Advertisement

Preoperative Patient-Reported Outcome Measure Thresholds Should Not be Used for Indicating Total Knee Arthroplasty

Published:November 08, 2022DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2022.08.039

      Abstract

      Background

      While Medicare requires patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for many quality programs, some commercial insurers are requiring preoperative PROMs when determining eligibility for total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Concerns exist that these data may be used to deny TKA to patients above a specific PROM score, but the optimal threshold is unknown. We aimed to evaluate TKA outcomes based on theoretical PROM thresholds.

      Methods

      We retrospectively analyzed 25,246 consecutive primary TKA patients from 2016 to 2019. Hypothesized preoperative knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score for joint replacement cutoffs of 40, 50, 60, and 70 points were used. Preoperative scores below each threshold were considered “approved” surgery. Preoperative scores above each threshold were considered “denied” surgery. In-hospital complications, 90-day readmissions, and discharge disposition were evaluated. One-year minimum clinically important difference (MCID) achievement was calculated using previously validated anchor-based methods.

      Results

      For “denied” patients below thresholds 40, 50, 60, and 70 points, 1-year MCID achievement was 88.3%, 85.9%, 79.6%, and 77%, respectively. In-hospital complication rates for approved patients were 2.2%, 2.3%, 2.1%, and 2.1%, while 90-day readmission rates were 4.6%, 4.5%, 4.3%, and 4.3%, respectively. Approved patients had higher MCID achievement rates (P < .001) for all thresholds but higher nonhome discharge rates than denied patients for thresholds 40 (P < .001), 50 (P = .002), and 60 (P = .024). Approved and denied patients had similar in-hospital complication and 90-day readmission rates.

      Conclusion

      Most patients achieved MCID at all theoretical PROMs thresholds with low complication and readmission rates. Setting preoperative PROM thresholds for TKA eligibility can help optimize patient improvement, but such a policy can create access to care barriers for some patients who would otherwise benefit from a TKA.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to The Journal of Arthroplasty
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • MN Community Measurement
        New measures help quantify improvement experienced by patients following knee and spine surgery.
        ([accessed 09.03.22].)
        • National Health Service
        Finalized patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in England, April 2015 to March 2016.
        ([accessed 09.03.22])
        • Ryan A.
        • Tompkins C.
        Efficiency and value in healthcare: linking cost and quality measures.
        Natl Qual Forum. 2014; 4: 1-64
      1. “Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement Model.” CMS.gov.
        ([accessed 09.03.22])
      2. “Driving Better Health Outcomes One Person at a Time.” UnitedHealth Group.
        ([accessed 07.06.22])
        • Menz H.B.
        • Roddy E.
        • Thomas E.
        • Croft P.R.
        Impact of hallux valgus severity on general and foot-specific health-related quality of life.
        Arthritis Care Res. 2011; 63: 396-404
        • Berliner J.L.
        • Brodke D.J.
        • Chan V.
        • SooHoo N.F.
        • Bozic K.J.
        John Charnley award: preoperative patient-reported outcome measures predict clinically meaningful improvement in function after THA.
        Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016; 474: 321-329
        • Stratford P.W.
        • Binkley J.M.
        • Riddle D.L.
        • Guyatt G.H.
        Sensitivity to change of the roland-morris back pain questionnaire: part 1.
        Phys Ther. 1998; 78: 1186-1196
        • Copay A.G.
        • Subach B.R.
        • Glassman S.D.
        • Polly Jr., D.W.
        • Schuler T.C.
        Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods.
        Spine J. 2007; 7: 541-546
        • Wyrwich K.W.
        • Bullinger M.
        • Aaronson N.
        • Hays R.
        • Patrick D.L.
        • Symonds T.
        • et al.
        Estimating clinically significant differences in quality of life outcomes.
        Qual Life Res. 2005; 14: 285-295
        • Paulsen A.
        • Roos E.M.
        • Pedersen A.B.
        • Overgaard S.
        Minimal clinically important improvement (MCII) and patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) in total hip arthroplasty (THA) patients 1 year postoperatively.
        Acta Orthop. 2014; 85: 39-48
        • Sedaghat A.R.
        Understanding the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of patient-reported outcome measures.
        Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2019; 161: 551-560
        • Altman D.G.
        • Bland J.M.
        Standard deviations and standard errors.
        BMJ. 2005; 331: 903
        • Lyman S.
        • Lee Y.Y.
        • McLawhorn A.S.
        • Islam W.
        • MacLean C.H.
        What are the minimal and substantial improvements in the HOOS and KOOS and JR versions after total joint replacement?.
        Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2018; 476: 2432-2441
        • Maredupaka S.
        • Meshram P.
        • Chatte M.
        • Kim W.H.
        • Kim T.K.
        Minimal clinically important difference of commonly used patient-reported outcome measures in total knee arthroplasty: review of terminologies, methods and proposed values.
        Knee Surg Relat Res. 2020; 32: 19
        • Ramkumar P.N.
        • Navarro S.M.
        • Haeberle H.S.
        • Ng M.
        • Piuzzi N.S.
        • Spindler K.P.
        No difference in outcomes 12 and 24 Months after lower extremity total joint arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
        J Arthroplasty. 2018; 33: 2322-2329
        • Neuprez A.
        • Neuprez A.H.
        • Kaux J.F.
        • Kurth W.
        • Daniel C.
        • Thirion T.
        • et al.
        Total joint replacement improves pain, functional quality of life, and health utilities in patients with late-stage knee and hip osteoarthritis for up to 5 years.
        Clin Rheumatol. 2020; 39: 861-871
        • Lyman S.
        • Lee Y.-Y.
        • Franklin P.D.
        • Li W.
        • Cross M.B.
        • Padgett D.E.
        Validation of the KOOS, JR: a short-form knee arthroplasty outcomes survey.
        Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016; 474: 1461-1471
        • Roth A.
        • Anis H.K.
        • Emara A.K.
        • Klika A.K.
        • Barsoum W.K.
        • Bloomfield M.R.
        • et al.
        • Cleveland Clinic OME Arthroplasty Group
        The potential effects of imposing a body mass index threshold on patient-reported outcomes after total knee arthroplasty.
        J Arthroplasty. 2021; 36: S198-S208
        • Baker P.
        • Deehan D.
        • Lees D.
        • Jameson S.
        • Avery P.J.
        • Gregg P.J.
        • et al.
        The effect of surgical factors on early patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS) following total knee replacement.
        J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012; 94-B: 1058-1066
        • Ko H.
        • Martin B.I.
        • Nelson R.E.
        • Pelt C.E.
        Patient selection in the comprehensive care for joint replacement model.
        Health Serv Res. 2022; 57: 72-90