Patient Preferences Regarding Surgical Interventions for Knee Osteoarthritis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Moorman CT
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5613842 | biostudies-literature | 2017
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Patient Preferences Regarding Surgical Interventions for Knee Osteoarthritis.
Moorman Claude T CT Kirwan Tom T Share Jennifer J Vannabouathong Christopher C
Clinical medicine insights. Arthritis and musculoskeletal disorders 20170920
Surgical interventions for knee osteoarthritis (OA) have markedly different procedure attributes and may have dramatic differences in patient desirability. A total of 323 patients with knee OA were included in a dual response, choice-based conjoint analysis to identify the relative preference of 9 different procedure attributes. A model was also developed to simulate how patients might respond if presented with the real-world knee OA procedures, based on conservative assumptions regarding their ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6639936 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMultiple surgical interventions exist for the treatment of symptomatic knee osteoarthritis, but the surgeon and patient may often have difficulty deciding which interventions are the best option.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that compared complications, revisions, reoperations, and functional outcomes among TKA (total knee arthroplasty), UKA (unicompartmental knee arthroplasty), HTO (high tibial osteotomy), BCA (bicompartmental knee arthroplasty), BIU (bi-unicompartmental knee arthroplasty), and KJD (knee joint distraction). The PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were reviewed for all studies comparing two or more surgical interventions. Direct-comparison meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA) were performed to combine direct and indirect evidence. The risk of bias was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for RCTs.ResultsThis NMA and systematic review included 21 studies (17 RCTs), with a total of 1749 patients. The overall risk-of-bias assessment of the RCTs revealed that 7 studies had low risk, 5 had some concerns, and 9 had high risk. SUCRA (the surface under the cumulative ranking curve) rankings revealed that KJD had the greatest risk of appearing postoperative complications, revisions, and reoperations, and UKA or TKA had the lowest risk. The majority of comparisons among various treatments showed no difference for functional outcomes.ConclusionEach surgical intervention is noninferior to other treatments in functional outcomes, but UKA and TKA are better options to treat OA according to SUCRA rankings by comparing complications, revisions, and reoperations. KJD is an imperfect option for treating OA. Other treatments should be carefully considered for each patient in accordance with their actual conditions. However, this conclusion is limited by the selection of reviewed publications and individual variation of surgical indications for patients.Trial registrationThis study was registered with Research Registry (reviewregistry1395).
| S-EPMC10122318 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMinimal clinically important change (MCIC) represents the minimum patient-perceived improvement in an outcome after treatment, in an individual or within a group over time. This study aimed to determine MCIC of knee flexion in people with knee OA after non-surgical interventions using a meta-analytical approach.MethodsFour databases (MEDLINE, Cochrane, Web of Science and CINAHL) were searched for studies of randomised clinical trials of non-surgical interventions with intervention duration of ≤ 3 months that reported change in (Δ) (mean change between baseline and immediately after the intervention) knee flexion with Δ pain or Δ function measured using tools that have established MCIC values. The risk of bias in the included studies was assessed using version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials (RoB 2). Bayesian meta-analytic models were used to determine relationships between Δ flexion with Δ pain and Δ function after non-surgical interventions and MCIC of knee flexion.ResultsSeventy-two studies (k = 72, n = 5174) were eligible. Meta-analyses included 140 intervention arms (k = 61, n = 4516) that reported Δ flexion with Δ pain using the visual analog scale (pain-VAS) and Δ function using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index function subscale (function-WOMAC). Linear relationships between Δ pain at rest-VAS (0-100 mm) with Δ flexion were - 0.29 (- 0.44; - 0.15) (β: posterior median (CrI: credible interval)). Relationships between Δ pain during activity VAS and Δ flexion were - 0.29 (- 0.41, - 0.18), and Δ pain-general VAS and Δ flexion were - 0.33 (- 0.42, - 0.23). The relationship between Δ function-WOMAC (out of 100) and Δ flexion was - 0.15 (- 0.25, - 0.07). Increased Δ flexion was associated with decreased Δ pain-VAS and increased Δ function-WOMAC. The point estimates for MCIC of knee flexion ranged from 3.8 to 6.4°.ConclusionsThe estimated knee flexion MCIC values from this study are the first to be reported using a novel meta-analytical method. The novel meta-analytical method may be useful to estimate MCIC for other measures where anchor questions are problematic.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42022323927.
| S-EPMC10832130 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundGPs have to respond to conflicting policy developments. As gatekeeper they are supposed to manage the growing demand for specialist services and as patient advocate they should be responsive to patients' preferences. We used an innovative approach to develop a referral guideline for patients with chronic knee pain that explicitly incorporates patients' preferences.MethodsA guideline development group of 12 members including patients, GPs, orthopaedic surgeons and other health care professionals used formal consensus development informed by systematic evidence reviews. They rated the appropriateness of referral for 108 case scenarios describing patients according to symptom severity, age, body mass, co-morbidity and referral preference. Appropriateness was expressed on scale from 1 ('strongly disagree') to 9 ('strongly agree').ResultsRatings of referral appropriateness were strongly influenced by symptom severity and patients' referral preferences. The influence of other patient characteristics was small. There was consensus that patients with severe knee symptoms who want to be referred should be referred and that patient with moderate or mild symptoms and strong preference against referral should not be referred. Referral preference had a greater impact on the ratings of referral appropriateness when symptoms were moderate or severe than when symptoms were mild.ConclusionsReferral decisions for patients with osteoarthritis of the knee should only be guided by symptom severity and patients' referral preferences. The guideline development group seemed to have given priority to avoiding inefficient resource use in patients with mild symptoms and to respecting patient autonomy in patients with severe symptoms.
| S-EPMC3023074 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPatient and caregiver perspectives on amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) use are largely unexplored, particularly as compared with clinician views.MethodsWe surveyed clinicians, patients, caregivers, and dementia advocates on topics relating to an evidence-based guideline on amyloid PET use. Topic importance was rated on a 9-point scale. Patient stakeholder and clinician views were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test.ResultsPatient representatives (n=107) rated all survey topics as equal to or more important than clinicians (n=114) except 1 item discussing potential harms of false-positive diagnoses. Differences between patient representative and clinician populations were greatest when comparing the competing values of false-positive and false-negative diagnoses and the value of testing asymptomatic individuals.ConclusionsPatients and caregivers emphasized the importance of having a dementia diagnosis and placed more value on testing and outcomes for asymptomatic populations than clinicians. This underscores the importance of research investigating the effect of amyloid PET results on asymptomatic individuals and the need for amyloid PET ordering and disclosure standards.
| S-EPMC6710130 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTofacitinib, an oral Janus kinase inhibitor approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), provides patients with an alternative to subcutaneously or intravenously administered biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). Little is known about patient preference for novel RA treatments.ObjectiveTo investigate patient preferences for attributes associated with RA treatments.MethodsA choice-based conjoint survey was mailed to 1400 randomly selected commercially insured patients (aged 21-80 years) diagnosed with RA, who were continuously enrolled from May 1, 2012, through April 30, 2013, and had ≥2 medical claims for International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification diagnosis code 714.0 and no previous biologic DMARD use. Treatment attributes included route of administration; monthly out-of-pocket cost; frequency of administration; ability to reduce daily joint pain and swelling; likelihood of serious adverse events; improvement in the ability to perform daily tasks; and medication burden. Mean attribute importance scores were calculated after adjusting for patient demographics (eg, age, sex, years since diagnosis) using a hierarchical Bayes model. Patient preferences for each treatment attribute were ranked by the importance score. Part-worth utilities (ie, preference scores) were used to perform a conjoint market simulation.ResultsA total of 380 patients (response rate, 27.1%) returned the survey. Their mean age (± standard deviation) was 54.9 (± 9.3) years. Nonrespondents were 2 years younger (mean, 52.9 years; P = .002) but did not differ significantly from respondents in known clinical characteristics. After adjustment for demographic characteristics, mean patients' ranking of treatment attribute importance, in decreasing order, was route of administration, 34.1 (± 15.5); frequency of administration, 16.4 (± 6.8); serious adverse events, 12.0 (± 9.3); cost, 10.1 (± 6.2); medication burden, 9.8 (± 8.2); joint pain reduction, 8.9 (± 3.8); and daily tasks improvement, 8.8 (± 4.7). For the route of administration attribute, the part-worth utility was highest for the oral route. Conjoint simulation results showed that 56.4% of respondents would prefer an oral route of administration.ConclusionBased on this survey completed by 380 patients with RA, commercially insured patients with RA consider the route of administration to be the most important attribute of their RA treatment. In this study, the majority (56.4%) of patients preferred the oral route of administration over other routes. Understanding patient preferences may help to inform provider and payer decisions in treatment selection that may enhance patient adherence to therapy.
| S-EPMC4856233 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Stiffness is the most prevalent early local complication of primary total knee replacement, affecting approximately 6 to 7% of patients undergoing surgery. The definition of stiffness after total knee replacement in terms of restriction of the arc of motion has evolved in the last 2 decades as patients and physicians expect better postoperative functional outcomes. Gentle manipulation under anesthesia within 3 to 4 months of surgery improves the range of motion in most patients. However, approximately 1% of patients, including those in which the window for manipulation has passed, will require further surgical interventions, which may include arthroscopy with lysis of adhesions, open debridement with exchange of the polyethylene insert, or revision of one or more components. This review will focus on describing the etiology of the problem and the results of the different surgical interventions for stiffness after total knee replacement.
| S-EPMC2504257 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the management and costs of osteoarthritis of the knee (OAK), a progressive joint disease due to bone and cartilage degeneration, with significant personal and societal impact.MethodsWe prospectively analyzed the clinical outcomes and quantifiable cumulative direct costs of patients with OAK referred to our multidisciplinary OA program over a two year time period. One hundred thirty-one subjects were assessed. All demonstrated radiographic criteria for moderate to severe OAK. Western Ontario McMaster Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Minimal Clinically Important Improvement (MCII), and change in BMI were recorded and analyzed. Total medical and surgical direct costs for all subjects during the two year time period were determined.ResultsFive patients underwent total joint replacement during the two years of study. Among the group as a whole, a significant overall improvement in WOMAC scores was noted at the two year time point follow-up. After dividing the group into tertiles by baseline WOMAC scores, 46% achieved MCII. Significant weight loss was noted for individuals with baseline BMI of >?30. As all patients were considered "de facto" surgical candidates at referral, an average net savings of $9551.10 of direct costs per patient, or a potential total of $1,203,438.60 for the entire group, could be inferred as a result of medical as opposed to surgical management.ConclusionThese findings support the benefits of multidisciplinary medical management for patients with significant OAK. This approach is clinically beneficial and may provide significant cost savings. Such models of care can substantially improve the long-term outcome of this highly prevalent condition and reduce societal and financial burdens.
| S-EPMC6938792 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and objectivesLarger weight gain and higher ultrafiltration rates have been associated with poorer outcomes among patients on dialysis. Dietary restrictions reduce fluid-related risk; however, adherence is challenging. Alternative fluid mitigation strategies include treatment time extension, more frequent dialysis, adjunct peritoneal dialysis, and wearable ultrafiltration devices. No data regarding patient preferences for fluid management exist. A survey was designed, tested, and administered to assess patient-stated preferences regarding fluid mitigation.Design, setting, participants, & measurementsA written survey concerning fluid-related symptoms, patient and treatment characteristics, and fluid management preferences was developed. The cross-sectional survey was completed by 600 patients on hemodialysis at 18 geographically diverse ambulatory facilities. Comparisons of patient willingness to engage in volume mitigation strategies across fluid symptom burden, dietary restriction experience, and patient characteristics were performed.ResultsFinal analyses included 588 surveys. Overall, if allowed to liberalize fluid intake, 44.6% of patients were willing to extend treatment time by 15 minutes. Willingness to extend treatment time was incrementally less for longer treatment extensions; 12.2% of patients were willing to add a fourth weekly treatment session, and 13.5% of patients were willing to participate in nocturnal dialysis three nights per week. Patients more bothered by their fluid restrictions (versus less bothered) were more willing to engage in fluid mitigation strategies. Demographic characteristics and symptoms, such as cramping and dyspnea, were not consistently associated with willingness to engage in the proposed strategies. More than 25% of patients were unsure of their dry weights and typical interdialytic weight gains.ConclusionsPatients were generally averse to treatment time extension>15 minutes. Patients more bothered (versus less bothered) by their prescribed fluid restrictions were more willing to engage in volume mitigation strategies. Additional study of patient-stated preferences in hemodialysis treatment practices is needed to guide patient care and identify deficiencies in patient treatment and disease-related knowledge.
| S-EPMC4123390 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Anticoagulants are the recommended treatment for venous thromboembolic disease (VTE). The mode of anticoagulant administration may influence compliance, and therefore the effectiveness of the treatment. Unlike in atrial fibrillation or cancer-associated thrombosis, there is only limited data on patient preferences regarding the choice of anticoagulation in VTE. This study aims to evaluate patient preferences regarding anticoagulants in terms of administration: types (oral or injectable treatment) and number of doses or injections per day. Patients and Methods: This is a national survey through a questionnaire sent by e-mail to 1936 French vascular physicians between February and April 2019. They recorded the responses for each patient admitted for VTE. Results: Three hundred and eleven (response rate of 16%) of the 1936 contacted physicians responded for 364 patients. Among these, there were 167 fully completed questionnaires. Most patients (63%) express concerns about VTE and prefer oral treatment (81.5%), justified by the ease of administration (74%) and a fear of the injections (22%). When patients were taking more than three oral treatments they statistically chose injectable treatment more often (54%) than oral treatment (25%, p = 0.002). Patients who chose injectable treatment were also older (70 ± 16 vs. 58 ± 17 years old, p = 0.001). There was no statistically difference in anticoagulation preference according to gender or to the expected duration of treatment (6 weeks, 3 months, 6 months or unlimited). When oral treatment was preferred (81%), most chose oral treatment without dose adjustment and biomonitoring (74.3%). Among them, very few (5.8%) preferred a twice-daily intake. Conclusion: Patient preference in terms of anticoagulant treatment in VTE disease is in favor of oral treatment without adjustment or biomonitoring and with once-daily intake. When an injectable treatment is chosen, a prolonged duration of treatment does not seem to be a constraint for the patient. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier [NCT03889457].
| S-EPMC8255622 | biostudies-literature