Non-Fusion Versus Fusion Surgery in Pediatric Idiopathic Scoliosis: What Trade-Offs in Outcomes Are Acceptable for the Patient and Family?

BACKGROUND: Vertebral body tethering and other non-fusion techniques for the treatment of pediatric idiopathic scoliosis are increasing in popularity. There is limited physician consensus on this topic as the result of a paucity of published data regarding which patients most benefit from non-fusion strategies. Thus, much of the decision-making is left to patients and parents, who must select a treatment based on their goals and values and the information available from health-care providers, the internet, and social media. We sought to understand patient and family preferences regarding the attributes of fusion versus non-fusion surgery that drive these choices. METHODS: Patients and families were recruited from 7 pediatric spine centers and were asked to complete a survey-based choice experiment that had been jointly developed with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to evaluate patient preferences. Choices between experimentally designed alternatives were analyzed to estimate the relative importance of outcomes and requirements associated with the choice options (attributes). The attributes included appearance, confidence in the planned correction, spinal motion, device failure, reoperation, and recovery period. The inclusion criteria were (1) an age of 10 to 21 years and (2) a diagnosis of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis in patients who were considering, or who had already undergone, treatment with fusion or non-fusion surgery. Preference weights were estimated from the expected changes in choice given changes in the attributes. RESULTS: A total of 344 respondents (124 patients, 92 parents, and 128 parent/patient dyads) completed the survey. One hundred and seventy-three patients were enrolled prior to surgery, and 171 were enrolled after surgery. Appearance and motion were found to be the most important drivers of choice. For the entire cohort, fusion was preferred over non-fusion. For patients who were considering surgery, the most important attributes were preservation of spinal motion and appearance. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and families seeking treatment for idiopathic scoliosis value appearance and preservation of spinal motion and, to a lesser extent, reoperation rates when considering fusion versus non-fusion surgery.

Evidence-based objective performance criteria for the evaluation of hip and knee replacement devices and technologies.

BACKGROUND: Objective performance criteria (OPC) is a novel method to provide minimum performance standards and improve the regulated introduction of original or incremental device innovations in order to prevent patients from being exposed to potentially inferior designs whilst allowing timely access to improvements. We developed 2-year safety and effectiveness OPC for total hip and knee replacement (THR and TKR). METHODS: Analyses of large databases were conducted using various data sources: a systematic literature review; a direct data analysis from The Functional Outcomes Research for Comparative Effectiveness in Total Joint Replacement and Quality Improvement Registry (FORCE-TJR) and the Kaiser Permanente Implant Registry (KPIR); and claims data analyses from longitudinal discharge data in New York and California states. The literature review included U.S. patients (≥18 years) who received THR or TKR for primary end-stage osteoarthritis and prospectively collected data on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) from at least 100 subjects and/or 2-year implant survival for at least 250 implants. Random effects models were used for meta-analysis. RESULTS: Data were available from a total of 951 100 patients. After screening of 7979 abstracts, 294 studies underwent full-text review and 31 studies contributed to the evidence synthesis (333 995 implants). Direct data analysis of FORCE-TJR contributed 9223 joint replacement patients to the construction of OPC for effectiveness; KPIR contributed 262 044 patients for the construction of OPC for safety. Claims database analysis contributed 345 838 patients to the construction of safety OPC. OPC for safety were constructed for cumulative incidences of 2-year all-cause and septic revision (THR/TKR 2.0%/1.6% and 0.6%/0.7%), and OPC for effectiveness were constructed based on four disease-specific and three general health-related quality of life PROMs (HOOS/KOOS 87.1/80.6; HSS/KSS function 94.4/90.6; SF-12/SF-36, PCS 46.5/41.9, EQ-5D 0.88/0.84). CONCLUSION: This study is the first to construct a 2-year OPC for the safety and effectiveness of THR and TKR based on U.S. real-world data. Based on these OPC, potential benchmarks for (single-arm study) evaluation of new device innovations are suggested for a regulated and safe introduction to the (commercial) market.

Association of Sex With Risk of 2-Year Revision Among Patients Undergoing Total Hip Arthroplasty.

Importance: The worldwide population is aging and includes more female individuals than male individuals, with higher rates of total hip arthroplasty (THA) among female individuals. Although research on this topic has been limited to date, several studies are currently under way. Objectives: To evaluate the association between sex and 2-year revision after THA. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used data from statewide databases in New York and California between October 1, 2015, and December 31, 2018. Patients 18 years or older with osteoarthritis who underwent THA and had sex recorded in the database were included in the analysis. Exposure: Total hip arthroplasty. Main Outcomes and Measures: The outcome of interest was the difference in early, all-cause revision surgery rates after primary THA between women and men. The association of sex with the revision rate was examined using Cox proportional hazards regression analysis. Results: Of 132 826 patients included in the study, 74 002 (55.7%) were women; the mean (SD) age was 65.9 (11.0) years, and the median follow-up time was 1.3 years (range, 0.0-3.0 years). The 2-year revision rate was 2.5% (95% CI, 2.4%-2.6%) among women and 2.1% (95% CI, 2.0%-2.2%) among men. After adjusting for demographic characteristics, comorbidities, and facility volume, a minimal clinically meaningful difference was observed in revision rates despite women having a higher risk of all-cause revision compared with men (hazard ratio, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.07-1.26; P < .001). The risk of revision was increased among women compared with men in the subgroup of patients who were younger than 55 years (hazard ratio, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.20-1.81; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, no clinically meaningful difference in all-cause revision rates after primary THA was found between men and women at 2-year follow-up. The modest difference in the risk of revision between men and women in a small subgroup of patients younger than 55 years suggests that the risk of revision in this population should be studied further.