The Oxford hip score: the patient's perspective

BACKGROUND: In the last 25 years, assessment of orthopaedic intervention has become patient focused, with the development of self-completion patient-centred outcome measures. The Oxford hip score (OHS) is a joint specific outcome measure tool designed to assess disability in patients undergoing total hip replacement (THR). Although the psychometric properties of the OHS have been rigorously examined, there is little research on the patient's perspective of the OHS. Therefore, the aim of this study is to assess whether the OHS is an adequate disability measure from the patient's perspective using qualitative analysis of annotations written on the OHS by patients. METHODS: In total, 276 orthopaedic patients completed an OHS between April 2004 and May 2005. One hundred and fifty six pre-operative patients listed for a THR completed the OHS during a pre-admission assessment clinic, and 120 post-operative patients completed the OHS postally in the home setting. Patient's unprompted annotations in response to the questions on the OHS were recorded and grouped into thematic categories. RESULTS: In total, 46 (17%) patients made 52 annotations when completing the OHS. These annotations identified five main areas of difficulty that patients experienced: lack of question clarity (particularly concerning the use of aids), difficulty in reporting measurements of pain, restrictive and irrelevant questions, the influence of co-morbidities on responses, and double-barrelled questions. CONCLUSION: Although the OHS is a useful short tool for the assessment of disability in patients undergoing THR, this study identified several problem areas that are applicable to patient-centred outcome tools in general. To overcome these current limitations, further work is underway to develop a more individualised patient-centred outcome measure of disability for use in patients with osteoarthritis

Preoperative psychosocial risk factors for poor outcomes at 1 and 5 years after total knee replacement:A cohort study of 266 patients

Background and purpose — Psychosocial factors are important risk factors for poor outcomes in the first year after total knee replacement (TKR), however their impact on long-term outcomes is unclear. We aimed to identify preoperative psychosocial risk factors for poor outcomes at 1 year and 5 years after TKR. Patients and methods — 266 patients were recruited prior to TKR surgery. Knee pain and function were assessed preoperatively and at 1 and 5 years postoperative using the WOMAC Pain score, WOMAC Function score and American Knee Society Score (AKSS) Knee score. Preoperative depression, anxiety, catastrophizing, pain self-efficacy and social support were assessed. Statistical analyses involved multiple linear regression and mixed effect linear regression. Results — Higher anxiety was a risk factor for worse pain at 1 year postoperative. No psychosocial factors were associated with any outcomes at 5 years postoperative. Analysis of change over time found that patients with higher pain self-efficacy had lower preoperative pain and experienced less improvement in pain up to 1 year postoperative. Higher pain self-efficacy was associated with less improvement in the AKSS up to 1 year postoperative but more improvement between 1 and 5 years postoperative. Interpretation — Preoperative anxiety was found to influence pain at 1 year after TKR. However, none of the psychosocial variables were risk factors for a poor outcome at 5 years post­operative, suggesting that the negative effects of anxiety on outcome do not persist in the longer-term

Kneeling ability after total knee replacement

Kneeling ability is consistently the poorest patient-rated outcome after total knee replacement (TKR), with 60–80% of patients reporting difficulty kneeling or an inability to kneel. Difficulty kneeling impacts on many activities and areas of life, including activities of daily living, self-care, leisure and social activities, religious activities, employment and getting up after a fall. Given the wide range of activities that involve kneeling, and the expectation that this will be improved with surgery, problems kneeling after TKR are a source of dissatisfaction and disappointment for many patients. Research has found that there is no association between range of motion and self-reported kneeling ability. More research is needed to understand if and how surgical factors contribute to difficulty kneeling after TKR. Discrepancies between patients’ self-reported ability to kneel and observed ability suggests that patients can kneel but elect not to. Reasons for this are multifactorial, including knee pain/discomfort, numbness, fear of harming the prosthesis, co-morbidities and recommendations from health professionals. There is currently no evidence that there is any clinical reason why patients should not kneel on their replaced knee, and reasons for not kneeling could be addressed through education and rehabilitation. There has been little research to evaluate the provision of healthcare services and interventions for patients who find kneeling problematic after TKR. Increased clinical awareness of this poor outcome and research to inform the provision of services is needed to improtzve patient care and allow patients to return to this important activity

Pain and Function Recovery Trajectories following Revision Hip Arthroplasty:Short-Term Changes and Comparison with Primary Hip Arthroplasty in the ADAPT Cohort Study

Patients report similar or better pain and function before revision hip arthroplasty than before primary arthroplasty but worse results are reported after revision surgery than after primary surgery. The trajectory of post-operative recovery during the first months and any differences by type of surgery have received little attention. We explored the trajectories of change in pain and function after revision hip arthroplasty to 12-months post-operatively and compare them with those observed after primary hip arthroplasty.This study is a prospective cohort study of patients undergoing primary (n = 80 with 92% for an indication of osteoarthritis) and revision (n = 43) hip arthroplasties. WOMAC pain and function scores and walking speed were collected pre-operatively, at 3 and 12-months post-operatively. Multilevel regression models were used to chart and compare the trajectories of change (0-3 months and 3-12 months) between types of surgery.The improvements in pain and function following revision arthroplasty occurred within the first 3-months with no evidence of further change beyond this initial period. While the pattern of recovery was similar to the one observed after primary arthroplasty, improvements in the first 3-months were smaller after revision compared to primary arthroplasty. Patients listed for revision surgery reported lower pre-operative pain levels but similar post-operative levels compared to those undergoing primary surgery. At 12-months post-operation patients who underwent a revision arthroplasty had not reached the same level of function achieved by those who underwent primary arthroplasty.The post-operative improvements in pain and function are larger following primary hip arthroplasty than following revision hip arthroplasty. Irrespectively of surgery type, most of the improvements occur in the first three post-operative months. More research is required to identify whether the recovery following revision surgery could be improved with specific post-operative interventions

Is it possible to predict which patients are most likely to benefit from intra-articular corticosteroid injections? A systematic review.

Aim: Intra-articular corticosteroid injections (IACIs) can reduce osteoarthritis-related pain, with differing levels of response across patient groups. This systematic review investigates what is known about the positive and negative predictors of outcomes in patients with osteoarthritis who undergo IACIs.Methods:We systematically searched the Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases to May 2023 for studies that evaluated patients undergoing IACIs for osteoarthritis and reported on predictors of outcomes in these patients.Results: Eight studies were included. Two were placebo-controlled trials, six were observational studies. Due to the heterogeneity of outcomes and variables between the studies, it was not possible to pool the results for formal meta-analysis. Higher baseline pain, older age, higher BMI, lower range of movement, higher Kellgren-Lawrence radiographic score, joint effusion and aspiration were shown to be predictors of a positive response to IACIs in some of the included studies. However, other studies showed no difference in response with these variables, or a negative correlation with response. Sex, smoking, mental health status, hypertension/ischaemic heart disease, diabetes mellitus, duration of symptoms, and socioeconomic status did not demonstrate any correlation with the prediction of positive or negative outcomes after IACIs.Conclusion: Several patient features have been identified as positive predictors of outcomes following IACIs. However, this systematic review has identified inconsistent and variable findings across the existing literature. Further research with standardisation of IACI administration and outcome measures is required to facilitate further analysis of the reliability and significance of predictive factors for response to IACIs

Validation and interval scale transformation of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) in patients undergoing knee arthroplasty, using the Rasch model

OBJECTIVES: Interval scale reduce measurement bias compared to ordinal scale. We aimed to evaluate the fit of Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) to the Rasch model and derive the transformation table for interval scale measurement. METHODS: Data from osteoarthritis patients listed for knee arthroplasty (KA) pre-operatively, and at 6- and 12- months post-operative was used. WOMAC was calibrated for fit to the Rasch model for monotonicity, homogeneity, local item independence and absence of differential item functioning (DIF) in a randomly selected 900 patients, 300 from each time point; parameter estimates were then imported into the full data set. Responsiveness was reported through Standard Error of Measurement (SEM); Smallest Detectable Difference (SDD), %SDD and effect sizes (ES) between baseline and 6-months. WOMAC was transformed from ordinal to interval values. RESULTS: 1136 patients (mean age 65.9 years, 69.9% female) were included. WOMAC pain (0−20), function (0−68) and total scores (0−96) had adequate fit to Rasch model with good reliability (Person Separation Index: 0.76, 0.80 and 0.79). No item deletion was required. The SEM, SDD, %SDD and ES of WOMAC total were 4.4, 6.9, 10.1, and 1.97. No significant DIF was seen for age, sex, body mass index, type of KA, languages, and education level. WOMAC pain, function and total scores were transformed to interval scales. CONCLUSION: WOMAC total, pain and function scales had adequate fit to the Rasch model, providing unidimensional measure with good reliability and responsiveness. Transformation of WOMAC to interval scale measurement is applicable to other studies