Primary ArthroplastyA One-Question Patient-Reported Outcome Measure Is Comparable to Multiple-Question Measures in Total Knee Arthroplasty Patients
Section snippets
Methods
To evaluate the effectiveness of a single-question PROM, we retrospectively evaluated prospectively collected data from an institutional arthroplasty outcomes database at an academic medical center in the Northeastern United States. Between 2017 and 2019, patients in the TKA clinic completed an M-SANE score assessment where they were asked to rate their knee on a scale from 0 to 10. The M-SANE was modified from the original 0-100 SANE score [15], [17], [18] to a 0-10 scale to make it easier for
Results
In total, M-SANE and KOOS Jr scores were available at both the preoperative and extended follow-up visits from 217 patients (Table 2). Floor and ceiling effects, when the patient scored either a maximum or minimum value, were higher with the M-SANE in comparison to the other PROMs, but still relatively low across all time periods (4%-11%; Table 3). The average M-SANE score preoperatively was 3.5 (SD 2.2) and this increased to 6.6 (SD 2.6) at extended follow-up (Table 1). The minimal clinically
Discussion
PROMs are an increasingly relevant way to assess the effectiveness of orthopedic surgery [2], [4] as they provide insight from the point of view of the patient [1], but can be problematic due to the time and resources associated with their administration [1], [2]. A one-question PROM, such as the SANE, is a shorter alternative that has been evaluated in a number of orthopedic settings with promising results [6], [16], [17], [18], [20]; however, its effectiveness as a longitudinal assessment
Conclusion
PROMs are becoming an increasingly important component for assessing the outcomes following joint arthroplasty but are limited by time constraints and low participation rates, highlighting the need for more simplified measures. The M-SANE score, in which patients respond to a single question asking them to rate their knee on a scale from 0 to 10, performed comparably to multiple-question PROMs including the KOOS Jr and PROMIS-PCS in a population of TKA patients. Although additional studies are
References (28)
- et al.
Responsiveness and minimally important differences for 4 patient-reported outcomes measurement information system short forms: physical function, pain interference, depression, and anxiety in knee osteoarthritis
J Pain
(2017) - et al.
Convergent validity of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System’s physical function computerized adaptive test for the knee and shoulder injury sports medicine patient population
Arthroscopy
(2017) - et al.
Correlation between Single Assessment Numerical Evaluation score and Lysholm score in primary total knee arthroplasty patients
Arthroplasty Today
(2018) - et al.
Relationship between the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System and traditional patient-reported outcomes for osteoarthritis
J Arthroplasty
(2019) Patient reported outcome measures could help transform healthcare
BMJ
(2013)- et al.
Integrating patient-reported outcomes into orthopaedic clinical practice: proof of concept from FORCE-TJR
Clin Orthop Relat Res
(2013) - et al.
Evaluating patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials
Health Technol Assess
(1998) - Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Hospital quality initiative-measure methodology....
- et al.
Comparison of IKDC and SANE outcome measures following knee injury in active female patients
Sports Health
(2013) - et al.
Correlation of a single assessment numeric evaluation (SANE) rating with modified cincinnati knee rating system and IKDC subjective total scores for patients after ACL reconstruction or knee arthroscopy
Am J Sports Med
(2012)
Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)—validation and comparison to the WOMAC in total knee replacement
Health Qual Life Outcomes
Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)—development of a self-administered outcome measure
J Orthop Sports Phys Ther
Validation of the KOOS, JR: a short-form knee arthroplasty outcomes survey
Clin Orthop Relat Res
Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee
J Rheumatol
Cited by (23)
Are modern knee outcomes scores appropriate for evaluating anterior knee pain and symptoms after total knee arthroplasty?
2022, Orthopaedics and Traumatology: Surgery and ResearchCitation Excerpt :Secondly, quality of life questionnaires such as the SF-36 and EQ-5D were not used because the KOOS and New KSS questionnaire have quality of life items. The high number of questionnaires was time consuming, causing us to limit how many there were (time constraints, participation rate, redundancy of questions) [29,30]. Lastly, various factors contribute to the development of anterior knee pain.
Are modern knee outcomes scores appropriate for evaluating anterior knee pain and symptoms after total knee arthroplasty?
2022, Revue de Chirurgie Orthopedique et TraumatologiqueThe successful migration of total joint arthroplasty from the hospital inpatient to outpatient ASC setting
2022, KneeCitation Excerpt :This must be taken into consideration when any comparison to inpatient arthroplasty outcomes is contemplated. We had a low PRO compliance rate which illustrates the challenge of collecting outcomes in the private practice setting [21,22]. Recently, our compliance has increased to over 90% with maturation of the OPTJ program.
Investigation was performed at the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH
Sources of Funding: There was no external funding utilized for this project.
One or more of the authors of this paper have disclosed potential or pertinent conflicts of interest, which may include receipt of payment, either direct or indirect, institutional support, or association with an entity in the biomedical field which may be perceived to have potential conflict of interest with this work. For full disclosure statements refer to https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2019.07.023.