Surgical Referrals for Total Hip Arthroplasty in Primary Care: The Usefulness of the AAOS' Appropriate Use Criteria

Abstract

Background It has been proven that primary care physicians (PCPs) have a lack of clarity regarding the indications for total hip arthroplasty (THA), making the process of surgical referral prone to variability and inconsistency. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons' (AAOS) Appropriate Use Criteria (AAOS-AUC) is an evidence-based decision support tool that assists clinicians to select for whom treatment should be indicated. The present study aims to compare the rate of THA surgical referrals made by PCPs using the AAOS-AUC tool and the rate of referrals resultant after formal physician's education based on the current osteoarthritis treatment standards.

Materials and Methods Using a crossover design, 22 PCPs evaluated 2 rounds of 10 clinical cases each, generating 440 simulated clinical encounters of patients with hip osteoarthritis. In 220 simulated encounters, the PCPs decided if a surgical referral was appropriate by using the AAOS-AUC tool. On the other 220 simulated encounters, that decision was made using the knowledge acquired after formal education. The rate of surgical referrals generated by both strategies was compared.

Results There was no difference in the rate of surgical referrals comparing simulated encounters using the AAOS-AUC tool (57.3%) versus those using clinical judgment after formal education (62.7%; p = 0.2). Neither were there differences when comparing PCPs who used the AAOS-AUC tool during their initial or second round of cases (60.7% versus 58.8% respectively; p = 0.68)

Conclusion In the hands of PCPs, the AAOS-AUC web tool performs as good as formal physician's education in the process of surgical referrals for THA. It is plausible to consider the AAOS-AUC as a practical decision support tool for patients with hip osteoarthritis seen in primary care.

Level of Evidence Level V.

Keywords

total hip arthroplasty - surgical referral - primary care - Appropriate Use Criteria

Publication History

Received: 12 February 2022

Accepted: 28 September 2022

Article published online:
18 May 2023

• Referencias

• 1 Chang RW, Pellisier JM, Hazen GB. A cost-effectiveness analysis of total hip arthroplasty for osteoarthritis of the hip. JAMA 1996; 275 (11) 858-865
• 2 Learmonth ID, Young C, Rorabeck C. The operation of the century: total hip replacement. Lancet 2007; 370 (9597): 1508-1519 DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60457-7.
• 3 Mota REM. Cost-effectiveness analysis of early versus late total hip replacement in Italy. Value Health 2013; 16 (02) 267-279 DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.10.020.
• 4 Mujica-Mota RE, Watson LK, Tarricone R, Jäger M. Cost-effectiveness of timely versus delayed primary total hip replacement in Germany: A social health insurance perspective. Orthop Rev (Pavia) 2017; 9 (03) 7161 DOI: 10.4081/or.2017.7161.
• 5 Yu D, Peat G, Bedson J, Jordan KP. Annual consultation incidence of osteoarthritis estimated from population-based health care data in England. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2015; 54 (11) 2051-2060 DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/kev231.
• 6 Prieto-Alhambra D, Judge A, Javaid MK, Cooper C, Diez-Perez A, Arden NK. Incidence and risk factors for clinically diagnosed knee, hip and hand osteoarthritis: influences of age, gender and osteoarthritis affecting other joints. Ann Rheum Dis 2014; 73 (09) 1659-1664 DOI: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2013-203355.
• 7 Waugh EJ, Badley EM, Borkhoff CM. et al. Primary care physicians' perceptions about and confidence in deciding which patients to refer for total joint arthroplasty of the hip and knee. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2016; 24 (03) 451-457 DOI: 10.1016/j.joca.2015.09.017.
• 8 Price A, Smith J, Dakin H. et al. The Arthroplasty Candidacy Help Engine tool to select candidates for hip and knee replacement surgery: development and economic modelling. Health Technol Assess 2019; 23 (32) 1-216 DOI: 10.3310/hta23320.
• 9 Rees HW. Management of Osteoarthritis of the Hip. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2020; 28 (07) e288-e291 DOI: 10.5435/JAAOS-D-19-00416.
• 10 Østerås N, Moseng T, van Bodegom-Vos L. et al. Implementing a structured model for osteoarthritis care in primary healthcare: A stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial. PLoS Med 2019; 16 (10) e1002949 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002949.
• 11 Østerås N, van Bodegom-Vos L, Dziedzic K. et al. Implementing international osteoarthritis treatment guidelines in primary health care: study protocol for the SAMBA stepped wedge cluster randomized controlled trial. Implement Sci 2015; 10: 165 DOI: 10.1186/s13012-015-0353-7.
• 12 American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. Appropriate Use Criteria for the Management of Osteoarthritis of the Hip 2017
• 13 Mesko B, Győrffy Z. The Rise of the Empowered Physician in the Digital Health Era: Viewpoint. J Med Internet Res 2019; 21 (03) e12490 DOI: 10.2196/12490.
• 14 McHugh GA, Campbell M, Luker KA. GP referral of patients with osteoarthritis for consideration of total joint replacement: a longitudinal study. Br J Gen Pract 2011; 61 (589) e459-e468 DOI: 10.3399/bjgp11X588420.
• 15 Riddle DL, Perera RA. Appropriateness and Total Hip Arthroplasty: Determining the Structure of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons System of Classification. J Rheumatol 2019; 46 (09) 1127-1133 DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.180911.
• 16 Sibbald B, Roberts C. Understanding controlled trials. Crossover trials. BMJ 1998; 316 (7146): 1719-1720