Informed Consent in Patients Undergoing Primary Hip and Knee Arthroplasty: What Do Patients Want to Know?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction The consenting process has been surgeon-focussed traditionally, but there is a recent trend towards making the process more patient and procedure-focussed. The primary aims were to identify the risks considered most important and requiring further discussion by the patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) and primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA), as well as to identify the sporting and recreational activities these patients would like to pursue after surgery according to the age group, taking into consideration their values and expectations. The secondary aim is to assess the compliance of the current consenting process with guidelines set out by a governing body in a tertiary referral arthroplasty unit. Material and method A prospective study reviewing the consenting process was carried out on 137 patients undergoing THA or TKA over a 12-month period in a tertiary teaching hospital. Patients unable to complete a questionnaire and undergoing revision or uni-compartment arthroplasty were excluded. A standardized anonymous questionnaire was administered. Patients were asked to fill in the specific activities they considered important to be discussed. The data were tabulated in Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, Washington) and subgroup analysis was performed using the student's t-test. The level of statistical significance was p=0.05. Two-hundred consent forms were reviewed to assess whether the information entered correlated to the guidelines presented in Ortho-Consent. Results One-hundred thirty-seven questionnaires were reviewed. The mean age was 66 (range 45-91), with the majority of patients undergoing TKA (114) versus THA (23). The patients in active employment were more concerned about blood clots, pain, joint failure, limb length discrepancy, and infection. Patients undergoing TKA wanted more information on pain management and joint longevity, which achieved statistical significance. There was a significant difference in the activities patients would like to pursue as well as in expectations amongst different age groups. The quality of documentation in the consent form was quite variable in discussing complications, surgery benefits, and alternative treatments. Conclusion Obtaining consent is a patient-specific process. Patient perception of important points that merit discussion can vary with age and employment status. Return to driving is important for all ages, however, as the population ages, the ability to return to activities of daily living becomes an increasingly important discussion point during the consent process.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».