ePoster #753 - ISHA Annual Scientific Meeting 2016
Patient-Reported Outcome Score Utilization In Arthroscopic Hip Preservation: We're All Doing It Differently, If At All
Joshua David Harris, MD, Houston, TX UNITED STATES
Derek Klavas, MD, Houston, TX UNITED STATES
Brayden J. Gerrie, BS, Houston, TX UNITED STATES
Neil Duplantier, MD, New Orleans, LA UNITED STATES
Patrick C. McCulloch, MD, Houston, TX UNITED STATES
Shane J. Nho, MD, MS, Chicago, IL UNITED STATES
Houston Methodist Orthopedics & Sports Medicine, Houston, TX, UNITED STATES
FDA Status Not Applicable
Summary: An international cohort of hip preservation surgeons has reported a wide variety of methods for collecting hip outcome scores and as hip preservation evidence continues to evolve, these results should emphasize need for an international initiative standardizing outcome score collection, better quantifying quality of care.
PURPOSE: Regarding outcome scores utilized by hip preservation surgeons worldwide, the purpose of this investigation was to determine: which scores, when administered, by whom, and on what platform.
METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted to examine objective clinician-measured and subjective patient-reported hip outcome scores utilized by arthroscopic hip surgeons, including: hip joint-, lower extremity limb-, and arthritis disease-specific, general health, quality of life, pain, activity, spine, and psychiatric indices and scores. Administered to 155 hip surgeons identified from publicly available sources, descriptive statistics were calculated. Heterogeneity was assessed using chi-squared and I2 statistics.
RESULTS: Of fifty-six respondents, 13% did not collect any patient outcomes. Of 13 possible hip joint-specific outcome scores, the modified Harris Hip Score was most frequently collected (46%), followed by iHOT-12 (41%), and Hip Outcome Score (38%). There was considerable heterogeneity in hip joint-specific PROs (I2 86%). The Short Form-12 was the most common general health score (30%). The Tegner and UCLA Activity scores were collected by 11% of participants. Fifty-nine percent collected outcomes preoperatively, 45% at 3 months, 54% at 6 months, 61% at 1 year, 32% annually. Paper collection was the most common collection platform (46%), and a dedicated research assistant was most frequently the source of data collection (34%).
CONCLUSION: An international cohort of hip preservation surgeons has reported a wide variety of methods for collecting hip outcome scores. As hip preservation evidence continues to evolve, these results should emphasize need for an international initiative standardizing outcome score collection, better quantifying quality of care.