Preoperative Performance of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System in Patients with Meniscal Root Tears

Trevor R. Gulbrandsen; Zain M. Khazi; Matthew Bollier; Brian Wolf; Christopher Larson; Kyle Duchman; Qiang An; Robert W. Westermann

doi:10.1055/s-0039-3402076

The Journal of Knee Surgery, Table of Contents

J Knee Surg 2021; 34(09): 913-917
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-3402076

Original Article

Preoperative Performance of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System in Patients with Meniscal Root Tears

Authors

Trevor R. Gulbrandsen

¹Department of Orthopedics and Rehabilitation, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, Iowa
Zain M. Khazi

¹Department of Orthopedics and Rehabilitation, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, Iowa
Matthew Bollier

¹Department of Orthopedics and Rehabilitation, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, Iowa
Brian Wolf

¹Department of Orthopedics and Rehabilitation, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, Iowa
Christopher Larson

²Minnesota Orthopedic Sports Medicine Institute, Twin Cities Orthopedics, Edina, Minnesota
Kyle Duchman

¹Department of Orthopedics and Rehabilitation, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, Iowa
Qiang An

¹Department of Orthopedics and Rehabilitation, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, Iowa
Robert W. Westermann

¹Department of Orthopedics and Rehabilitation, University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, Iowa

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to establish preoperative validity of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System physical function computer adaptive test (PROMIS PF-CT) with legacy patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for meniscal root tears (MRTs). Our study included 51 patients (52 knees) with MRT. Patients completed PROMIS PF-CT, Short Form 36 (SF-36 physical function, pain, general health, vitality, social function, emotional well-being, role limitations due to physical health, and role limitations due to emotional problems), Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS pain, symptoms, activities of daily living [ADLs], sports, and quality of life [QOL]), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC pain, stiffness, and function), EuroQol-5 dimensions (EQ-5D), and Knee Activity Scale questionnaires at their preoperative visit. Correlations between the PROMs listed above were evaluated along with floor and ceiling effects. Correlations were defined as weak (0.2–0.39), moderate (0.4–0.59), strong (0.6–0.79), and very strong (0.8–1.0). Preoperative data showed that PROMIS PF-CT has a strong correlation with SF-36 PF, KOOS-ADL, WOMAC-function, and EQ-5D; and moderate correlation with KOOS-sport, KOOS-pain, KOOS-symptoms, KOOS-QOL, WOMAC-pain, and WOMAC-stiffness. The Knee Activity Scale did not show any significant correlation with PROMIS PF-CT (r = 0.12, p = 0.2080). Of all the PROMs administered, PROMIS PF-CT demonstrated no floor or ceiling effects compared with 11.54% ceiling effect in KOOS-sports, and 5.77% floor effect in KOOS-ADL. On average, patients answered fewer PROMIS PF-CT questions (4.15 ± 0.72). PROMIS PF-CT is a valuable tool to assess preoperative patient-reported physical function in patients that may undergo MRT repair. It correlates strongly with other well-established PROMs. It also demonstrated no floor or ceiling effects and demonstrated a low test burden in our sample of 52 knees. This is a level III, prognostic retrospective comparative study.

Keywords

meniscal root tear - meniscal repair - patient-reported outcomes measurement information system - patient-reported outcomes

Full Text

References

References
1 Choi SH, Bae S, Ji SK, Chang MJ. The MRI findings of meniscal root tear of the medial meniscus: emphasis on coronal, sagittal and axial images. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2012; 20 (10) 2098-2103
2 Bhatia S, LaPrade CM, Ellman MB, LaPrade RF. Meniscal root tears: significance, diagnosis, and treatment. Am J Sports Med 2014; 42 (12) 3016-3030
3 Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 2011 . Accessed January 16, 2019 at: http://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/
4 Beaton DE, Schemitsch E. Measures of health-related quality of life and physical function. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2003; (413) 90-105
5 Carr AJ. Evidence-based orthopaedic surgery: what type of research will best improve clinical practice?. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2005; 87 (12) 1593-1594
6 Pierce TP, Elmallah RD, Cherian JJ, Jauregui JJ, Mont MA. Standardized questionnaire time burden for practitioners and patients. Surg Technol Int 2015; 26: 302-306
7 Cella D, Gershon R, Lai JS, Choi S. The future of outcomes measurement: item banking, tailored short-forms, and computerized adaptive assessment. Qual Life Res 2007; 16 (Suppl. 01) 133-141
8 Fidai MS, Saltzman BM, Meta F. et al. Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System and Legacy Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in the Field of Orthopaedics: a systematic review. Arthroscopy 2018; 34 (02) 605-614
9 Correlation and regression. The British Medical Journal. Available at: https://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-readers/publications/statistics-square-one/11-correlation-and-regression 2019
10 Stucki G, Liang MH, Stucki S, Katz JN, Lew RA. Application of statistical graphics to facilitate selection of health status measures for clinical practice and evaluative research. Clin Rheumatol 1999; 18 (02) 101-105
11 McHorney CA, Tarlov AR. Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate?. Qual Life Res 1995; 4 (04) 293-307
12 Scherr M, Kunz A, Doll A. et al. Ignoring floor and ceiling effects may underestimate the effect of carotid artery stenting on cognitive performance. J Neurointerv Surg 2016; 8 (07) 747-751
13 Paulsen A, Odgaard A, Overgaard S. Translation, cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Danish version of the Oxford hip score: assessed against generic and disease-specific questionnaires. Bone Joint Res 2012; 1 (09) 225-233
14 Wamper KE, Sierevelt IN, Poolman RW, Bhandari M, Haverkamp D. The Harris hip score: do ceiling effects limit its usefulness in orthopedics?. Acta Orthop 2010; 81 (06) 703-707
15 Hamilton DF, Lane JV, Gaston P. et al. What determines patient satisfaction with surgery? A prospective cohort study of 4709 patients following total joint replacement. BMJ Open 2013; 3 (04) e002525
16 Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR. et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 2007; 60 (01) 34-42
17 Sheean AJ, Schmitz MR, Ward CL. et al. Assessment of disability related to femoroacetabular impingement syndrome by use of the Patient-Reported Outcome Measure Information System (PROMIS) and Objective Measures of Physical Performance. Am J Sports Med 2017; 45 (11) 2476-2482
18 Hancock KJ, Glass N, Anthony CA. et al. Performance of PROMIS for healthy patients undergoing meniscal surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2017; 99 (11) 954-958
19 Scott EJ, Westermann R, Glass NA, Hettrich C, Wolf BR, Bollier MJ. Performance of the PROMIS in patients after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Orthop J Sports Med 2018; 6 (05) 2325967118774509
20 Chen RE, Papuga MO, Voloshin I. et al. Preoperative PROMIS scores predict postoperative outcomes after primary ACL reconstruction. Orthop J Sports Med 2018; 6 (05) 2325967118771286
21 Hancock KJ, Glass N, Anthony CA. et al. PROMIS: a valid and efficient outcomes instrument for patients with ACL tears. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2019; 27 (01) 100-104
22 Dowdle SB, Glass N, Anthony CA, Hettrich CM. Use of PROMIS for patients undergoing primary total shoulder arthroplasty. Orthop J Sports Med 2017; 5 (09) 2325967117726044
23 Kaat AJ, Rothrock NE, Vrahas MS. et al. Longitudinal validation of the PROMIS physical function item bank in upper extremity trauma. J Orthop Trauma 2017; 31 (10) e321-e326
24 Papuga MO, Beck CA, Kates SL, Schwarz EM, Maloney MD. Validation of GAITRite and PROMIS as high-throughput physical function outcome measures following ACL reconstruction. J Orthop Res 2014; 32 (06) 793-801
25 Anthony CA, Glass N, Hancock K, Bollier M, Hettrich CM, Wolf BR. Preoperative performance of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System in patients with rotator cuff pathology. Arthroscopy 2017; 33 (10) 1770-1774.e1
26 Pangburn MK. Alternative pathway of complement. Methods Enzymol 1988; 162: 639-653
27 Hung M, Stuart AR, Higgins TF, Saltzman CL, Kubiak EN. Computerized adaptive testing using the PROMIS physical function item bank reduces test burden with less ceiling effects compared with the short musculoskeletal function assessment in orthopaedic trauma patients. J Orthop Trauma 2014; 28 (08) 439-443
28 Boody BS, Bhatt S, Mazmudar AS, Hsu WK, Rothrock NE, Patel AA. Validation of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) computerized adaptive tests in cervical spine surgery. J Neurosurg Spine 2018; 28 (03) 268-279
29 Fries J, Rose M, Krishnan E. The PROMIS of better outcome assessment: responsiveness, floor and ceiling effects, and internet administration. J Rheumatol 2011; 38 (08) 1759-1764
30 Brodke DS, Goz V, Voss MW, Lawrence BD, Spiker WR, Hung M. PROMIS PF CAT outperforms the ODI and SF-36 physical function domain in spine patients. Spine 2017; 42 (12) 921-929