Mobile Phone Administration of Hip-Specific Patient-Reported Outcome Instruments Correlates Highly With In-office Administration.

INTRODUCTION: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments typically are delivered via paper or computer; we validated administration of hip-specific instruments over a mobile phone software communication platform outside a clinical encounter. METHODS: Consecutive patients (n = 69) presenting to a hip preservation clinic completed the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Short Form physical function and pain subscales (HOOS-PS and HOOS-PAIN) using standard collection techniques. The subsequent day, patients completed these instruments via a text messaging software program. Text reminders were sent to encourage completion of unanswered questions. Correlation between in-office and mobile phone delivery of PROs was assessed. RESULTS: The intraclass correlation coefficient between in-clinic and mobile phone delivery of HOOS-PS and HOOS-PAIN was 0.72 (95% confidence interval, 0.58 to 0.81) and 0.80 (95% confidence interval, 0.69 to 0.87), respectively. Completion rate of 93% (64 of the 69) was observed using mobile phone and software messaging. Nine patients completed their PRO after being sent a text message reminder. Fifty-one percent of patients completed all PRO questions within 5 minutes; 26% took between 5 and 10 minutes, and 16% took 10 to 30 minutes for completion. DISCUSSION: HOOS-PS and HOOS-PAIN PRO instruments administered via text messaging with automated reminders demonstrate good to excellent reproducibility, no minimal detectable change between communication methods, and a high completion rate in adolescents and young adults with hip pain. Mobile phone delivery via automated software may be a valid method for administration of other PROs, allowing for communication with patients anytime and anywhere. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, case series.

The AAHKS Clinical Research Award: What Are the Costs of Knee Osteoarthritis in the Year Prior to Total Knee Arthroplasty?

BACKGROUND: Despite American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) related to the non-arthroplasty management of osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee, non-recommended treatments remain in common use. We sought to determine the costs associated with non-arthroplasty management of knee OA in the year prior to total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and stratify them by CPG recommendation status. METHODS: The Humana database was reviewed from 2007 to 2015 for primary TKA patients. Costs for hyaluronic acid (HA) and corticosteroid injections, physical therapy, braces, wedge insoles, opioids, non-steroidal anti-inflammatories, and tramadol in the year prior to TKA were calculated. Cost was defined as reimbursement paid by the insurance provider. Costs were analyzed relative to the overall non-inpatient costs for knee OA and categorized based on CPG recommendations. RESULTS: In total 86,081 primary TKA patients were analyzed and 65.8% had at least one treatment in the year prior to TKA. Treatments analyzed made up 57.6% of the total non-inpatient cost of knee OA in the year prior to TKA. Only 3 of the 8 treatments studied have a strong recommendation for their use (physical therapy, non-steroidal anti-inflammatories, tramadol) and costs for these interventions represented 12.2% of non-inpatient knee OA cost. In contrast, 29.3% of the costs are due to HA injections alone, which are not supported by CPGs. CONCLUSION: In the year prior to TKA, over half of the non-inpatient costs associated with knee OA are from injections, therapy, prosthetics, and prescriptions. Approximately 30% of this is due to HA injections alone. If only interventions recommend by the CPG are utilized then costs associated with knee OA could be decreased by 45%.

Single-incision robotic colectomy: are costs prohibitive?

BACKGROUND: The feasibility, safety, and costs of single-incision robotic colectomy (SIRC) are not known. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted, comparing the initial 29 consecutive SIRC procedures performed to 36 multiport laparoscopic colectomies (MLC). RESULTS: The groups did not differ significantly on age, body mass index, gender, ASA classification, smoking status, steroid usage or rate of diabetes. Procedure time, conversion rate, infectious complications and length of stay did not differ significantly. The ratio of observed:expected direct hospital costs statistically favoured MLC, although there was no statistical difference between groups for contribution margin, or for observed and expected direct hospital costs. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate safety and technical feasibility for SIRC in selected patients with short-term outcomes and hospital costs comparable to MLC. Contribution margin remained positive and expected costs exceeded observed for SIRC. Increased costs for SIRC are a concern. The comparable but relatively high mortality in both groups may represent an institutional approach to colectomy where significant comorbidity is not a contraindication to minimally invasive surgery. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.