Goldberg, Boaz

AbstractIntroductionMinimum clinically important differences (MCIDs) are critical to understanding changes in patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) scores after total joint arthroplasty (TJA). The usage and adoption of MCIDs not been well-studied. This study was performed to IDENTIFY trends in PROM and MCID use after TJA over the past decade.MethodsAll articles published in the calendar years of 2010 and 2020 in CORR, JBJS, and the Journal of Arthroplasty were reviewed. Articles relating to clinical outcomes in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA) were included. For each article, all reported PROMs and (if present) accompanying MCIDs were recorded. The use of PROMs and MCIDs were compared between articles published in 2010 and 2020.ResultsOverall, 263 articles from 2010 and 546 articles from 2020 were included. The total number of articles reporting any PROM after THA and TKA increased from 131 in 2010 to 194 in 2020, but the proportion of articles reporting PROMs decreased from 49.8% (131/263) to 35.5% (194/546). Both the total number and proportion of articles reporting MCIDs increased from 2.3% (3/131) in 2010 to 16.5% (32/194) in 2020. These trends persisted when analyzing THA and TKA articles individually.ConclusionsBoth the absolute number and proportion of articles reporting MCIDs in conjunction with PROMs after TJA has increased in the past decade but remains low. We recommend that journal editors and meeting organizers encourage the inclusion of MCID information in all reports on clinical outcomes after joint replacement.

Purpose To identify the clinical practice preferences of orthopaedic surgeons regarding anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) rehabilitation through a survey of members of the Arthroscopy Association of North American (AANA) and the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine (AOSSM). Methods An online survey was distributed to members of AANA and AOSSM between November 2020 and September 2021. Participants reported on their clinical preferences for ACLR protocol development and patient selection, use of technology in ACLR recovery and rehabilitation, and preferences for advancing through multiple phases of the rehabilitative process. Results Responses from 46 orthopaedic surgeons were analyzed. Patient‐reported outcome measures were not found to be utilized often at various phases of the perioperative period. Thirty‐eight (82.6%) participants reported utilization of postoperative bracing. There was no consensus on when participants allow their patients to advance through rehabilitation, but most report waiting 3 to 4 months for advancement to jogging/lateral movement, 6 to 8 months for return to noncontact sport, and 9 months of more for return to unrestricted sport. Many participants utilize functional and strength testing with associated limb symmetry indices to determine patient readiness to return to sport, with 18, 26, and 25 participants reporting use of functional testing and 28, 26, and 27 participants reporting use of strength testing at the return to jogging/lateral movements, noncontact return to sport, and unrestricted return‐to‐sport phases, respectively. Conclusions This study provides an insight into the rehabilitative protocols and modalities utilized for ACLR by orthopaedic surgeons in practice across the United States. There is notably substantial variation in rehabilitative patterns and preferences, particularly with regards to what constitutes criteria for progressing patients through the phases of returning to unrestricted sport. Additionally, our findings show that while many surgeons believe that quantitative assessment technology could be beneficial in decision‐making for returning patients to sport, there are still many barriers that stand in the way of its implementation into clinical practice. Clinical Relevance Postoperative rehabilitative protocols after ACLR vary by surgeon.