Dataset Information

Patient Perceptions of COVID-19-Related Surgical Delay: An Analysis of Patients Awaiting Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty.

ABSTRACT:

Background

COVID-19 has caused unprecedented delays in elective orthopedic surgery. Understanding patients' perceptions of the disruptions in care and their willingness to reengage the healthcare system are crucial to planning the resumption of elective care.

Questions/purposes

The purpose of this study was to elicit patient perceptions about delays in total joint arthroplasty during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

We identified a consecutive series of patients who experienced COVID-19-driven delays to scheduled total hip or knee arthroplasty at an urban, academic medical center in the Southeastern United States. A 20-item survey was administered via telephone. Answers were recorded and descriptive statistics were performed. A post hoc χ-square analysis compared characteristics and outlooks of patients who did and did not immediately desire surgery.

Results

Of 111 patients (64% of those identified) who met inclusion criteria and completed the survey, 96% said they felt that they were treated fairly and 90% said that the surgical delay was in their best interest; 68% reported emotional distress from the delay, but 45% reported a desire to wait longer for the pandemic to subside. Lower joint-function scores, higher pain levels, higher pain catastrophizing scores, and longer latency from personally deciding to pursue surgery were associated with the reported need for immediate surgery.

Conclusion

Overall, patients reported that they understood the need for elective surgical delays during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the psychological implications they reported were not negligible. Patient preference for immediate reengagement with the healthcare system was dichotomous, with many patients favoring precautionarily furthering the delay. Understanding these preferences will help optimize elective orthopedic care during unprecedented times.

SUBMITTER: Wilson JM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7491018 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveThis systematic review aims to summarise all the available evidence related to the association between pre-operative patient expectations (outcome expectations, process expectations and self efficacy expectations) and 5 different treatment outcomes (overall improvement, pain, function, stiffness and satisfaction) in patients with total knee or total hip arthroplasty at three different follow-op periods (>6 weeks; >6 weeks- ?6 months; >6 months).MethodsEnglish and Dutch language articles were identified through PubMed, EMBASE.com, PsycINFO, CINAHL and The Cochrane Library from inception to September 2012. Articles assessing the association between pre-operative patient expectations and treatment outcomes for TKA/THA in either adjusted or unadjusted analysis were included. Two reviewers, working independently, determined eligibility, rated methodological quality and extracted data on study design, population, expectation measurements, outcome measurements and strength of the associations. Methodological quality was rated by the same reviewers on a 19 item scale. The scores on the quality assessment were taken into account when drawing final conclusions.ResultsThe search strategy generated 2252 unique references, 18 articles met inclusion criteria. Scores on the methodological quality assessment ranged between 6% and 79%. Great variety was seen in definitions and measurement methods of expectations. No significant associations were found between patient expectations and overall improvement, satisfaction and stiffness. Both significant positive and non-significant associations were found for the association between expectations and pain and function.ConclusionsThere was no consistency in the association between patients' pre-operative expectations and treatment outcomes for TKA and THA indentified in this systematic review. There exists a need for a sound theoretical framework underlying the construct of 'patient expectations' and consistent use of valid measurement instruments to measure that construct in order to facilitate future research synthesis.

Project description:BackgroundComparisons of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) based on surgical approach for total hip arthroplasty (THA) in the United States are limited to series from single surgeons or institutions. Using prospective data from a large, multicenter study, we compare preoperative to postoperative changes in PROs between posterior, transgluteal, and anterior surgical approaches to THA.MethodsPatient-reported function, global health, and pain were systematically collected preoperatively and at 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively from patients undergoing primary THA at 26 sites participating in the Comparative Effectiveness of Pulmonary Embolism Prevention After Hip and Knee Replacement (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02810704). Outcomes consisted of the brief Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Health score, and the Numeric Pain Rating Scale. Operative approaches were grouped by surgical plane relative to the abductor musculature as being either anterior, transgluteal, or posterior.ResultsBetween 12/12/2016 and 08/31/2019, outcomes from 3018 eligible participants were examined. At 1 month, the transgluteal cohort had a 2.2-point lower improvement in Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score (95% confidence interval, 0.40-4.06; P = .017) and a 1.3-point lower improvement in Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Health score (95% confidence interval, 0.48-2.04; P = .002) compared to posterior approaches. There was no significant difference in improvement between anterior and posterior approaches. At 3 and 6 months, no clinically significant differences in PRO improvement were observed between groups.ConclusionPROs 6 months following THA dramatically improved regardless of the plane of surgical approach, suggesting that choice of surgical approach can be left to the discretion of surgeons and patients without fear of differential early outcomes.