The Relationship Between Patient-Reported Outcomes and Patient Satisfaction With Ligament Reconstruction Tendon Interposition.

PURPOSE: Achieving the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) on an outcomes instrument and reporting satisfaction with surgical outcomes are not equivalent. We hypothesized that improvement exceeding the QuickDASH and PROMIS UE CAT MCID is associated with a greater likelihood of reporting satisfaction with ligament reconstruction tendon interposition (LRTI) treatment. Our secondary hypothesis was that a subset of patients failing to meet MCID would still be satisfied. METHODS: Patients ≥1 year after LRTI at one academic tertiary institution were included. QuickDASH and UE CAT v1.2 scores were obtained before and after surgery. Postoperative satisfaction and levels of improvement in pain and function were also obtained. RESULTS: A total of 93 patients completed the QuickDASH, and of those, 90 also completed the UE CAT. At a mean of 2.6 ± 1.0 years after surgery, QuickDASH and UE CAT score improvement exceeded the previously published MCID estimates of 8.8 and 4.8. Although 90% (84/93) of the patients reported satisfaction, only 85% (72/93) and 72% (59/90) achieved MCID on the QuickDASH and UE CAT, respectively. Using the MCID estimate of 8.8, 96% (72/75) of the patients meeting the MCID were satisfied with their treatment. Those failing to achieve MCID reported significantly less physical function and pain improvement; however, most were satisfied nonetheless (68% [13/19] for QuickDASH, 77% [23/30] for UE CAT). CONCLUSIONS: Achieving published MCID thresholds on the QuickDASH and PROMIS UE CAT v1.2 was predictive of patients reporting general satisfaction with their LRTI outcome ≥1 year after surgery. Most patients failing to achieve MCID still reported satisfaction with their LRTI. Achieving MCID thresholds alone should not be used as a surrogate for patient satisfaction with their treatment. Patient satisfaction is a complicated construct that is potentially very different from that of high-quality care. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic IV.

Evaluation of Preoperative Factors Affecting Midterm Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Ligament Reconstruction Tendon Interposition: A Prognostic Study.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the prognostic value of preoperative patient-reported outcomes as predictors of functional improvement following ligament reconstruction tendon interposition. We hypothesized that high levels of preoperative pain interference (PI) and upper-extremity disability are associated with lower magnitudes of functional improvement ≥1 year after surgery on the shortened version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH) (primary outcome) and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Upper Extremity (UE) Computer Adaptive Test (CAT) (UE CAT) v1.2 (secondary outcome). METHODS: Adult patients who underwent ligament reconstruction tendon interposition between February 2014 and April 2018 at an academic tertiary institution were considered for inclusion in this longitudinal cohort study. Patient-reported outcomes were collected at baseline and ≥1 year after surgery. Univariate and multivariable linear regression analyses were performed to identify factors associated with the magnitude of functional improvement on the QuickDASH and UE CAT. RESULTS: Among 93 included participants, the mean age was 61 ± 7 years, and 75 (81%) were women. At 2.5 ± 1.0 years after surgery, the QuickDASH and UE CAT improved by a mean of 24.5 ± 20.9 and 9.9 ± 10.7 points, respectively. In the primary multivariable model, a greater preoperative QuickDASH (indicative of lower function; coefficient, 0.8; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.6 to 0.9) and lower preoperative Performance of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System PI CAT (eg, less pain interference; coefficient, -0.7; 95% CI, -1.2 to -0.2) were associated with greater QuickDASH improvement independent of potential confounders. In the secondary multivariable model, lower preoperative UE CAT (indicative of worse function; coefficient, -0.9; 95% CI, -1.1 to -0.7) and lower preoperative Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System PI CAT (coefficient, -0.3; 95% CI, -0.6 to -0.1) were associated with greater UE CAT improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative patient-reported outcomes may be useful in understanding the degree of improvement that certain patient populations can expect from ligament reconstruction tendon interposition. Those with lower baseline (preoperative) upper-extremity function and PI are expected to derive the greatest functional improvement in the midterm. TYPE OF STUDY/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic IV.

Reliability of Telephone Acquisition of the PROMIS Upper Extremity Computer Adaptive Test.

PURPOSE: Our primary purpose was to evaluate the reliability of telephone administration of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Upper Extremity (UE) Computer Adaptive Test (CAT) version 2.0 in a hand and upper extremity population, and secondarily to make comparisons with the abbreviated version of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH). METHODS: Patients more than 1 year out from hand surgeries performed at a single tertiary institution were enrolled. Half of the patients completed telephone PROMIS UE CAT and QuickDASH surveys first, followed by computer-based surveys 1 to 10 days later, and the other half completed them in the reverse order. Telephone surveys were readministered 2 to 6 weeks later to evaluate test-retest reliability. Concordance correlation coefficients (CCCs) were used to assess agreement between telephone and computer-based scores, and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were used to assess test-retest reliability. The proportion of patients with discrepancies in follow-up scores that exceeded estimates of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was evaluated. RESULTS: For the 89 enrolled patients, the PROMIS UE CAT CCC was 0.82 (83% confidence interval [83% CI], 0.77-0.86; good), which was significantly lower than 0.92 (83% CI, 0.89-0.94; good to excellent) for the QuickDASH. The PROMIS UE CAT ICC did not differ significantly from the QuickDASH (0.85 and 0.91, respectively). Differences in telephone versus computer scores exceeded 5 points (MCID estimate) for the PROMIS UE CAT in 34% of patients versus 5% of patients exceeding 14 points (MCID estimate) for the QuickDASH. CONCLUSIONS: Significantly better reliability was observed for the QuickDASH than the PROMIS UE CAT when comparing telephone with computer-based score acquisition. Over one-third of patients demonstrated a clinically relevant difference in scores between the telephone and the computer-administered tests. We conclude that the PROMIS UE CAT should only be administered through computer-based methods. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: These findings suggest that differences in collection methods for the PROMIS UE CAT may systematically affect the scores obtained, which may erroneously influence the interpretation of postoperative scores for hand surgery patients.