Dataset Information

Correlation of the Single-Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) Score With Hip-Specific Patient-Reported Outcome Measures.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to determine if the Single-Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) score correlates with existing validated hip-specific patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), including the Modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), the International Hip Outcome Tool (IHOT-33), the Hip Outcome Score, Activities of Daily Living subscale (HOS-ADL), and the Hip Outcome Score, Sport-Specific subscale (HOS-SS), for patients preparing to undergo hip arthroscopy for treatment of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS).

Methods

A single surgeon's operative database was retrospectively reviewed to identify patients undergoing primary hip arthroscopy for treatment of FAIS from April 2018 to October 2019. Patient-specific factors including age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and duration of symptoms were collected. Preoperative SANE, mHHS, IHOT-33, HOS-ADL, and HOS-SS scores were analyzed. Statistical analysis using Pearson correlation was performed to identify the relationship between the SANE score and the mHHS, IHOT-33, HOS-ADL, and HOS-SS, preoperatively.

Results

154 patients were included in the study. The mean mHHS was 54.4 ± 11.7; mean IHOT-33 score was 32.7 ± 15.0; mean HOS-SS 42.9 ± 23.7; and mean HOS-ADL was 63.3 ± 1. The mean SANE score was 36.7 ± 19.9. The Simple Hip Score was directly correlated with the mHHS (P < .01), the IHOT-33 (P < .01); the HOS-ADL (P < .01), and the HOS-SS (P < .01). The mean patient age was 35.9 years; 109 (70.8%) were female and 45 (29.2%) were male. Average patient BMI was 26.9. At the time of patient completion of the questionnaire, the majority of patients (65%) had been having symptoms for >1 year.

Conclusion

The SANE score was strongly correlated with mHHS, IHOT-33, HOS-ADL, and HOS-SS in the preoperative setting for patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for treatment of FAIS. Given its simplicity, SANE may be a valuable tool for rapid assessment of joint function and pain in this patient population.

Level of evidence

IV, therapeutic case series.

SUBMITTER: Dumont GD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8129469 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPatient-reported outcome measures serve as an invaluable tool in both the clinical and research setting to monitor a patient's condition and efficacy of treatments over time. We aim to validate the Single Assessment Numeric Evaluation (SANE) score for disorders of the lower extremity using the revised-Foot Function Index (rFFI) as a reference. The SANE score is a 1-question survey that may improve efficiency of outcome data collection in the clinical setting.MethodsPatient age, sex, visit diagnosis by ICD-10 code, SANE score, and rFFI score were collected retrospectively from 218 initial patient encounters between January 2015 through July 2017. Patients were included if they were 18 years or older and were excluded if they had incomplete SANE or rFFI data. Results of the two scores were compared using the Pearson or Spearman correlation coefficients, with correlation defined as excellent (>0.7), excellent-good (0.61-0.7), good (0.4-0.6), or poor (0.2-0.39). Diagnoses were categorized into 9 subgroups that were analyzed, including forefoot, plantar fasciitis, arthritis, deformity, fracture, tendinitis, osteochondral defect (OCD) of the talus, acute soft tissue trauma, and "other."ResultsThe SANE score had good correlation with the overall rFFI score (r = 0.51, P < .01). When comparing the SANE score to the rFFI subscores, there was good correlation with pain (r = 0.42, P < .01), good correlation with stiffness (r = 0.44, P < .01), poor correlation with activity (r = 0.36, P <.01), good correlation with difficulty (r = 0.52, P < .01), and poor correlation with social issues (r = 0.39, P < .01). Subanalysis showed an excellent-good correlation between SANE and rFFI score for forefoot pathology (r = 0.67, P < .01) and plantar fasciitis (r = 0.63, P < .02), good correlation for arthritis (r = 0.49, P < .04), deformity (r = 0.60, P < .01), fracture (r = 0.50, P < .01), and tendinitis (r = 0.47, P < .02), and no significant correlation for OCD of the talus (r = 0.56, P < .15) and acute soft tissue trauma (r = 0.19, P < .32).ConclusionThe SANE score demonstrates excellent-good correlation with the rFFI for specific pathology including the forefoot and plantar fasciitis and has limited correlation with other pathology.

Project description:BackgroundThe degree to which a validated instrument is able to detect clinically significant change over time is an important issue for the better management of hip or knee replacement surgery. This study examines the internal responsiveness of the EQ-5D-3L, the Oxford Hip Score (OHS), and the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) by various methods. Data from NHS patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) linked to the Hospital Episodes Statistics (HES) dataset (2009-2015) was analysed for patients who underwent primary hip surgery (N = 181,424) and primary knee surgery (N = 191,379).MethodsPaired data-specific univariate responsiveness was investigated using the standardized response mean (SRM), the standardized effect size (SES), and the responsiveness index (RI). Multivariate responsiveness was furthermore examined using the defined capacity of benefit score (i.e. paired data-specific MCID), adjusting baseline covariates such as age, gender, and comorbidities in the Box-Cox regression models. The observed and predicted percentages of patient improvement were examined both as a whole and by the patients' self-assessed transition level.ResultsThe results showed that both the OHS and the OKS demonstrated great univariate and multivariate responsiveness. The percentages of the observed (predicted) total improvement were high: 51 (54)% in the OHS and 73 (58)% in OKS. The OHS and the OKS showed distinctive differences in improvement by the 3-level transition, i.e. a little better vs. about the same vs. a little worse. The univariate responsiveness of the EQ-5D-3L showed moderate effects in total by Cohen's thresholds. The percentages of improvement in the EQ-5D-3L were moderate: 44 (48)% in the hip and 42 (44)% for the knee replacement population.ConclusionsDistinctive percentage differences in patients' perception of improvement were observed when the paired data-specific capacity of benefit score was applied to examine responsiveness. This is useful in clinical practice as rationale for access to surgery at the individual-patient level. This study shows the importance of analytic methods and instruments for investigation of the health status in hip and/or knee replacement surgery. The study finding also supports the idea of using a generic measure along with the disease-specific instruments in terms of cross-validation.

Project description:BackgroundCompetition-promoting reforms and economic incentives are increasingly being introduced worldwide to improve the performance of healthcare delivery. This study considers such a reform which was initiated in 2009 for elective hip replacement surgery in Stockholm, Sweden. The reform involved patient choice of provider, free establishment of new providers and a bundled payment model. The study aimed to examine its effects on hip replacement surgery quality as captured by patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) of health gain (as indicated by the EQ-5D index and a visual analogue scale (VAS)), pain reduction (VAS) and patient satisfaction (VAS) one and six years after the surgery.MethodsUsing patient-level data collected from multiple national registers, we applied a quasi-experimental research design. Data were collected for elective primary total hip replacements that were carried out between 2008 and 2012, and contain information on patient demography, the surgery and PROMs at baseline and at one- and six-years follow-up. In total, 36,627 observations were included in the analysis. First, entropy balancing was applied in order to reduce differences in observable characteristics between treatment groups. Second, difference-in-difference analyses were conducted to eliminate unobserved time-invariant differences between treatment groups and to estimate the causal treatment effects.ResultsThe entropy balancing was successful in creating balance in all covariates between treatment groups. No significant effects of the reform were found on any of the included PROMs at one- and six-years follow-up. The sensitivity analyses showed that the results were robust.ConclusionsCompetition and bundled payment had no effects on the quality of hip replacement surgery as captured by post-surgery PROMs of health gain, pain reduction and patient satisfaction. The study provides important insights to the limited knowledge on the effects of competition and economic incentives on PROMs.

Project description:BackgroundKnee replacement is a very effective and indispensable treatment option for end-stage knee arthritis, and the number of cases has been increasing worldwide. A replaced knee joint without patient joint awareness is thought to be the ultimate goal of artificial knees. Joint awareness reportedly correlates with patient satisfaction. Although numbness around a replaced knee is a minor but common problem, its effect on postoperative outcome is controversial. Joint awareness also is sensitive to subtle abnormalities of the joint, so it must be negatively affected by numbness. Although numbness is minor, it cannot be ignored to further improve knee replacement outcomes. This study investigated the relationship between patient-reported numbness and other patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), including joint awareness, and kneeling. We developed a numbness score based on a 5-point Likert scale on frequency of numbness, with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.76 and higher scores indicating less numbness.MethodsThe numbness score, New Knee Society Score (KSS), Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Forgotten Joint Score-12 (FJS-12), and other clinical and radiological data from 311 patients (394 primary knee replacements) were analyzed. Kneeling ability was evaluated by using kneeling-specific items in the KSS (KSS-Kneeling).ResultsNo numbness was found in 170 knees (43.1%), and some degree of numbness was found in the remaining 224 knees (56.9%). The numbness score showed weak-to-moderate correlations with KSS-Symptoms (r = 0.44), KSS-Satisfaction (r = 0.41), KSS-Activities (r = 0.29), and all KOOS subscales (r = 0.23-0.44), and FJS-12 (r = 0.42). Multiple regression analyses suggested that midline incision positively affected the numbness score over the anteromedial incision (p = 0.04) and that a better numbness score (p = 0.001), male sex (p < 0.0001), and better postoperative knee flexion angle (0.04) positively affected kneeling.ConclusionsThe numbness score positively correlated with PROMs and positively affected kneeling. Knee replacements performed via an anteromedial incision may be at higher risk for numbness.