A substantial fraction of patients undergoing knee arthroplasty (KA) or hip arthroplasty (HA) do not achieve an improvement as high as the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), i.e. do not achieve a meaningful improvement. Using three patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), our aim was: 1) to assess machine learning (ML), the simple pre-surgery PROM score, and logistic-regression (LR)-derived performance in their prediction of whether patients undergoing HA or KA achieve an improvement as high or higher than a calculated MCID; and 2) to test whether ML is able to outperform LR or pre-surgery PROM scores in predictive performance. MCIDs were derived using the change difference method in a sample of 1,843 HA and 1,546 KA patients. An artificial neural network, a gradient boosting machine, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression, ridge regression, elastic net, random forest, LR, and pre-surgery PROM scores were applied to predict MCID for the following PROMs: EuroQol five-dimension, five-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L), EQ visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS), Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Physical Function Short-form (HOOS-PS), and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Physical Function Short-form (KOOS-PS).Aims
Methods
This study aimed to evaluate whether an enhanced recovery protocol (ERP) for arthroplasty established during the COVID-19 pandemic at a safety net hospital can be associated with a decrease in hospital length of stay (LOS) and an increase in same-day discharges (SDDs) without increasing acute adverse events. A retrospective review of 124 consecutive primary arthroplasty procedures performed after resuming elective procedures on 11 May 2020 were compared to the previous 124 consecutive patients treated prior to 17 March 2020, at a single urban safety net hospital. Revision arthroplasty and patients with < 90-day follow-up were excluded. The primary outcome measures were hospital LOS and the number of SDDs. Secondary outcome measures included 90-day complications, 90-day readmissions, and 30day emergency department (ED) visits.Aims
Methods
We obtained information from the Elective Orthopaedic
Centre on 1523 patients with baseline and six-month Oxford hip scores
(OHS) after undergoing primary hip replacement (THR) and 1784 patients
with Oxford knee scores (OKS) for primary knee replacement (TKR)
who completed a six-month satisfaction questionnaire. Receiver operating characteristic curves identified an absolute
change in OHS of 14 points or more as the point that discriminates
best between patients’ satisfaction levels and an 11-point change
for the OKS. Satisfaction is highest (97.6%) in patients with an
absolute change in OHS of 14 points or more, compared with lower
levels of satisfaction (81.8%) below this threshold. Similarly,
an 11-point absolute change in OKS was associated with 95.4% satisfaction
compared with 76.5% below this threshold. For the six-month OHS
a score of 35 points or more distinguished patients with the highest
satisfaction level, and for the six-month OKS 30 points or more identified
the highest level of satisfaction. The thresholds varied according
to patients’ pre-operative score, where those with severe pre-operative
pain/function required a lower six-month score to achieve the highest
levels of satisfaction. Our data suggest that the choice of a six-month follow-up to
assess patient-reported outcomes of THR/TKR is acceptable. The thresholds
help to differentiate between patients with different levels of
satisfaction, but external validation will be required prior to
general implementation in clinical practice.
