Variability of indication criteria in knee and hip replacement: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: Total knee (TKR) and hip (THR) replacement (arthroplasty) are effective surgical procedures that relieve pain, improve patients' quality of life and increase functional capacity. Studies on variations in medical practice usually place the indications for performing these procedures to be highly variable, because surgeons appear to follow different criteria when recommending surgery in patients with different severity levels. We therefore proposed a study to evaluate inter-hospital variability in arthroplasty indication. METHODS: The pre-surgical condition of 1603 patients included was compared by their personal characteristics, clinical situation and self-perceived health status. Patients were asked to complete two health-related quality of life questionnaires: the generic SF-12 (Short Form) and the specific WOMAC (Western Ontario and Mcmaster Universities) scale. The type of patient undergoing primary arthroplasty was similar in the 15 different hospitals evaluated.The variability in baseline WOMAC score between hospitals in THR and TKR indication was described by range, mean and standard deviation (SD), mean and standard deviation weighted by the number of procedures at each hospital, high/low ratio or extremal quotient (EQ5-95), variation coefficient (CV5-95) and weighted variation coefficient (WCV5-95) for 5-95 percentile range. The variability in subjective and objective signs was evaluated using median, range and WCV5-95. The appropriateness of the procedures performed was calculated using a specific threshold proposed by Quintana et al for assessing pain and functional capacity. RESULTS: The variability expressed as WCV5-95 was very low, between 0.05 and 0.11 for all three dimensions on WOMAC scale for both types of procedure in all participating hospitals. The variability in the physical and mental SF-12 components was very low for both types of procedure (0.08 and 0.07 for hip and 0.03 and 0.07 for knee surgery patients). However, a moderate-high variability was detected in subjective-objective signs. Among all the surgeries performed, approximately a quarter of them could be considered to be inappropriate. CONCLUSIONS: A greater inter-hospital variability was observed for objective than for subjective signs for both procedures, suggesting that the differences in clinical criteria followed by surgeons when indicating arthroplasty are the main responsible factors for the variation in surgery rates.

Development of explicit criteria for prioritization of hip and knee replacement.

RATIONALE AND AIMS: Among the problems to the publicly funded national health services are the waiting lists. Patients who need elective surgery generally have long waiting times before treatment. We aimed to develop a new prioritization tool for primary hip and knee replacement. METHODS: Criteria were developed using a modified Delphi panel process. We convened a panel of nine members who scored the scenarios created by the research team and by patient focus groups. We studied the level of agreement among the panelists and the contribution of the variables to the ratings of the panel using linear and logistic regression models. The priority scores of the variables and their levels were synthesized using the optimal scaling and standard linear regression methods. RESULTS: Seven variables, pain on motion, walking functional limitations, abnormal findings on physical examination, pain at rest, other functional limitations, social role, and other pathologies that could improve with joint replacement, were considered to create the different scenarios. The panel scored 192 scenarios. The disagreement among the panelists was very low (1%) with an intra-class correlation coefficient of 0.72. Of the 192 scenarios, 45.8% were scored as urgent, 35.4% as preferred and 18.8% as ordinary. The variables that contributed most to the scores were pain on motion and walking functional limitations. When optimal scaling and regression techniques were applied, similar results were obtained. CONCLUSION: This tool can evaluate and prioritize patients on a waiting list for hip or knee replacement. We also provide a simple and easy way to use an algorithm to estimate the treatment priority for individual patients.