3.9 Article

Assessing patients for joint replacement CAN PRE-OPERATIVE OXFORD HIP AND KNEE SCORES BE USED c TO PREDICT PATIENT SATISFACTION FOLLOWING JOINT REPLACEMENT SURGERY AND TO GUIDE PATIENT SELECTION?

Journal

JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY-BRITISH VOLUME
Volume 93B, Issue 12, Pages 1660-1664

Publisher

BRITISH EDITORIAL SOC BONE JOINT SURGERY
DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.93B12.27046

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Oxford Musculoskeletal NIHR BRU, University of Oxford
  2. National Institute for Health Research [RP-PG-0407-10064] Funding Source: researchfish
  3. National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR) [RP-PG-0407-10064] Funding Source: National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We obtained pre-operative and six-month post-operative Oxford hip (OHS) and knee scores (OKS) for 1523 patients who underwent total hip replacement and 1784 patients who underwent total knee replacement. They all also completed a six-month satisfaction question. Scatter plots showed no relationship between pre-operative Oxford scores and six-month satisfaction scores. Spearman's rank correlation coefficients were -0.04 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.09 to 0.01) between OHS and satisfaction and 0.04 (95% CI -0.01 to 0.08) between OKS and satisfaction. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to identify a cut-off point for the pre-operative OHS/OKS that identifies whether or not a patient is satisfied with surgery. We obtained an area under the ROC curve of 0.51 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.56) for hip replacement and 0.56 (95% CI 0.51 to 0.60) for knee replacement, indicating that pre-operative Oxford scores have no predictive accuracy in distinguishing satisfied from dissatisfied patients. In the NHS widespread attempts are being made to use patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) data for the purpose of prioritising patients for surgery. Oxford hip and knee scores have no predictive accuracy in relation to post-operative patient satisfaction. This evidence does not support their current use in prioritising access to care.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available