MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4415430176 · doi:10.1302/1358-992x.2025.10.059

WHEN DOES PATIENT FUNCTION “PLATEAU” AFTER TOTAL JOINT REPLACEMENT? A COHORT STUDY

2025· article· en· W4415430176 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Seper Ekhtiari, Tina Worthy, L. Puri, Danielle Petruccelli, Justin de Beer, Trevor Wood

Notice bibliographique

RevueOrthopaedic Proceedings · 2025
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueSpine and Intervertebral Disc Pathology
Établissements canadiensMcMaster University
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésJoint arthroplastyArthroplastyConfoundingCohort studyRetrospective cohort studyCohortProspective cohort studyPatient-reported outcome

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

With over 100,000 procedures done per year, hip and knee replacements are two of the most common surgical procedures performed in Canada. Post-operatively, Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) will start to plateau with time as patients reach the limits of how a prosthetic joint can function for them. There has been literature indicating that PROMs will start to plateau between 6 and 12 months. Having an understanding of the precise timeframe, as well as the factors that can impact this trajectory, can be beneficial for setting patient expectations, and directing patient follow-up. Thus, our purpose was to analyze the trajectory of PROMs following total hip and knee arthroplasty (THA and TKA), as well as assess the impact of any potential confounders on this trajectory. This study was a retrospective analysis of data from a prospective database of a consecutive series of primary THA and TKA patients. The database is collected at a single academic arthroplasty centre, located in Ontario, Canada. Patients were eligible if they had undergone an elective, primary THA/TKA with Oxford Scores recorded pre-operatively, and at least at two of the following three time points: 6 weeks, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years. Clinically meaningful change from one timepoint to the next was defined as 5 points, based on previously established minimal clinically important difference (MCID) values for both hip and knee scores. General linear models with repeated measures were used to assess for change between timepoints. American Society of Anesthesiologist (ASA) class and date of operation were included as potential between subject factors in the respective hip and knee models. Mean data reported along with standard deviation in parentheses. Overall, 8,276 joints were eligible for inclusion in the study. There were more female patients, with 60.4% being female (N = 5,000). Mean age was 67.9 years (9.6), while mean body mass index (BMI) was 31.6 kg/m2 (6.8). Nearly two-thirds (66.1%) of operative joints were knees (5,467/8,276). Mean pre-operative scores were 18.0 (7.8) for THA, and 20.1 (7.5) for TKA. For both THA and TKA, there were statistically significant interval improvements in Oxford scores from 6 weeks [THA: 33.8 (7.9)/TKA: 28.7 (7.8)] to 6 months [THA: 40.2 (7.3)/TKA: 35.9 (8.3)], and from 6 months to 1 year [THA: 41.0 (7.3)/TKA: 37.3 (8.4)], but not from 1 to 2 years [THA: 40.0 (8.5)/TKA: 36.4 (9.6)]. The change from 6 months to 1 year for both hip and knee patients was below the threshold for a clinically meaningful change based on an MCID value of 5.0. None of the between-subject factors identified as potential sources and bias and included in the model (BMI, ASA, or date of surgery) demonstrated a significant interaction effect. Patients undergoing both THA and TKA can expect clinically meaningful improvements up to 6 months, at which point there is a plateau in PROM scores. These findings are important for both for setting patient expectations in pre-operative discussions, and allowing surgeons to have a realistic understanding of their patients' expected post-operative course.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,021
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0010,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,008
Tête enseignante GPT0,243
Écart entre enseignants0,235 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2025
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueOrthopaedic ProceedingsMême sujetSpine and Intervertebral Disc PathologyTravaux en français237 207