Dataset Information

Development and validation of the unifying elective orthopaedic score (UnEOS). A pilot study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly valued in orthopaedics. There are already many site specific or pathology specific scores. These scores are usually validated for specific pathologies and can be complicated and time consuming to use. The aim of the present pilot study is to develop a new orthopaedic score for elective operations, which measures patient satisfaction simply and quickly, and is not limited to a single site or pathology.

Materials & methods

The UnEOS questionnaire has 16 questions. Eleven questions relate to the three main dimensions (Symptoms, Function, Mental Status) and can be used both preoperatively and postoperatively. Five questions are added to the questionnaire at the postoperative mode, which form the satisfaction dimension. For this pilot study we enrolled all patients listed for surgery from our foot and ankle clinics. Each patient was asked to complete the UnEOS and FADI questionnaires.

Results

A total of 181 questionnaires were collected from patients (aged 56.4?±?14.8, range 20-85) with a variety of foot and ankle pathologies. Scores were obtained both pre- and post-operatively. The scale reliability was checked with the Cronbach's Alpha score, which was 0.87 for the UnEOS scale. Each subscale had good reliability with 0.73, 0.77 and 0.76 respectively (Symptoms, Function, Mental Status). The validity of the scale was checked using the Spearman's Rho correlation, which was strong between the UnEOS and the FADI score (0.79) and each subscale (0.7, 0.75 and 0.69 respectively).

Conclusion

The UnEOS score is a valid and easy to use PROM which is not limited by site or pathology. Further validation with other orthopaedic pathologies will lead to a Unified Elective Orthopaedic score.

SUBMITTER: Iliopoulos E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6977529 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Development and validation of the unifying elective orthopaedic score (UnEOS). A pilot study.

Iliopoulos Efthymios E Hossain Natasha N Freeman Richard R Vernois Joel J Bendall Stephen S

Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma 20190622 Suppl 1

<h4>Background</h4>Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly valued in orthopaedics. There are already many site specific or pathology specific scores. These scores are usually validated for specific pathologies and can be complicated and time consuming to use. The aim of the present pilot study is to develop a new orthopaedic score for elective operations, which measures patient satisfaction simply and quickly, and is not limited to a single site or pathology.<h4>Materials & me ...[more]

PMID: 31992937

Similar Datasets

Project description:Study questionWhat is the predicted risk of acute kidney injury after orthopaedic surgery and does it affect short term and long term survival?MethodsThe cohort comprised adults resident in the National Health Service Tayside region of Scotland who underwent orthopaedic surgery from 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2011. The model was developed in 6220 patients (two hospitals) and externally validated in 4395 patients from a third hospital. Several preoperative variables were selected for candidate predictors, based on literature, clinical expertise, and availability in the orthopaedic surgery setting. The main outcomes were the development of any severity of acute kidney injury (stages 1-3) within the first postoperative week, and 90 day, one year, and longer term survival.Study answer and limitationsUsing logistic regression analysis, independent predictors of acute kidney injury were older age, male sex, diabetes, number of prescribed drugs, lower estimated glomerular filtration rate, use of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers, and American Society of Anesthesiologists grade. The model's predictive performance for discrimination was good (C statistic 0.74 in development cohort, 0.70 in validation cohort). Calibration was good in the development cohort and after recalibration in the validation cohort. Only the highest risks were over-predicted. Survival was worse in patients with acute kidney injury compared with those without (adjusted hazard ratio 1.53, 95% confidence interval 1.38 to 1.70). This was most noticeable in the short term (adjusted hazard ratio: 90 day 2.36, 1.94 to 2.87) and diminished over time (90 day-one year 1.40, 1.10 to 1.79; >1 year 1.28, 1.10 to 1.48). The model used routinely collected data in the orthopaedic surgery setting therefore some variables that could potentially improve predictive performance were not available. However, the readily available predictors make the model easily applicable.What this study addsA preoperative risk prediction model consisting of seven predictors for acute kidney injury was developed, with good predictive performance in patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery. Survival was significantly poorer in patients even with mild (stage 1) postoperative acute kidney injury.Funding, competing interests, data sharingSB received grants from Tenovus Tayside, Chief Scientist Office, and the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow; PT receives grants from Novo Nordisk, GlaxoSmithKline, and the New Drugs Committee of the Scottish Medicines Consortium. No additional data are available.

Project description:IntroductionOut-of-pocket (OOP) costs for medical and surgical care can result in substantial financial burden for patients and families. Relatively little is known regarding OOP costs for commercially insured patients receiving orthopaedic surgery. The aim of this study is to analyze the trends in OOP costs for common, elective orthopaedic surgeries performed in the hospital inpatient setting.MethodsThis study used an employer-sponsored insurance claims database to analyze billing data of commercially insured patients who underwent elective orthopaedic surgery between 2014 and 2019. Patients who received single-level anterior cervical diskectomy and fusion (ACDF), single-level posterior lumbar fusion (PLF), total knee arthroplasty (TKA), and total hip arthroplasty (THA) were identified. OOP costs associated with the surgical episode were calculated as the sum of deductible payments, copayments, and coinsurance. Monetary data were adjusted to 2019 dollars. General linear regression, Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney, and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used for analysis, as appropriate.ResultsIn total, 10,225 ACDF, 28,841 PLF, 70,815 THA, and 108,940 TKA patients were analyzed. Most patients in our study sample had preferred provider organization insurance plans (ACDF 70.3%, PLF 66.9%, THA 66.2%, and TKA 67.0%). The mean OOP costs for patients, by procedure, were as follows: ACDF $3,180 (SD = 2,495), PLF $3,166 (SD = 2,529), THA $2,884 (SD = 2,100), and TKA $2,733 (SD = 1,994). Total OOP costs increased significantly from 2014 to 2019 for all procedures (P < 0.0001). Among the insurance plans examined, patients with high-deductible health plans had the highest episodic OOP costs. The ratio of patient contribution (OOP costs) to total insurer contribution (payments from insurers to providers) was 0.07 for ACDF, 0.04 for PLF, 0.07 for THA, and 0.07 for TKA.ConclusionAmong commercially insured patients who underwent elective spinal fusion and major lower extremity joint arthroplasty surgery, OOP costs increased from 2014 to 2019. The OOP costs for elective orthopaedic surgery represent a substantial and increasing financial burden for patients.

Project description:BackgroundThe principles of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) aim to reduce the physiological stress of surgery which in turn improve clinical and health economic outcomes. There is ample evidence in literature supporting ERAS methodologies in other surgical specialties, but its adoption in spinal surgery, especially in Australia remains in infancy. The aim of this project is to describe the early experience with an evidence-based ERAS pathway for simple spine surgery, a first of its kind in Australia.MethodsAn ERAS protocol was designed using an evidenced-based review of the literature. The authors then conducted a prospective cohort analysis looking at outcome of patients undergoing elective spinal (lumbar and cervical) decompression surgery under ERAS principles by a single surgeon on the Westmead Hospital Campus between March 2021 to May 2023. Primary outcomes were patient length of stay (LOS), patient reported pain and disability scores and complications (including readmissions within 30 days and re-operation within 6 months). Secondary outcomes included predictors of failure for same-day discharge.ResultsA total of 52 patients underwent spinal decompression surgeries under the ERAS protocol. Overall 43 out of 52 patients (83.7%) were successfully discharged on the same day as their surgery. Patient reported outcomes were improved at 6 weeks and 6 months confirming durability of intervention. The rates of complications were similar to literature reported rates for simple lumbar or cervical decompression procedures and there were no readmissions within 30 days or re-operations within 6 months of surgery. Being of non-English speaking background [odds ratio (OR) =6.08, P=0.04] and from home alone (OR =10.25, P=0.03) were predictors of failure of same day discharge in this small cohort.ConclusionsImplementation of ERAS protocols for simple spinal decompression surgeries is feasible and produces durable improved patient outcomes while reducing LOS in hospitals. Patient social factors can be predictive of lack of compliance.

Dataset Information

Development and validation of the unifying elective orthopaedic score (UnEOS). A pilot study.

Background

Materials & methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Development and validation of the unifying elective orthopaedic score (UnEOS). A pilot study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets