The Relationship Between Patient-Reported Outcomes and Patient Satisfaction With Ligament Reconstruction Tendon Interposition

被引:0
|
作者
Rogers, Miranda J. [1 ]
Ou, Zhining [2 ]
Clawson, Jordan W. [1 ]
Presson, Angela P. [2 ]
Stockburger, Christopher L. [3 ]
Kazmers, Nikolas H. [1 ,4 ]
机构
[1] Univ Utah, Dept Orthopaed Surg, Salt Lake City, UT USA
[2] Univ Utah, Div Epidemiol, Dept Internal Med, Salt Lake City, UT USA
[3] Orthopaed & Spine Ctr Rockies, Ft Collins, CO USA
[4] Univ Utah, Dept Orthopaed, 590 Wakara Way, Salt Lake City, UT 84108 USA
来源
基金
美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
Improvement; ligament reconstruction tendon interposition; LRTI; mid-term out-comes; PROMIS UE CAT; QuickDASH/QDASH; satisfaction; CLINICALLY IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE; BASAL JOINT ARTHRITIS; PREOPERATIVE EXPECTATIONS; SURGICAL-MANAGEMENT; THUMB; CARE; HAND; OSTEOARTHRITIS; TRAPEZIECTOMY; QUALITY;
D O I
10.1016/j.jhsa.2023.08.010
中图分类号
R826.8 [整形外科学]; R782.2 [口腔颌面部整形外科学]; R726.2 [小儿整形外科学]; R62 [整形外科学(修复外科学)];
学科分类号
摘要
Purpose Achieving the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) on an outcomes instrument and reporting satisfaction with surgical outcomes are not equivalent. We hypothesized that improvement exceeding the QuickDASH and PROMIS UE CAT MCID is associated with a greater likelihood of reporting satisfaction with ligament reconstruction tendon interposition (LRTI) treatment. Our secondary hypothesis was that a subset of patients failing to meet MCID would still be satisfied.Methods Patients >= 1 year after LRTI at one academic tertiary institution were included. QuickDASH and UE CAT v1.2 scores were obtained before and after surgery. Postoperative satisfaction and levels of improvement in pain and function were also obtained.Results A total of 93 patients completed the QuickDASH, and of those, 90 also completed the UE CAT. At a mean of 2.6 +/- 1.0 years after surgery, QuickDASH and UE CAT score improvement exceeded the previously published MCID estimates of 8.8 and 4.8. Although 90% (84/93) of the patients reported satisfaction, only 85% (72/93) and 72% (59/90) achieved MCID on the QuickDASH and UE CAT, respectively. Using the MCID estimate of 8.8, 96% (72/75) of the patients meeting the MCID were satisfied with their treatment. Those failing to achieve MCID reported significantly less physical function and pain improvement; however, most were satisfied nonetheless (68% [13/19] for QuickDASH, 77% [23/30] for UE CAT).Conclusions Achieving published MCID thresholds on the QuickDASH and PROMIS UE CAT v1.2 was predictive of patients reporting general satisfaction with their LRTI outcome >1 year after surgery. Most patients failing to achieve MCID still reported satisfaction with their LRTI. Achieving MCID thresholds alone should not be used as a surrogate for patient satisfaction with their treatment. Patient satisfaction is a complicated construct that is potentially very different from that of high-quality care.
引用
收藏
页码:1218 / 1228
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Evaluation of Preoperative Factors Affecting Midterm Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Ligament Reconstruction Tendon Interposition: A Prognostic Study
    Clawson, Jordan W.
    Rogers, Miranda J.
    Stockburger, Christopher
    Ou, Zhining
    Presson, Angela P.
    Kazmers, Nikolas H.
    JOURNAL OF HAND SURGERY-AMERICAN VOLUME, 2023, 48 (03): : 226 - 235
  • [2] The Association Between Patient Satisfaction and Patient-Reported Health Outcomes
    Chen, Qinyu
    Beal, Eliza W.
    Okunrintemi, Victor
    Cerier, Emily
    Paredes, Anghela
    Sun, Steven
    Olsen, Griffin
    Pawlik, Timothy M.
    JOURNAL OF PATIENT EXPERIENCE, 2019, 6 (03): : 201 - 209
  • [3] Patient-Reported and Quantitative Outcomes of Anatomic Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction With Hamstring Tendon Autografts
    Diermeier, Theresa
    Meredith, Sean J.
    Irrgang, James J.
    Zaffagnini, Stefano
    Kuroda, Ryosuke
    Hochino, Yuichi
    Samuelsson, Kristian
    Smith, Clair Nicole
    Popchak, Adam
    Musahl, Volker
    ORTHOPAEDIC JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE, 2020, 8 (07)
  • [4] The Prognostic Value of Preoperative Patient-Reported Function and Psychological Characteristics on Early Outcomes Following Trapeziectomy With Ligament Reconstruction Tendon Interposition for Treatment of Thumb Carpometacarpal Osteoarthritis
    Kazmers, Nikolas H.
    Grasu, Beatrice
    Presson, Angela P.
    Ou, Zhining
    Henrie, Nicholas B.
    Tyser, Andrew R.
    JOURNAL OF HAND SURGERY-AMERICAN VOLUME, 2020, 45 (06): : 469 - 478
  • [5] Relationship Between the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System and Traditional Patient-Reported Outcomes for Osteoarthritis
    Padilla, Jorge A.
    Rudy, Hayeem L.
    Gabor, Jonathan A.
    Friedlander, Scott
    Iorio, Richard
    Karia, Raj J.
    Slover, James D.
    JOURNAL OF ARTHROPLASTY, 2019, 34 (02): : 265 - 272
  • [6] Patient-Reported Outcomes and Patient-Reported Satisfaction After Surgical Treatment for Cervical Radiculopathy
    Andresen, Andreas Kiilerich
    Paulsen, Rune Tendal
    Busch, Frederik
    Isenberg-Jorgensen, Alexander
    Carreon, Leah Y.
    Andersen, Mikkel O.
    GLOBAL SPINE JOURNAL, 2018, 8 (07) : 703 - 708
  • [7] Scapholunate ligament reconstruction using the Internal Brace™: a patient-reported outcomes perspective
    Ahmad, Karam
    Al-Najjim, Munnan
    Malhotra, Akshay
    JOURNAL OF HAND SURGERY-EUROPEAN VOLUME, 2023, 48 (02) : 151 - 153
  • [8] Sex Differences in Patient-Reported Outcomes After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction
    Ageberg, Eva
    Forssblad, Magnus
    Herbertsson, Par
    Roos, Ewa M.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SPORTS MEDICINE, 2010, 38 (07): : 1334 - 1342
  • [9] Improvement Trajectories in Patient-Reported Outcomes Between Males and Females After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction
    Bjornsen, Elizabeth
    Lisee, Caroline
    Schwartz, Todd A.
    Creighton, Robert
    Kamath, Ganesh
    Spang, Jeffrey
    Blackburn, Troy
    Pietrosimone, Brian
    JOURNAL OF ATHLETIC TRAINING, 2023, 58 (05) : 430 - 436
  • [10] Uncertainty in the Relationship Between Sagittal Alignment and Patient-Reported Outcomes
    Angevine, Peter D.
    Bray, David
    Cloney, Michael
    Malone, Hani
    NEUROSURGERY, 2020, 86 (04) : 485 - 491