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
  • [31] THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SLEEP AND PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES IN CHILDREN WITH RHEUMATIC DISEASES
    Shen, B.
    Cui, H.
    Xv, J.
    Chen, H.
    Fan, P.
    SLEEP MEDICINE, 2024, 115 : 150 - 150
  • [32] Patient-reported outcomes
    Garratt, Andrew
    TIDSSKRIFT FOR DEN NORSKE LAEGEFORENING, 2015, 135 (07) : 668 - 668
  • [33] 726 Return to Sport, Patient Reported Outcomes and Satisfaction Following Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction
    Simpson, C.
    MacDonald, D.
    Keating, J.
    BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2021, 108 (SUPPL 2)
  • [34] Patient expectations impact patient-reported outcomes and satisfaction after lumbar fusion
    Zhang, Hanci
    Glassman, Steven D.
    Bisson, Erica F.
    Potts, Eric A.
    Jazini, Ehsan
    Carreon, Leah Y.
    SPINE JOURNAL, 2024, 24 (02): : 273 - 277
  • [35] Patient-reported outcomes for nipple reconstruction: Review of literature
    Tan, Yan Yu
    Chin, Ye Ru
    Bajaj, Kuljyot
    Thomas, Sunil
    SURGEON-JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL COLLEGES OF SURGEONS OF EDINBURGH AND IRELAND, 2021, 19 (05): : E245 - E255
  • [36] Patient-reported outcomes Recording and evaluating patient-reported endpoints
    Hilser, Thomas
    Darr, Christopher
    Gruenwald, Viktor
    ONKOLOGIE, 2022, 28 (10): : 940 - 946
  • [37] INVESTIGATING PATIENT EXPECTATIONS, SATISFACTION, AND PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES FOLLOWING SPINE SURGERY
    Edalati, K.
    Wilson, P. L.
    Bansal, A.
    Louie, P. K.
    JOURNAL OF INVESTIGATIVE MEDICINE, 2024, 72 (01) : 533 - 534
  • [38] Patient-reported outcomes and patient voices
    Asci, Gulay
    Ok, Ercan
    SEMINARS IN DIALYSIS, 2022, 35 (05) : 457 - 458
  • [39] Anterior Cruciate Ligament Repair Leads to Improved Patient-Reported Outcomes Compared to Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction
    Karlin, Elan A.
    McCann, Julia
    Panish, Brian J.
    Geng, Xue
    Wei, Linlin
    Argintar, Evan
    CUREUS JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCE, 2024, 16 (05)
  • [40] Patient copayments and patient-reported outcomes
    Mullins, CD
    CLINICAL THERAPEUTICS, 2002, 24 (04) : 674 - 674