Premium
Relationship between total hip replacement appropriateness and surgical priority instruments
Author(s) -
Allepuz Alejandro,
Quintana José M,
Espallargues Mireia,
Escobar Antonio,
Moharra Montse,
Arostegui Inmaculada
Publication year - 2011
Publication title -
journal of evaluation in clinical practice
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.737
H-Index - 73
eISSN - 1365-2753
pISSN - 1356-1294
DOI - 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01362.x
Subject(s) - medicine , confidence interval , receiver operating characteristic , total hip replacement , physical therapy , visual analogue scale , quality of life (healthcare) , mann–whitney u test , eq 5d , health related quality of life , surgery , disease , nursing
Rationale Variability in indications for total hip replacement (THR) and unequal waiting times may limit health care access. Objective To analyse the relationship between appropriateness and previously developed surgical priority instruments. Method Multicentre cross‐validation study of patients placed on the waiting list for THR. Information on surgical priority, surgeons' evaluation of priority through a visual analogue scale (VAS) and health‐related quality of life (HRQOL) (Health Utilities Index mark 3, EQ‐5D, Western Ontario McMaster Osteoarthritic Index) was collected. THR indications were considered appropriate, uncertain or inappropriate according to appropriateness criteria. Statistical differences and clinically important differences in surgical priority, VAS and HRQOL between appropriateness categories were analysed with the Mann–Whitney U ‐test and effect size (ES), respectively. Surgical priority score's ability to discriminate appropriate and inappropriate indications was evaluated through the area under the receiver‐operating characteristic curve (AUC) and its 95% confidence interval (95% CI). Results 49.4% (87) of the THR indications were deemed appropriate, 39.8% (70) uncertain and 10.8% (19) inappropriate. Differences in surgical priority score, VAS and HRQOL between appropriateness categories were statistically significant. Clinically important differences were generally small (ES, 0.2–0.5) between inappropriate and uncertain, moderate (ES, 0.5–0.8) between uncertain and appropriate, and large (ES > 0.8) between inappropriate and appropriate categories. The AUC to discriminate appropriate and inappropriate indications was 0.97 (95% CI: 0.96–0.99) and 0.90 (95% CI: 0.83–0.97), respectively. Conclusions The relationship between the surgical priority and appropriateness instruments reinforces their validity and could improve waiting list management by establishing maximum waiting periods based on patients' characteristics.