Download PDF
The Journal of Hip Surgery 2023; 07(04): 166-171
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1777065
Original Article

Achievement of One-Year MCID Varies with Preoperative Function of Patients Undergoing Total Hip Arthroplasty

Patrick Albright
1   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota
,
Andrew Ormseth
1   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota
,
Fernando A. Huyke-Hernández
2   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Park Nicollet Methodist Hospital, St. Louis Park, Minnesota
3   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, TRIA Orthopaedic Institute, Bloomington, Minnesota
,
Stephen A. Doxey
2   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Park Nicollet Methodist Hospital, St. Louis Park, Minnesota
3   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, TRIA Orthopaedic Institute, Bloomington, Minnesota
,
Evan Banks
1   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota
,
Arthur J. Only
1   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota
,
Patrick K. Horst
1   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota
2   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Park Nicollet Methodist Hospital, St. Louis Park, Minnesota
3   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, TRIA Orthopaedic Institute, Bloomington, Minnesota
,
Brian P. Cunningham
2   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Park Nicollet Methodist Hospital, St. Louis Park, Minnesota
3   Department of Orthopedic Surgery, TRIA Orthopaedic Institute, Bloomington, Minnesota
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

The minimum clinically important difference (MCID) of an orthopaedic outcome measure is commonly used to assess treatment success including for patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA). Various patient factors may contribute to MCID values in patients undergoing THA. The purpose of this study was to calculate the 1-year MCID for the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement (HOOS-JR) based on patient factors and evaluate if there were any differences between each cohort's MCID.

A patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) database was reviewed for patients undergoing THA from 2017 to 2018. Patients were included that underwent primary THA and completed baseline and 1-year follow-up for Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System 10-item global health form (PROMIS10) and HOOS-JR surveys. MCID was calculated using the distribution method and an anchor-based method that used the PROMIS10 Physical Health item. Differences in MCID were assessed between patient cohorts stratified by preoperative characteristics.

For the 523 patients that underwent THA, the average 1-year HOOS-JR MCID values were 33.9 ± 16.3 (men), 37.0 ± 13.9 (women), 38.1 ± 17.1 (diagnosis of mental health), and 35.0 ± 14.6 (no diagnosis). MCID values were not significantly different between groups according to sex (p = 0.186) or mental health status (p = 0.302). MCID value did not correlate with body mass index (β = –0.126). MCID achievement had a notable inverse relationship with preoperative HOOS-JR.

This study demonstrated that preoperative function of patients undergoing THA affects the ability to achieve HOOS-JR 1-year MCID. Future investigation is necessary to clarify which patient factors may affect MCID.

Keywords

minimum clinically important difference - total hip arthroplasty - patient-reported outcomes - preoperative function


Publication History

Received: 27 March 2023

Accepted: 12 September 2023

Article published online:
23 November 2023

© 2023. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Daigle ME, Weinstein AM, Katz JN, Losina E. The cost-effectiveness of total joint arthroplasty: a systematic review of published literature. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 2012; 26 (05) 649-658
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Konopka JF, Lee YY, Su EP, McLawhorn AS. Quality-adjusted life years after hip and knee arthroplasty: health-related quality of life after 12,782 joint replacements. JBJS Open Access 2018; 3 (03) e0007
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Anakwe RE, Jenkins PJ, Moran M. Predicting dissatisfaction after total hip arthroplasty: a study of 850 patients. J Arthroplasty 2011; 26 (02) 209-213
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Poolman RW, Swiontkowski MF, Fairbank JC, Schemitsch EH, Sprague S, de Vet HC. Outcome instruments: rationale for their use. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009; 91 (Suppl. 03) 41-49
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Jacobs CA, Peabody MR, Duncan ST. et al; ANCHOR Group. Development of the HOOSglobal to assess patient-reported outcomes in patients undergoing hip preservation procedures. Am J Sports Med 2018; 46 (04) 940-946
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 1989; 10 (04) 407-415
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Lyman S, Lee YY, McLawhorn AS, Islam W, MacLean CH. 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 (12) 2432-2441
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Hung M, Bounsanga J, Voss MW, Saltzman CL. Establishing minimum clinically important difference values for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function, hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score for joint reconstruction, and knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score for joint reconstruction in orthopaedics. World J Orthop 2018; 9 (03) 41-49
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Guenthner G, Albright P, Only AJ, Parikh HR, Kelly B, Huyke F, Horst PK, Cunningham B. Interpreting the Hip Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Joint Replacement: minimum clinically important difference values vary over time within the same patient population. J Orthopaed Exp Innovat 2021; 2 (02) 28992
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Albright P, Guenthner G, Parikh HR, Kelly B, Huyke FA, Horst PK, Cunningham B. Interpreting the Knee Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Joint Replacement: minimum clinically important difference values vary over time within the same patient population. J Orthopaed Exp Innovat 2021; 2 (02) 28990
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Humphrey TJ, Katakam A, Melnic CM, Bedair HS. Defining failure in primary total joint arthroplasty: the minimal clinically important difference for worsening score. J Arthroplasty 2022; 37 (04) 630-636.e1
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Katakam A, Collins AK, Sauder N. et al. Obesity increases risk of failure to achieve the 1-year PROMIS PF-10a minimal clinically important difference following total joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2021; 36 (7S): S184-S191
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Katakam A, Florissi IS, Colon Iban YE. et al. Class III obesity increases risk of failure to achieve the 1-year hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score-physical function Short Form minimal clinically important difference following total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2021; 36 (01) 187-192
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Berliner JL, Brodke DJ, Chan V, SooHoo NF, Bozic KJ. John Charnley Award: preoperative patient-reported outcome measures predict clinically meaningful improvement in function after THA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2016; 474 (02) 321-329
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Lavernia CJ, Alcerro JC, Brooks LG, Rossi MD. Mental health and outcomes in primary total joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2012; 27 (07) 1276-1282
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Halawi MJ, Cote MP, Singh H. et al. The effect of depression on patient-reported outcomes after total joint arthroplasty is modulated by baseline mental health: a registry study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2018; 100 (20) 1735-1741
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Lyman S, Lee YY, Franklin PD, Li W, Mayman DJ, Padgett DE. Validation of the HOOS, JR: a Short-Form hip replacement survey. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2016; 474 (06) 1472-1482
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Chesworth BM, Mahomed NN, Bourne RB, Davis AM, Group OS. OJRR Study Group. Willingness to go through surgery again validated the WOMAC clinically important difference from THR/TKR surgery. J Clin Epidemiol 2008; 61 (09) 907-918
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Cella D, Riley W, Stone A. et al; PROMIS Cooperative Group. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of adult self-reported health outcome item banks: 2005-2008. J Clin Epidemiol 2010; 63 (11) 1179-1194
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Cella D, Yount S, Rothrock N. et al; PROMIS Cooperative Group. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS): progress of an NIH Roadmap cooperative group during its first two years. Med Care 2007; 45 (5, Suppl 1): S3-S11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Hays RD, Bjorner JB, Revicki DA, Spritzer KL, Cella D. Development of physical and mental health summary scores from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) global items. Qual Life Res 2009; 18 (07) 873-880
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Goodman SM, Mehta BY, Mandl LA. et al. Validation of the hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score and knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score pain and function subscales for use in total hip replacement and total knee replacement clinical trials. J Arthroplasty 2020; 35 (05) 1200-1207.e4
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Tubach F, Ravaud P, Baron G. et al. Evaluation of clinically relevant changes in patient reported outcomes in knee and hip osteoarthritis: the minimal clinically important improvement. Ann Rheum Dis 2005; 64 (01) 29-33
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Tubach F, Wells GA, Ravaud P, Dougados M. Minimal clinically important difference, low disease activity state, and patient acceptable symptom state: methodological issues. J Rheumatol 2005; 32 (10) 2025-2029
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Deckey DG, Verhey JT, Christopher ZK. et al. Discordance abounds in minimum clinically important differences in THA: a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2023; 481 (04) 702-714
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Wyrwich KW, Bullinger M, Aaronson N, Hays RD, Patrick DL, Symonds T. Clinical Significance Consensus Meeting Group. Estimating clinically significant differences in quality of life outcomes. Qual Life Res 2005; 14 (02) 285-295
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Revicki D, Hays RD, Cella D, Sloan J. Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2008; 61 (02) 102-109
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Kuo AC, Giori NJ, Bowe TR. et al. Comparing methods to determine the minimal clinically important differences in patient-reported outcome measures for veterans undergoing elective total hip or knee arthroplasty in Veterans Health Administration Hospitals. JAMA Surg 2020; 155 (05) 404-411
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Paulsen A, Roos EM, Pedersen AB, 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 (01) 39-48
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Bernstein DN, Reitblat C, van de Graaf VA. et al. Is there an association between bundled payments and “cherry picking” and “lemon dropping” in orthopaedic surgery? A systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2021; 479 (11) 2430-2443
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Thirukumaran CP, Kim Y, Cai X. et al. Association of the comprehensive care for joint replacement model with disparities in the use of total hip and total knee replacement. JAMA Netw Open 2021; 4 (05) e2111858
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Fontana MA, Lyman S, Sarker GK, Padgett DE, MacLean CH. Can machine learning algorithms predict which patients will achieve minimally clinically important differences from total joint arthroplasty?. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2019; 477 (06) 1267-1279
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Kunze KN, Karhade AV, Sadauskas AJ, Schwab JH, Levine BR. Development of machine learning algorithms to predict clinically meaningful improvement for the patient-reported health state after total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2020; 35 (08) 2119-2123
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Katakam A, Karhade AV, Collins A. et al. Development of machine learning algorithms to predict achievement of minimal clinically important difference for the KOOS-PS following total knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Res 2022; 40 (04) 808-815
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Squitieri L, Bozic KJ, Pusic AL. The role of patient-reported outcome measures in value-based payment reform. Value Health 2017; 20 (06) 834-836
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Tatman LM, Obremskey WT. Patient reported outcomes: the Foundation of Value. J Orthop Trauma 2019; 33 (Suppl. 07) S53-S55
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar