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
Background: Biomarkers collected in synovial tissue and fluid have been identified as potential predictors of outcomes after arthroscopy. Purpose: To provide a narrative review of the current literature that assesses the associations between preoperative biomarkers in the synovial fluid or synovial tissue and patient outcomes after knee arthroscopy. Study Design: Narrative review. Methods: We searched the PubMed database with keywords, "biomarkers AND arthroscopy," "biomarkers AND anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction," and "biomarkers AND meniscectomy." To be included, studies must have collected synovial fluid or synovial tissue from patients before or during arthroscopic knee surgery and analyzed the relationship of biomarkers to postoperative patient outcomes. Biomarkers were classified into 4 main categories: metabolism of aggrecan in cartilage, metabolism of collagen in cartilage (type II collagen), noncollagenous proteins in the knee, and other. When biomarker levels and outcomes were expressed with continuous variables, we abstracted the Pearson or Spearman correlation coefficients as the effect measure. If the biomarker values were continuous and the outcomes binary, we abstracted the mean or median biomarker values in those with favorable versus unfavorable outcomes. We calculated effect sizes as the difference between means of both groups divided by the standard deviation from the mean in the group with better outcomes. Results: Eight studies were included in the review. Each study reported different patient outcomes. Biomarkers associated with metabolism of aggrecan, type II collagen metabolism, and noncollagenous proteins as well as inflammatory biomarkers had statistically significant associations with a range of patient outcomes after knee arthroscopy. Difference across studies in sample size and outcome measures precluded choosing a single biomarker that best predicted patient outcomes. Conclusion: The findings suggest that biomarkers associated with metabolism of aggrecan, type II collagen metabolism, noncollagenous proteins, as well as inflammatory biomarkers may help surgeons and their patients anticipate surgical outcomes.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: Musculoskeletal (MSK) disorders affect ~50% of US adults and 75% of those over the age of 65, representing a sizable economic and disability burden. Outcome measures, both objective and subjective, help clinicians and investigators determine whether interventions to treat MSK conditions are effective. This narrative review qualitatively compared the responsiveness of different types of outcome measures, a key measurement characteristic that assesses an outcome measure's ability to detect change in patient status. METHODS: We evaluated elective orthopedic interventions as a model for assessing responsiveness because the great majority of patients improves following surgery. We searched for articles reporting responsiveness (quantified as effect size [ES]) of subjective and objective outcome measures after orthopedic surgery and included 16 articles reporting 17 interventions in this review. RESULTS: In 14 of 17 interventions, subjective function measures had an ES 10% greater than that of objective function measures. Two reported a difference in ES of <10%. The sole intervention that demonstrated higher ES of objective function used a composite measure. Sixteen interventions reported measures of subjective pain and/or mixed measures and subjective function. In nine interventions, subjective pain had a higher ES than subjective function by >10%, in three, subjective function had a higher ES than subjective pain by >10%, and in the remaining four, the difference between pain and function was <10%. CONCLUSION: These findings reinforce the clinical observation that subjective pain generally changes more than function following elective orthopedic surgery. They also suggest that subjective function measures are more responsive than objective function measures, and composite scores may be more responsive than individual performance tests.
