In light of recent regulatory initiatives, medical devices now require additional clinical evidence to prove their safety and efficacy. At the same time, patients' own assessment of their devices' function and performance has gained in importance. The collection of these data allows for a more comprehensive picture of clinical outcomes and complications following total knee arthroplasty (TKA).

These trends have led researchers to search for new methods of acquiring, interpreting and disseminating patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs). The current study assesses the feasibility of a digital platform for collecting PROMs that was recently adapted for TKA patients. It sought to determine patient engagement, survey completion rates, and satisfaction with this platform.

Eighty-two patients (mean age, 63.7 years, 59% females) scheduled for TKA were enrolled from one US and six UK sites between January 12, 2018 and April 30, 2018. Patients were supplied with a mobile application (app) that collects a variety of PROMs, including four domains based on the Patient-Reported Outcome Information System (PROMIS™): physical function, depression, pain interference and pain behavior. The platform electronically administers questionnaires using computer-adaptive tests (CATs), which reduce the burden on patients by tailoring follow-up questions to account for their previous answers. Satisfaction with the app was assessed in subset of patients who evaluated its ease-of-use (n=45), likelihood that they would recommend it to family/friends (n=35), and whether they successfully used the information it provided during their recovery (n=31). These scores were taken on a 1 to 10 (worst to best) scale.

Patients demonstrated regular engagement with the platform, with 73% using the app at least once a week. Weekly engagement remained high throughout the seven-week post-operative period (Figure 1). There was a 69% completion rate of all PROMIS™ CAT surveys during the study. The four PROMIS™ CAT domains had similar survey completion rates (Figure 2). The subset of patients queried regarding their satisfaction with the app gave it favorable mean scores for ease-of-use (8.8), likelihood to recommend to a family member or friend (8.1), and their success at using its information to improve their recovery (7.4).

Initial results support this digital platform's potential for successfully and efficiently collecting large volumes of PROMs. Patients reported high levels of engagement and satisfaction.

For any figures or tables, please contact authors directly.

The quality of bone in the skeleton depends on the amount of bone, geometry, microarchitecture and material properties, and the molecular and cellular regulation of bone turnover and repair. This study aimed to identify material and structural factors that alter in fragility hip fracture patients treated with antiresorption therapies (FxAr) compared to fragility hip fracture patients not on treatment (Fx).

Bone from the intertrochanteric site, femoral head (FH: FxAr = 5, Fx = 8), compression screw cores and box chisel were obtained from patients undergoing hemi-arthroplasty surgery, FxAr (6f, 2m, mean 79 and range [64–89] years), and Fx (7f, 1m, age 85 [75–93] years). Control bone was obtained at autopsy (9f, 4m, 77 [65–88] years). Treated patients were on various bisphosphonates. Samples were resin-embedded, for quantitative backscattered electron imaging of the degree of mineralisation and assessment of bone architecture. Trabecular bone volume fraction (BV/TV) and architectural parameters were not significantly different between FxAr and Fx groups.

Both groups showed normal distributions of weight (wt) % Ca; however, the FxAr was less mineralised than the Fx and the control group (mean wt % Ca: FxAr = 24.3%, Fx = 24.8%, Control = 24.9%). When comparing the FH specimens only, we found that BV/TV in the FxAr was greater than the Fx group (18% vs 15%). All other parameters were not significantly different. In addition, the mineralisation was greater in the FxAr group compared to the Fx group (25.5 % vs 25.0%) but was not significantly different.

Collectively, these data suggest the effect on bone of antiresorptives may be different for patients on antiresorptive treatment that do not subsequently fracture. Assessment of bone material property data together with other bone quality measures may hold the key to better understanding of antiresorptive treatment efficacy.