RESUMEN
Background: Surgeon performance has been investigated as a factor affecting patient outcomes after orthopaedic procedures to improve transparency between patients and providers. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose of this study was to identify whether surgeon performance influenced patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) 1 year after arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM). It was hypothesized that there would be no significant difference in PROMs between patients who underwent APM from various surgeons. Study Design: Case-control study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A prospective cohort of 794 patients who underwent APM between 2018 and 2019 were included in the analysis. A total of 34 surgeons from a large multicenter health care center were included. Three multivariable models were built to determine whether the surgeon-among demographic and meniscal pathology factors-was a significant variable for predicting the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)-Pain subscale, the Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS), and a 10-point improvement in the KOOS-Pain at 1 year after APM. Likelihood ratio (LR) tests were used to determine the significance of the surgeon variable in the models. Results: The 794 patients were identified from the multicenter hospital system. The baseline KOOS-Pain score was a significant predictor of outcome in the 1-year KOOS-Pain model (odds ratio [OR], 2.1 [95% CI, 1.77-2.48]; P < .001), the KOOS-Pain 10-point improvement model (OR, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.44-0.73), and the 1-year PASS model (OR, 1.42 [95% CI, 1.15-1.76]; P = .002) among articular cartilage pathology (bipolar medial cartilage) and patient-factor variables, including body mass index, Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey-Mental Component Score, and Area Deprivation Index. The individual surgeon significantly impacted outcomes in the 1-year KOOS-Pain mixed model in the LR test (P = .004). Conclusion: Patient factors and characteristics are better predictors for patient outcomes 1 year after APM than surgeon characteristics, specifically baseline KOOS-Pain, although an individual surgeon influenced the 1-Year KOOS-Pain mixed model in the LR test. This finding has key clinical implications; surgeons who wish to improve patient outcomes after APM should focus on improving patient selection rather than improving the surgical technique. Future research is needed to determine whether surgeon variability has an impact on longer-term patient outcomes.
RESUMEN
CONTEXT: Interest in the relationship between psychology and the outcomes of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (ACLR) continues to grow as variable rates of return to preinjury level of activity continue to be observed. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Articles were collected from peer-reviewed sources available on PubMed using a combination of search terms, including psychology, resilience, mental health, recovery, and anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Further evaluation of the included bibliographies were used to expand the evidence. STUDY DESIGN: Clinical review. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 4. RESULTS: General mental health and wellbeing, in addition to a host of unique psychological traits (self-efficacy, resilience, psychological readiness and distress, pain catastrophizing, locus of control, and kinesiophobia) have been demonstrated convincingly to affect treatment outcomes. Moreover, compelling evidence suggests that a number of these traits may be modifiable. Although the effect of resilience on outcomes of orthopaedic surgical procedures has been studied extensively, there is very limited information linking this unique psychological trait to the outcomes of ACLR. Similarly, the available information related to other parameters, such as pain catastrophizing, is limited with respect to the existence of adequately sized cohorts capable of accommodating more rigorous and compelling analyses. A better understanding of the specific mechanisms through which psychological traits influence outcomes can inform future interventions intended to improve rates of return to preinjury level of activity after ACLR. CONCLUSION: The impact of psychology on patients' responses to ACL injury and treatment represents a promising avenue for improving low rates of return to preinjury activity levels among certain cohorts. Future research into these areas should focus on specific effects of targeted interventions on known, modifiable risk factors that commonly contribute to suboptimal clinical outcomes. STRENGTH-OF-RECOMMENDATION TAXONOMY (SORT): B.
RESUMEN
Purpose: To determine whether low resilience is predictive of worse patient-reported outcomes (PROs) or diminished improvements in clinical outcomes after joint preserving and arthroscopic surgery. Methods: A comprehensive search of PubMed, Medline, Embase, and Science Direct was performed on September 28, 2022, for studies investigating the relationship between resilience and PROs after arthroscopic surgery in accordance with the Preferred Reported Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. Results: Nine articles (level II-IV studies) were included in the final analysis. A total of 887 patients (54% male, average age 45 years) underwent arthroscopic surgery, including general knee (n = 3 studies), ACLR-only knee (n = 1 study), rotator cuff repair (n = 4 studies), and hip (n = 1 study). The Brief Resilience Scale was the most common instrument measuring resilience in 7 of 9 studies (78%). Five of 9 studies (56%) stratified patients based on high, normal, or low resilience cohorts, and these stratification threshold values differed between studies. Only 4 of 9 studies (44%) measured PROs both before and after surgery. Three of 9 studies (33%) reported rates of return to activity, with 2 studies (22%) noting high resilience to be associated with a higher likelihood of return to sport/duty, specifically after knee arthroscopy. However, significant associations between resilience and functional outcomes were not consistently observed, nor was resilience consistently observed to be predictive of subjects' capacity to return to a preinjury level of function. Conclusions: Patient resilience is inconsistently demonstrated to affect clinical outcomes associated with joint preserving and arthroscopic surgery. However, substantial limitations in the existing literature including underpowered sample sizes, lack of standardization in stratifying patients based on pretreatment resilience, and inconsistent collection of PROs throughout the continuum of care, diminish the strength of most conclusions that have been drawn. Level of Evidence: Level IV, systematic review of level II-IV studies.
