The Impact of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic on US Total Knee and Hip Arthroplasty Procedures in 2020.

Background: The coronoavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic had profound impact on elective procedures in the United States. We characterized the longer-term decline and recovery of hip and knee arthroplasty procedures following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients undergoing primary and revision total knee and hip arthroplasty (TKA and THA) in the United States between 2014 and 2020 using claims from a large national commercial payer data set contaivning deidentified information from patients with commercial health coverage. We calculated the percentage of cases lost by month using a forecast model to predict TKA and THA volumes in the absence of COVID-19. We then calculated the association between COVID-19 positivity rates and THA/TKA procedures by state and month. Results: There was a large initial decline in procedures, with primary TKA and THA volumes declining by 93.2% and 87.1% in April 2020, respectively, with revisions seeing more modest declines. Cases quickly recovered with volumes exceeding expected levels in summer months. However, cumulative 2020 volumes remained below expected with 9.7% and 7.5% of expected primary TKA and THA cases lost, respectively. Higher state COVID-19 positivity rates were associated with lower primary TKA, THA, and revision knee procedure rates. Conclusions: After the initial decline in March and April, knee and hip arthroplasty cases resumed quickly; however, by the end of 2020, the annual procedure volume had still not recovered fully. The loss in case volume within states was worse in months with higher COVID-19 positivity rates.

Examining the Relationship Between Value and Patient Satisfaction With Treatment in Total Joint Arthroplasty.

Background: A shift toward performance, cost, outcomes, and patient satisfaction has occurred with healthcare reform promoting value-based programs. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between patient satisfaction and value with treatment in a cohort of patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and total hip arthroplasty (THA). Methods: Value was determined by the relationship of treatment outcome with episodic cost. Measurements included both clinical outcomes and patient-reported outcomes. Participating surgeons took part in the modified Delphi method resulting in an algorithm measuring patient value. Treatment outcome, cost, and resultant value (outcome/cost) of both TKA and THA were evaluated using binomial logistic regression by adjusting for age, gender, body mass index, Charlson comorbidity index, tobacco, education, and income with patient-reported satisfaction as the outcome. Results: This study had a total of 909 patients (TKA n = 438; THA n = 471), with an average age of 67 (TKA) and 65 (THA) years. Patient satisfaction shared a significant positive relationship with treatment outcome for TKA (odds ratio [OR] = 1.53, confidence interval [CI] = 1.35-1.73, P < .001) and THA (OR = 1.93, CI = 1.62-2.29, P < .001). Higher value was associated with a significantly higher odds of patient satisfaction for both TKA (OR = 1.39, CI = 1.25-1.54, P < .001) and THA (OR = 1.70, CI = 1.47-1.97, P < .001). Conclusions: This study showed a positive relationship between treatment outcome but not cost with subsequent value and patient satisfaction. This method provides a promising approach to comprehensively evaluate outcomes, cost, and value of total joint arthroplasty procedures. This approach can help predict the probability of value-driven patient satisfaction.

AOA Critical Issues Symposium: The Dynamic Environment of Health Care.

ABSTRACT: The dynamic health-care environment continues to undergo disruptive change. As the health-care system emerges from the pandemic, underlying issues have progressively become critical. Private equity acquisition is dramatically increasing, and consolidation in the entire health-care system limits choice and access. Challenges in the workforce and supply chain persist, adding pressure on already strained health-care organizations. Innovative solutions are required to provide equitable value-based access to orthopaedic care.

2023 American College of Rheumatology and American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons Clinical Practice Guideline for the Optimal Timing of Elective Hip or Knee Arthroplasty for Patients With Symptomatic Moderate-to-Severe Osteoarthritis or Advanced Symptomatic Osteonecrosis With Secondary Arthritis for Whom Nonoperative Therapy Is Ineffective.

OBJECTIVE: To develop evidence-based consensus recommendations for the optimal timing of hip and knee arthroplasty to improve patient-important outcomes including, but not limited to, pain, function, infection, hospitalization, and death at 1 year for patients with symptomatic and radiographic moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis or advanced symptomatic osteonecrosis with secondary arthritis of the hip or knee who have previously attempted nonoperative therapy, and for whom nonoperative therapy was ineffective, and who have chosen to undergo elective hip or knee arthroplasty (collectively referred to as TJA). METHODS: We developed 13 clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, outcomes (PICO) questions. After a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to rate the quality of evidence (high, moderate, low, or very low), and evidence tables were created. A Voting Panel, including 13 physicians and patients, discussed the PICO questions until consensus was achieved on the direction (for/against) and strength (strong/conditional) of the recommendations. RESULTS: The panel conditionally recommended against delaying TJA to pursue additional nonoperative treatment including physical therapy, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, ambulatory aids, and intraarticular injections. It conditionally recommended delaying TJA for nicotine reduction or cessation. The panel conditionally recommended delay for better glycemic control for patients who have diabetes mellitus, although no specific measure or level was identified. There was consensus that obesity by itself was not a reason for delay, but that weight loss should be strongly encouraged, and the increase in operative risk should be discussed. The panel conditionally recommended against delay in patients who have severe deformity or bone loss, or in patients who have a neuropathic joint. Evidence for all recommendations was graded as low or very low quality. CONCLUSION: This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations regarding the optimal timing of TJA in patients who have symptomatic and radiographic moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis or advanced symptomatic osteonecrosis with secondary arthritis for whom nonoperative therapy was ineffective to improve patient-important outcomes, including pain, function, infection, hospitalization, and death at 1 year. We acknowledge that the evidence is of low quality primarily due to indirectness and hope future research will allow for further refinement of the recommendations.

2023 American College of Rheumatology and American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons Clinical Practice Guideline for the Optimal Timing of Elective Hip or Knee Arthroplasty for Patients With Symptomatic Moderate-to-Severe Osteoarthritis or Advanced Symptomatic Osteonecrosis With Secondary Arthritis for Whom Nonoperative Therapy Is Ineffective.

OBJECTIVE: To develop evidence-based consensus recommendations for the optimal timing of hip and knee arthroplasty to improve patient-important outcomes including, but not limited to, pain, function, infection, hospitalization, and death at 1 year for patients with symptomatic and radiographic moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis or advanced symptomatic osteonecrosis with secondary arthritis of the hip or knee who have previously attempted nonoperative therapy, and for whom nonoperative therapy was ineffective, and who have chosen to undergo elective hip or knee arthroplasty (collectively referred to as TJA). METHODS: We developed 13 clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, outcomes (PICO) questions. After a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to rate the quality of evidence (high, moderate, low, or very low), and evidence tables were created. A Voting Panel, including 13 physicians and patients, discussed the PICO questions until consensus was achieved on the direction (for/against) and strength (strong/conditional) of the recommendations. RESULTS: The panel conditionally recommended against delaying TJA to pursue additional nonoperative treatment including physical therapy, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, ambulatory aids, and intraarticular injections. It conditionally recommended delaying TJA for nicotine reduction or cessation. The panel conditionally recommended delay for better glycemic control for patients who have diabetes mellitus, although no specific measure or level was identified. There was consensus that obesity by itself was not a reason for delay, but that weight loss should be strongly encouraged, and the increase in operative risk should be discussed. The panel conditionally recommended against delay in patients who have severe deformity or bone loss, or in patients who have a neuropathic joint. Evidence for all recommendations was graded as low or very low quality. CONCLUSION: This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations regarding the optimal timing of TJA in patients who have symptomatic and radiographic moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis or advanced symptomatic osteonecrosis with secondary arthritis for whom nonoperative therapy was ineffective to improve patient-important outcomes, including pain, function, infection, hospitalization, and death at 1 year. We acknowledge that the evidence is of low quality primarily due to indirectness and hope future research will allow for further refinement of the recommendations.

2023 American College of Rheumatology and American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons Clinical Practice Guideline for the Optimal Timing of Elective Hip or Knee Arthroplasty for Patients With Symptomatic Moderate-to-Severe Osteoarthritis or Advanced Symptomatic Osteonecrosis With Secondary Arthritis for Whom Nonoperative Therapy Is Ineffective.

OBJECTIVE: To develop evidence-based consensus recommendations for the optimal timing of hip and knee arthroplasty to improve patient-important outcomes including, but not limited to, pain, function, infection, hospitalization, and death at 1 year for patients with symptomatic and radiographic moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis or advanced symptomatic osteonecrosis with secondary arthritis of the hip or knee who have previously attempted nonoperative therapy, and for whom nonoperative therapy was ineffective, and who have chosen to undergo elective hip or knee arthroplasty (collectively referred to as TJA). METHODS: We developed 13 clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, outcomes (PICO) questions. After a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to rate the quality of evidence (high, moderate, low, or very low), and evidence tables were created. A Voting Panel, including 13 physicians and patients, discussed the PICO questions until consensus was achieved on the direction (for/against) and strength (strong/conditional) of the recommendations. RESULTS: The panel conditionally recommended against delaying TJA to pursue additional nonoperative treatment including physical therapy, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, ambulatory aids, and intraarticular injections. It conditionally recommended delaying TJA for nicotine reduction or cessation. The panel conditionally recommended delay for better glycemic control for patients who have diabetes mellitus, although no specific measure or level was identified. There was consensus that obesity by itself was not a reason for delay, but that weight loss should be strongly encouraged, and the increase in operative risk should be discussed. The panel conditionally recommended against delay in patients who have severe deformity or bone loss, or in patients who have a neuropathic joint. Evidence for all recommendations was graded as low or very low quality. CONCLUSION: This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations regarding the optimal timing of TJA in patients who have symptomatic and radiographic moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis or advanced symptomatic osteonecrosis with secondary arthritis for whom nonoperative therapy was ineffective to improve patient-important outcomes, including pain, function, infection, hospitalization, and death at 1 year. We acknowledge that the evidence is of low quality primarily due to indirectness and hope future research will allow for further refinement of the recommendations.

The Relationship Between the Timing of Knee Osteoarthritis Diagnoses and Arthroscopic Partial Meniscectomy.

BACKGROUND: There is ongoing debate regarding the efficacy of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) for meniscus tears in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). Some insurance payers will not authorize APM in patients with knee OA. The purpose of this study was to assess the timing of knee OA diagnoses in patients undergoing APM. METHODS: A large commercial national claims data set containing deidentified information from October 2016 to December 2020 was used to identify patients undergoing arthroscopic partial meniscectomy. Data were analyzed to determine whether patients in this group had a diagnosis of knee OA within 12 months before surgery and for the presence of a new diagnosis of knee OA at 3, 6, and 12 months after APM. RESULTS: Five lakhs thousand nine hundred twenty-two patients with a mean age of 54.0 ± 8.52 years, with the majority female (52.0%), were included. A total of 197,871 patients underwent APM without a diagnosis of knee OA at the time of the procedure. Of these patients, 109,427 (55.3%) had a previous diagnosis of knee OA within 12 months preceding surgery, and 24,536 (12.4%), 15,596 (7.9%), and 13,301 (6.7%) patients were diagnosed with knee OA at 3, 6, and 12 months after surgery, respectively. CONCLUSION: Despite evidence against APM in patients with knee OA, more than half of the patients (55.3%) had a previous diagnosis of OA within 12 months of surgery and 27.0% received a new diagnosis of knee OA within one year of surgery. A notable number of patients had a diagnosis of knee OA either before or shortly after APM.

The Effect of Intra-articular Hyaluronic Acid Injections and Payer Coverage on Total Knee Arthroplasty Procedures: Evidence From Large US Claims Database.

Background: There is debate regarding the efficacy of intra-articular (IA) hyaluronic acid (HA) injections for the management of knee osteoarthritis (OA). This study aimed to determine if IA HA utilization and payer coverage of viscosupplementation affected the prevalence of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) procedures and the age of TKA patients. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis from 2014 to 2020 using a large national commercial claims data set. We analyzed the number of TKA procedures and the age of the patients in states that covered IA HA vs those with limited coverage. Mixed random effects and slopes models were used to identify the impact of the IA HA injections. Results: Of 7,335,301 patients with knee OA, 440,606 (6.0%) received a TKA procedure at an average age of 59 years. The rate of TKA procedures increased by 0.56% per year (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.46-0.66; P < .001). Payer coverage of IA HA injections had no effect on TKA prevalence (P = .926). The age of surgical patients increased yearly by 0.15 years (95% CI 0.12-0.18; P < .001), regardless of IA HA injections (P = .990). After controlling for demographics and comorbidities, patients that received an IA HA injection had a higher probability of receiving a subsequent TKA (odds ratio = 2.83; 95% CI 2.80-2.87; P < .001); this finding was conditional of patients' age at the first diagnosis of knee OA. Conclusions: Additional clinical trials should be employed to identify the role of HA injections in the treatment armamentarium for knee OA.

Deep Learning and Imaging for the Orthopaedic Surgeon: How Machines "Read" Radiographs.

➤: In the not-so-distant future, orthopaedic surgeons will be exposed to machines that begin to automatically "read" medical imaging studies using a technology called deep learning. ➤: Deep learning has demonstrated remarkable progress in the analysis of medical imaging across a range of modalities that are commonly used in orthopaedics, including radiographs, computed tomographic scans, and magnetic resonance imaging scans. ➤: There is a growing body of evidence showing clinical utility for deep learning in musculoskeletal radiography, as evidenced by studies that use deep learning to achieve an expert or near-expert level of performance for the identification and localization of fractures on radiographs. ➤: Deep learning is currently in the very early stages of entering the clinical setting, involving validation and proof-of-concept studies for automated medical image interpretation. ➤: The success of deep learning in the analysis of medical imaging has been propelling the field forward so rapidly that now is the time for surgeons to pause and understand how this technology works at a conceptual level, before (not after) the technology ends up in front of us and our patients. That is the purpose of this article.

Do Physicians Overestimate Radiographic Findings in Patients Undergoing Knee Arthroplasty?

Background: Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is 1 of the top 2 most common and expensive surgical procedures among Medicare beneficiaries. Due to the procedure's high annual cost, overdiagnosis and subsequent overutilization of TKA has substantial health-policy implications. Concerns regarding the overexaggeration of radiographic findings and overutilization of TKA have been expressed by medical insurers. Currently, the standard of care for assessing potential knee arthroplasty candidates includes assigning a Kellgren-Lawrence (KL) radiographic score. Our study investigated the accuracy of reported preoperative KL scores in patients undergoing TKA. Material and methods: Records of 277 patients who had underwent TKA at our institution for knee osteoarthritis were randomly selected from a large patient data registry and retrospectively reviewed. Two blinded raters assigned KL scores to the radiographs obtained during the preoperative assessment, which were compared to the scores reported by the operative surgeon. An intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated to determine inter-rater reliability. Results: Between blinded raters, ICC3k = 0.88 (95% confidence interval: 0.86-0.90, P < .001), demonstrating good reliability. Between all raters, ICC2k = 0.89 (95% confidence interval: 0.86-0.90, P < .001), also demonstrating good agreement. Raters fully agreed on the KL classification for 196 patients (70.76%). Compared with blinded raters, the operative surgeon assigned lower KL scores. Conclusion: Reporting of KL score is consistent between operative surgeons and independent reviewers. In cases of disagreement between reviewers, the operative surgeon was generally more conservative in their estimation of the extent of osteoarthritis present radiographically. Concerns regarding inflation of radiographic findings to support surgical preauthorization are unwarranted.

Making a Joint Decision Regarding the Timing of Surgery for Elective Arthroplasty Surgery After Being Infected With COVID-19: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused a substantial number of patients to have their elective arthroplasty surgeries rescheduled. While it is established that patients with COVID-19 who are undergoing surgery have a significantly higher risk of experiencing postoperative complications and mortality, it is not well-known at what time after testing positive the risk of postoperative complications or mortality returns to normal. METHODS: PubMed (MEDLINE), Excerpta Medica dataBASE, and professional society websites were systematically reviewed on March 7, 2022 to identify studies and guidelines on the optimal timeframe to reschedule patients for elective surgery after preoperatively testing positive for COVID-19. Outcomes included postoperative complications such as mortality, pneumonia, acute respiratory distress syndrome, septic shock, and pulmonary embolism. RESULTS: A total of 14 studies and professional society guidelines met the inclusion criteria for this systematic review. Patients with asymptomatic COVID-19 should be rescheduled 4-8 weeks after testing positive (as long as they do not develop symptoms in the interim), patients with mild/moderate COVID-19 should be rescheduled 6-8 weeks after testing positive (with complete resolution of symptoms), and patients with severe/critical COVID-19 should be rescheduled at a minimum of 12 weeks after hospital discharge (with complete resolution of symptoms). CONCLUSIONS: Given the negative association between preoperative COVID-19 and postoperative complications, patients should have elective arthroplasty surgery rescheduled at differing timeframes based on their symptoms. In addition, a multidisciplinary and patient-centered approach to rescheduling patients is recommended. Further study is needed to examine the impact of novel COVID-19 variants and vaccination on timeframes for rescheduling surgery.

Differential item functioning to validate setting of delivery compatibility in PROMIS-global health.

PURPOSE: Patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) such as PROMIS are increasingly utilized in healthcare to assess patient perception and functional status, but the effect of delivery setting remains to be fully investigated. To our knowledge, no current study establishes the absence of differential item functioning (DIF) across delivery setting for these PROMIS- Global Health (PROMIS-GH) measures among orthopedic patients. We sought to investigate the correlation of PROMIS-GH scores across in-clinic versus remote delivery by evaluating DIF within the Global Physical Health (GPH) and Global Mental Health (GMH) items. We hypothesize that the setting of delivery of the GPH and GMH domains of PROMIS-GH will not impact the results of the measure, allowing direct comparison between the two delivery settings. METHODS: Five thousand and seven hundred and eighty-five complete PROMIS-Global Health measures were analyzed retrospectively using the 'Lordif' package on the R platform. DIF was measured for GPH and GMH domains across setting of response (in-clinic vs remote) during the pre-operative period, immediate post-operative period, and 1-year post-operative period using Monte Carlo estimation. McFadden pseudo-R2 thresholds (> 0.02) were used to assess the magnitude of DIF for individual PROMIS items. RESULTS: No GPH or GMH items contained in the PROMIS-GH instrument yielded DIF across in-clinic vs remote delivery setting during the pre-operative, immediate post-operative, or 1-year post-operative window. CONCLUSION: The GPH and GMH domains within the PROMIS-GH instrument may be delivered in the clinic or remotely with comparable accuracy. This cross-delivery setting validation analysis may aid to improve the quality of patient care by allowing mixed platform PROMIS-GH data tailored to individual patient circumstance.

Trajectory of Recovery in PROMIS Global Physical Health After Surgical Fracture Fixation.

INTRODUCTION: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) provide data on the effect of conditions and treatments on patients' lives without third party interpretation. Mounting evidence suggests that PROs may be useful in elective procedure decision making, but its utility in trauma remains unclear. Longitudinally collected PROs may prove effective in identifying patients recovering below the norm. We sought to document recovery trajectory in patients with and without complication and to evaluate the sources of variability in functional recovery after injury. METHODS: This retrospective study included 831 patients with trauma, identified via Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes for surgical extremity and/or pelvic/acetabular fracture management between 2014 and 2018. Global Physical Health (GPH) scores collected via the PROMIS Global Health in a 14-month window after injury were analyzed using mixed-effects modeling. RESULTS: A curvilinear GPH recovery trajectory was observed where patients demonstrated an initial positive recovery trajectory (B = 1.28, P < 0.001) gradually decelerating over time (B = -0.07, P < 0.001). Patients who experienced complications requiring revision surgery demonstrated markedly lower GPH scores. Several notable predictors of postoperative physical health recovery were identified, including both between-person (B = 0.52, 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.56) and within-person (B = 0.41, 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.46) Global Mental Health (GMH) score, Body Mass Index (BMI) (B = -0.07, 95% CI, -0.12 to -0.02), two or more psychiatric diagnoses (B = -0.97, 95% CI, -1.84 to 0.09), Injury Severity Score 10 to 15 and 16+ (B = -2.62, 95% CI, -4.81 to 0.42 and B = -2.17, 95% CI, -3.60 to 0.74, respectively), readmission for complication (B = -2.64, 95% CI, -3.60 to 1.68), and lower extremity or multiextremity fracture (relative to upper extremity) (B = -3.61, 95% CI, 4.45 to 2.78, B = -4.11, 95% CI, -5.77 to 2.44, respectively). Additional analysis suggests that GMH scores are related to the presence of psychiatric diagnoses. DISCUSSION: This study establishes a normal course of recovery as reflected by PROMIS GPH score to serve as an index for monitoring individual postoperative course. Patients who experienced a complication demonstrated markedly lower GPH across all time points, potentially allowing earlier identification of at-risk patients. Furthermore, GMH may represent a modifiable risk factor that could profoundly affect physical recovery. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III (Prognostic Study = Retrospective Cohort).

Does Hospital Teaching Status Matter? Impact of Hospital Teaching Status on Pattern and Incidence of 90-day Readmissions After Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Given financial and clinical implications of readmissions after total hip arthroplasty (THA) and the potential for varied expenditures related to a hospital's teaching status, this study sought to characterize 90-day hospital readmission patterns and assess likelihood of readmission based on teaching designation of a Medicare beneficiaries' (MB's) index THA hospital. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 2016-2018 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services-linked data identified primary THA hospitalizations and readmissions within 90 days. Hospitals were categorized as teaching or nonteaching (Council of Teaching Hospitals and Health Systems). Chi-squared analysis and Fisher exact test assessed differences between readmission hospitals and the index hospital teaching status. Multivariate logistic regression models estimated risk-adjusted probability of experiencing at least one 90-day readmission. RESULTS: Analysis identified 433,959 index THA admissions with an all-cause 90-day readmission rate of 9.12%. Most readmissions were to the same hospital regardless of index THA hospital teaching status (67.5% index teaching; 68.2% index nonteaching). Crossover in hospital teaching status from the index procedure to readmission location was more common for those with index THA at a teaching hospital (18.9%) than for MBs with index THA performed at a nonteaching hospital (6.2%). Controlling for patient characteristics, no significant relationship was found between 90-day readmission and index hospital teaching status (odds ratio 0.98, confidence interval 0.947-1.011). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, while certain patterns of readmission after the index THA were observed, after controlling for patient characters and comorbidities, there was no significant association between 90-day all-cause readmission and index hospital teaching status.

Virtual reality-based physical therapy for patients with lower extremity injuries: feasibility and acceptability.

INTRODUCTION: Traditional physical therapy (PT) requires patients to attend weekly in-office supervised physical therapy appointments. However, between 50% and 70% of patients who would benefit do not receive prescribed PT due to barriers to access. Virtual Reality (VR) provides a platform for remote delivery of PT to address these access barriers. METHODS: We developed a VR-PT program consisting of training, games, and a progress dashboard for 3 common lower extremity physical therapy exercises. We enrolled orthopaedic trauma patients with lower extremity injuries. Patients completed a VR-PT session, consisting of training and one of the exercise-based games. Pre- and post-VR-PT questionnaires were completed. RESULTS: We enrolled 15 patients with an average age of 51 years. Fourteen patients said they would enroll in a randomized trial in which they had a 50% chance of receiving VR-PT vs receiving standard of care. When asked to rate their experience using the VR-PT module on a scale from 0-10-with 0 being anchored as "I hated it" and 10 being anchored as "I loved it"-the average rating was 7.5. Patients rated the acceptability of VR-PT as a 3.9 out of 5, the feasibility as a 4.0 out of 5, and the usability as a 67.5 out of 100. CONCLUSION: The response to VR-PT in this pilot study was positive overall. A VR-based PT program may add value for both patients and clinicians in terms of objective data collection (to aid in compliance monitoring, progression toward goals and exercise safety), increased engagement and increased access.

Orthopedic Surgeon and Care Team Perceptions and Use of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Total Joint Replacement Patients.

BACKGROUND: The recent shift toward value-based health care and bundled payments in orthopedic surgery has increased the use patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in standard clinical care. Such assessments of patient function and satisfaction are particularly important among total joint arthroplasty (TJA) patients to monitor postoperative health. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess orthopedic care team perceptions of current and future PRO usage and compare current rates and modes of PRO collection between three urban, academic health care systems. METHODS: A literature search was conducted on current PRO uses and barriers to their adoption to generate a 26-question survey. The survey was disseminated to orthopedic surgeons and care team members at three academic health care institutions (institutions A, B, and C). Responses were analyzed for qualitative and quantitative insights. RESULTS: Among institutions A, B, and C, PRO collection generally declined from baseline (60%, 90%, 89%) to 6 weeks (67%, 82%, 71%) and 3 months postoperatively (44%, 36%, 47%). However, there were large variations in reported PRO collection intervals among institutions. Respondents reported assessing patient baseline functional status as the most useful current application of PROs and cited the prediction of patient benefit from TJA as the most useful future application for PROs. Though respondents were largely optimistic about PRO utility in clinical care, a small minority remained skeptical. CONCLUSIONS: Perceptions of PRO utilization and collection intervals varied considerably among respondents. For PROs to be an accurate and useful clinical tool, standardization and thorough understanding of PRO collection among orthopedic care team members is essential.