Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Defining a successful total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review of metrics of clinically important changes.
Beiene, Zodina A; Tanghe, Kira K; Kahlenberg, Cynthia A; McLawhorn, Alexander S; MacLean, Catherine H; Gausden, Elizabeth B.
Affiliation
  • Beiene ZA; Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Johns Hopkins Hospital, 1800 Orleans Street, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA. zodinabeiene@gmail.com.
  • Tanghe KK; Albert Einstein Medical College, Bronx, NY, 10461, USA.
  • Kahlenberg CA; Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, 10021, USA.
  • McLawhorn AS; Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, 10021, USA.
  • MacLean CH; Center for the Advancement of Value in Musculoskeletal Care, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, 10021, USA.
  • Gausden EB; Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, 10021, USA.
Arthroplasty ; 5(1): 25, 2023 May 18.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37198708
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

Despite the increasing use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), the methodology used to evaluate clinically significant postoperative outcomes after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is variable. The review aimed to survey studies with identified PROM-based metrics of clinical efficacy and the assessment procedures after TKA.

METHODS:

The MEDLINE database was queried from 2008-2020. Inclusion criteria were full texts, English language, primary TKA with minimum one-year follow-up, use of metrics for assessing clinical outcomes with PROMs, and primary derivations of metrics. The following PROM-based metrics were identified minimal clinically important difference (MCID), minimum detectable change (MDC), patient acceptable symptom state (PASS), and substantial clinical benefit (SCB). Study design, PROM value data, and methods of derivation for metrics were recorded.

RESULTS:

We identified 18 studies (including 46,173 patients) that met the inclusion criteria. Across these studies, 10 different PROMs were employed, and MCID was derived in 15 studies (83%). The MCID was calculated using anchor-based techniques in nine studies (50%) and distribution techniques in eight studies (44%). PASS values were presented in two studies (11%) and SCB in one study (6%) using an anchor-based method; MDC was derived in four studies (22%) using the distribution method.

CONCLUSION:

There is variability in the TKA literature with respect to the definition and derivation of measurements of clinically significant outcomes. Standardization of these values may have implications for optimal case selection and PROM-based quality measurement, ultimately improving patient satisfaction and outcomes.
Key words

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Type of study: Prognostic_studies / Systematic_reviews Language: En Journal: Arthroplasty Year: 2023 Type: Article Affiliation country: United States

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Type of study: Prognostic_studies / Systematic_reviews Language: En Journal: Arthroplasty Year: 2023 Type: Article Affiliation country: United States