Changes in health-related quality of life in young-old and old-old patients undergoing elective orthopedic surgery: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a significant gap in research exploring changes in postoperative health-related quality of life (HRQoL) among patients aged 65 years and older undergoing hip or knee arthroplasty. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the variations in HRQoL improvement, as evaluated by patient-reported outcome measures following total hip arthroplasty, total knee arthroplasty, and partial knee arthroplasty between the young-old and old-old adults. METHODS/DESIGN: We searched six online databases (including MEDLINE, Embase) from their inception dates to May 15, 2023. We included studies using a validated HRQoL assessment tool to evaluate changes in HRQoL in patients aged ≥65 years undergoing hip or knee arthroplasty. These include the EuroQol five-dimension (EQ-5D), Short Form 36 (SF-36) and Short Form 12 (SF-12). The primary outcomes were postoperative HRQoL changes between young-old (65-74 years) and old-old groups (≥75 years). The secondary outcomes included complications, length of stay, and mortality. RESULTS: The search yielded 12,229 articles; twelve studies (n = 103,613) were included. Studies using EQ-5D found no significant differences between young-old and old-old patients after hip and knee arthroplasty. Analyses of SF-36 and SF-12 scales showed no significant age-related differences in postoperative improvements in physical and mental health. Our review of four studies that included multivariable analyses revealed inconsistent associations between age and EQ-5D. Comparisons between the young-old and old-old age groups in postoperative complications, hospital length of stay, and mortality revealed no associated age-related changes in HRQoL. CONCLUSIONS: The young-old and old-old patients exhibited comparable improvement in HRQoL following hip or knee arthroplasty. The older patients did not have higher postoperative complications rates, longer hospital length of stay, and increased mortality. While chronological age should be considered when planning hip and knee arthroplasty, greater emphasis should be placed on assessing the comorbidities and functional status of patients.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".