RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The Beighton score is commonly used to assess the degree of hypermobility in patients with hypermobility spectrum disorder. Since proper diagnosis and treatment in this challenging patient population require valid, reliable, and responsive clinical assessments such as the Beighton score, studies must properly evaluate efficacy and effectiveness. PURPOSE: To succinctly present a systematic review to determine the inter- and intrarater reliability of the Beighton score and the methodological quality of all analyzed studies for use in clinical applications. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 3. METHODS: A systematic review of the MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and SPORTDiscus databases was performed. Studies that measured inter- or intrarater reliability of the Beighton score in humans with and without hypermobility were included. Non-English, animal, cadaveric, level 5 evidence, and studies utilizing the Beighton score self-assessment version were excluded. Data were extracted to compare scoring methods, population characteristics, and measurements of inter- and intrarater reliability. Risk of bias was assessed with the COSMIN (Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments) 2017 checklist. RESULTS: Twenty-four studies were analyzed (1333 patients; mean ± SD age, 28.19 ± 17.34 years [range, 4-71 years]; 640 females, 594 males, 273 unknown sex). Of the 24 studies, 18 reported raters were health care professionals or health care professional students. For interrater reliability, 5 of 8 (62.5%) intraclass correlation coefficients and 12 of 19 (63.2%) kappa values were substantial to almost perfect. Intrarater reliability was reported as excellent in all studies utilizing intraclass correlation coefficients, and 3 of the 7 articles using kappa values reported almost perfect values. Utilizing the COSMIN criteria, we determined that 1 study met "very good" criteria, 7 met "adequate," 15 met "doubtful," and 1 met "inadequate" for overall risk of bias in the reliability domain. CONCLUSION: The Beighton score is a highly reliable clinical tool that shows substantial to excellent inter- and intrarater reliability when used by raters of variable backgrounds and experience levels. While individual components of risk of bias among studies demonstrated large discrepancy, most of the items were adequate to very good.
RESUMO
Three-dimensional printing is a valuable modality with broad clinical applications. Hip preservation surgery outcomes are dependent on correction of morphological abnormalities that may be optimally visualized with three-dimensional models. To assess the efficacy of three-dimensional models for patient and trainee education and to determine its benefits during pre-operative planning in hip preservation surgery. Sixteen patients with hip pathology were selected. Computed tomography was utilized to generate three-dimensional models. Customized Likert-style questionnaires were given to 10 hip preservation surgeons, 11 orthopedic surgery residents and 10 patients. All residents strongly agreed or agreed that the three-dimensional hip models helped them to understand patients' pathology. All but one patient agreed that the models assisted in their understanding of the treatment plan. Surgeons concurred that although they do not routinely order three-dimensional models, their use would improve trainee and patient education, especially when treating atypical osseous pathomorphologies. Three-dimensional models are tools that can help surgeon, trainee and patient understanding and participation in treatment of complex hip disorders. Patients and trainees agree that the prototypes enhanced their educational experience, as the surgeon can directly demonstrate complex morphological abnormalities. Trainees can therefore gain a better understanding of hip pathologies and treatment. As patients better understand their hip disorder, they can more fully participate in shared treatment decision-making. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, Retrospective Case Series.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Total joint arthroplasty (TJA) volumes have risen in the past decade, resulting in increased national spending. Prior studies indicate that TJA performed at higher-volume hospitals result in better patient outcomes at lower costs. The purpose of this study is to determine whether increased orthopedic specialization has similar effects. METHODS: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Inpatient Charge Data queries identified 2677 hospitals that performed TJA in 2015. Hospitals were assigned an orthopedic specialization ratio (OSR), defined as the ratio of musculoskeletal discharges to total discharges. Average covered charges (ACC), average total payments, and average Medicare payments (AMP) of TJA were extracted. TJA-specific, risk-adjusted complication and readmission scores were obtained from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Hospital Compare database. Comparisons between orthopedic specialty hospitals and nonspecialty hospitals performing TJA were made with Student t-tests. Regression models analyzed the relationship between OSR, volume and cost, payments, readmission rate score, and complication rate score. RESULTS: Orthopedic specialty hospitals had lower ACC, average total payments, AMP, readmission, and complication scores than nonspecialty hospitals (all P < .001). Regression models showed that as the OSR increased from 0 to 1.0, ACC decreased by $19,242.83 and AMP decreased by $2310.75 (P < .001). Readmission score decreased by 0.349 and complication score decreased by 0.346 (P < .001) when controlling for volume as the OSR increased from 0 to 1. CONCLUSION: Hospitals with increased OSR appear to perform TJA for Medicare patients at a lower cost with lower complication and readmission risk. It may be beneficial to consider the OSR when determining the ideal settings for TJA.