 Oct 17;100(20):1735-1741
pubmed: 30334883
Qual Life Res. 2009 Sep;18(7):873-80
pubmed: 19543809
Qual Life Res. 2007 Feb;16(1):131-42
pubmed: 17033901
J Arthroplasty. 2015 Jul;30(7):1142-5
pubmed: 25680451
J Clin Epidemiol. 2008 Sep;61(9):907-18
pubmed: 18687289
JAMA Surg. 2020 May 1;155(5):404-411
pubmed: 32211842
Arthroscopy. 2018 Feb;34(2):605-614
pubmed: 29096979
Value Health. 2017 Jun;20(6):834-836
pubmed: 28577702
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017 Jan;475(1):149-157
pubmed: 26956248
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012 Mar 7;94(5):468-77
pubmed: 22398742
J Clin Epidemiol. 2010 Nov;63(11):1179-94
pubmed: 20685078
J Arthroplasty. 2021 May;36(5):1626-1632
pubmed: 33419617
J Rheumatol. 2005 Oct;32(10):2025-9
pubmed: 16206363
J Arthroplasty. 2022 Jul;37(7):1266-1272
pubmed: 35202758
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2023 Jan 1;481(1):63-80
pubmed: 36200846
Acta Orthop. 2014 Feb;85(1):39-48
pubmed: 24286564
J Orthop Res. 2022 Apr;40(4):808-815
pubmed: 34275163
J Arthroplasty. 2020 Jun;35(6):1540-1544
pubmed: 32037211
J Arthroplasty. 2020 May;35(5):1200-1207.e4
pubmed: 31952945
J Arthroplasty. 2021 Jul;36(7S):S233-S241
pubmed: 33692001
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016 Jun;474(6):1461-71
pubmed: 26926773
Ann Rheum Dis. 2005 Jan;64(1):29-33
pubmed: 15208174
J Arthroplasty. 2021 Jul;36(7S):S184-S191
pubmed: 33303327
JAMA. 2003 Jun 18;289(23):3095-105
pubmed: 12813115
J Arthroplasty. 2022 Apr;37(4):630-636.e1
pubmed: 34958909