A Proof of Concept Study Regarding the Utilization of Different Patient-related Outcome Measurements in a Certified Centre of Excellence for Joint Replacement (EndoProthetikZentrum)Article in several languages: English | deutsch
04 June 2019 (eFirst)
Background The aim of the study is to identify those patients without improved pain sensation and functionality of the joint, thus with a potential necessity of re-intervention by using the evaluation of the PROMs (Oxford Hip Score, European Quality of Life Scale, EndoCert-Risk-Score). The task was to determine the value of the scores which represents the limit above/below, which a re-examination of the patient is necessary. Additionally, further secondary objectives such as influence of complications on scores, the percentage of questionnaire return and the quality of the provided data in the questionnaires were recorded to define minimal requirements on patientʼs response.
Material and Methods Members of the EndoCert certification committee developed a questionnaire for pre- (decision on treatment) and post-operative (discharge and 3-months follow-up) use. A total of 112 primary hip replacements and 25 hip revision arthroplasties, which were recruited from a centre of excellence for joint replacement (EndoProthetikZentrum der Maximalversorgung), were included in the study.
Results The return of questionnaires amounted to 80%. Quality of data in the questionnaires declined with BMI (≥ 25), ASA classification (≥ 3), age (≥ 65) and depended on the time point questioning. Based on the EndoCert risk score there was a significant improvement in the experience of pain postoperatively compared to pre-operation (p < 0.05). However, the functionality of the joint, as measured as the use of walking frames or crutches as well as the need for help from others, did not improve. The results revealed that there was no correlation between the incidence of complications and a detrimental score. It was furthermore shown that patient specific attributes, e.g. age or BMI, or perioperative performance (duration of operation) did not influence the likelihood of a complication.
Conclusion It was shown that Oxford Hip Score and EQ-5D were not negatively influenced by complication during hospital stay. The evaluation of the EndoCert risk score showed not improvement between pre- and post-operative values regarding function but revealed a significant pain relief. A further study is intended to evaluate the intensity of pain after three months as part of an extended systemic follow-up. This could provide further insights whether the EndoCert risk score is a suitable tool to identify unsuccessfully treated patients.
- 1 IQTIG – Institut für Qualitätssicherung und Transparenz im Gesundheitswesen. Bundesauswertung zum Erfassungsjahr 2016 Hüftendoprothesenversorgung Qualitätsindikatoren. Im Internet: https://iqtig.org/downloads/auswertung/2016/hep/QSKH_HEP_2016_BUAW_V02_2017-07-12.pdf Stand: 12.02.2019
- 2 IQTIG – Institut für Qualitätssicherung und Transparenz im Gesundheitswesen. Tätigkeitsbericht 2015/2016. Im Internet: https://iqtig.org/dateien/berichte/2017/IQTIG_Taetigkeitsbericht_2015_16_2017-08-31.pdf Stand: 12.02.2019
- 3 Haas H, Grifka J, Günther K-P, Heller K-D, Niethard FU, Windhagen H, Ebner M, Mittelmeier W. Hrsg. EndoCert®: Zertifizierung von Endoprothetischen Versorgungszentren in Deutschland. Eine Initiative der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Orthopädie und Orthopädische Chirurgie (DGOOC) mit Unterstützung der Arbeitsgemeinschaft Endoprothetik (AE) in der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie (DGOU) und des Berufsverbandes der Fachärzte für Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie (BVOU). Stuttgart, New York: Thieme; 2013
- 4 Ethgen O, Bruyère O, Richy F. et al. Health-related quality of life in total hip and total knee arthroplasty. A qualitative and systematic review of the literature. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004; 86-A: 963-974
- 5 Eneqvist T, Nemes S, Bülow E. et al. Can patient-reported outcomes predict re-operations after total hip replacement?. Int Orthop 2018; 42: 273-279
- 6 Ahmad MA, Xypnitos FN, Giannoudis PV. Measuring hip outcomes: common scales and checklists. Injury 2011; 42: 259-264
- 7 Naal FD, Sieverding M, Impellizzeri FM. et al. Reliability and validity of the cross-culturally adapted German Oxford hip score. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009; 467: 952-957
- 8 Greiner W, Claes C, Busschbach JJV. et al. Validating the EQ-5D with time trade off for the German population. Eur J Health Econ 2005; 6: 124-130
- 9 Haas H, Günther K, Heller KD. et al. Anforderungskatalog Erhebungsbogen für EndoProthetikZentren zur Zertifizierung von EndoProthetikZentren als qualitätssichernde Maßnahme in der Behandlung von Gelenkerkrankungen: EndoProthetikZentrum der Maximalversorgung (EndoCert) (EPZmax). doi:10.1055/B-9783131740816-00001
- 10 Hamilton DF, Lane JV, Gaston P. et al. Assessing treatment outcomes using a single question: the net promoter score. Bone Joint J 2014; 96-B: 622-628
- 11 Kalairajah Y, Azurza K, Hulme C. et al. Health outcome measures in the evaluation of total hip arthroplasties–a comparison between the Harris hip score and the Oxford hip score. J Arthroplasty 2005; 20: 1037-1041
- 12 Murray DW, Fitzpatrick R, Rogers K. et al. The use of the Oxford hip and knee scores. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2007; 89: 1010-1014
- 13 Devane P, Horne G, Gehling DJ. Oxford hip scores at 6 months and 5 years are associated with total hip revision within the subsequent 2 years. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2013; 471: 3870-3874
- 14 de Groot IB, Bussmann HJ, Stam HJ. et al. Small increase of actual physical activity 6 months after total hip or knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2008; 466: 2201-2208
- 15 Hooper GJ, Rothwell AG, Hooper NM. et al. The relationship between the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical rating and outcome following total hip and knee arthroplasty: an analysis of the New Zealand Joint Registry. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2012; 94: 1065-1070
- 16 Wylde V, Learmonth ID, Cavendish VJ. The Oxford hip score: the patientʼs perspective. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2005; 3: 66
- 17 McMurray R, Heaton J, Sloper P. et al. Measurement of patient perceptions of pain and disability in relation to total hip replacement: the place of the Oxford hip score in mixed methods. Qual Health Care 1999; 8: 228-233
- 18 Pritchett JW. Fracture of the greater trochanter after hip replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2001; (390) 221-226
- 19 Peretz JI, Chuang MJ, Cerynik DL. et al. Treatment of symptomatic greater trochanteric fracture after total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2009; 24: 825.e1-4
- 20 Bauer F, Bössow O, Studzinski J. Über Sinn und Unsinn des Net Promoter Scores (NPS). Planung und Analyse 2007; 4: 69-72