Skip to main content
PMC home page
Quality in Health Care : QHC logoLink to Quality in Health Care : QHC
. 1996 Mar;5(1):20–30. doi: 10.1136/qshc.5.1.20

Primary hip and knee replacement surgery: Ontario criteria for case selection and surgical priority.

C D Naylor 1, J I Williams 1
PMCID: PMC1055350  PMID: 10157268

Abstract

OBJECTIVES--To develop, from simple clinical factors, criteria to identify appropriate patients for referral to a surgeon for consideration for arthroplasty, and to rank them in the queue once surgery is agreed. DESIGN--Delphi process, with a panel including orthopaedic surgeons, rheumatologists, general practitioners, epidemiologists, and physiotherapists, who rated 120 case scenarios for appropriateness and 42 for waiting list priority. Scenarios incorporated combinations of relevant clinical factors. It was assumed that queues should be organised not simply by chronology but by clinical and social impact of delayed surgery. The panel focused on information obtained from clinical histories, to ensure the utility of the guidelines in practice. Relevant high quality research evidence was limited. SETTING--Ontario, Canada. MAIN MEASURES--Appropriateness ratings on a 7-point scale, and urgency rankings on a 4-point scale keyed to specific waiting times. RESULTS--Despite incomplete evidence panellists agreed on ratings in 92.5% of appropriateness and 73.8% of urgency scenarios versus 15% and 18% agreement expected by chance, respectively. Statistically validated algorithms in decision tree form, which should permit rapid estimation of urgency or appropriateness in practice, were compiled by recursive partitioning. Rating patterns and algorithms were also used to make brief written guidelines on how clinical factors affect appropriateness and urgency of surgery. A summary score was provided for each case scenario; scenarios could then be matched to chart audit results, with scoring for quality management. CONCLUSIONS--These algorithms and criteria can be used by managers or practitioners to assess appropriateness of referral for hip or knee replacement and relative rankings of patients in the queue for surgery.

Full text

PDF
20

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Bellamy N., Buchanan W. W., Goldsmith C. H., Campbell J., Stitt L. W. Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol. 1988 Dec;15(12):1833–1840. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Brook R. H., Chassin M. R., Fink A., Solomon D. H., Kosecoff J., Park R. E. A method for the detailed assessment of the appropriateness of medical technologies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1986;2(1):53–63. doi: 10.1017/s0266462300002774. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Broughton N. S., Newman J. H., Baily R. A. Unicompartmental replacement and high tibial osteotomy for osteoarthritis of the knee. A comparative study after 5-10 years' follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1986 May;68(3):447–452. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.68B3.3733813. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Callahan C. M., Drake B. G., Heck D. A., Dittus R. S. Patient outcomes following tricompartmental total knee replacement. A meta-analysis. JAMA. 1994 May 4;271(17):1349–1357. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Cleary P. D., Greenfield S., McNeil B. J. Assessing quality of life after surgery. Control Clin Trials. 1991 Aug;12(4 Suppl):189S–203S. doi: 10.1016/s0197-2456(05)80023-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Cook E. F., Goldman L. Empiric comparison of multivariate analytic techniques: advantages and disadvantages of recursive partitioning analysis. J Chronic Dis. 1984;37(9-10):721–731. doi: 10.1016/0021-9681(84)90041-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Coventry M. B. Upper tibial osteotomy for gonarthrosis. The evolution of the operation in the last 18 years and long term results. Orthop Clin North Am. 1979 Jan;10(1):191–210. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Coyte P. C., Wright J. G., Hawker G. A., Bombardier C., Dittus R. S., Paul J. E., Freund D. A., Ho E. Waiting times for knee-replacement surgery in the United States and Ontario. N Engl J Med. 1994 Oct 20;331(16):1068–1071. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199410203311607. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Harris W. H. Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. An end-result study using a new method of result evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1969 Jun;51(4):737–755. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Hicks N. R. Some observations on attempts to measure appropriateness of care. BMJ. 1994 Sep 17;309(6956):730–733. doi: 10.1136/bmj.309.6956.730. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Ho E., Coyte P. C., Bombardier C., Hawker G., Wright J. G. Ontario patients' acceptance of waiting times for knee replacements. J Rheumatol. 1994 Nov;21(11):2101–2105. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Hochberg M. C., Chang R. W., Dwosh I., Lindsey S., Pincus T., Wolfe F. The American College of Rheumatology 1991 revised criteria for the classification of global functional status in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 1992 May;35(5):498–502. doi: 10.1002/art.1780350502. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Insall J. N., Ranawat C. S., Aglietti P., Shine J. A comparison of four models of total knee-replacement prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1976 Sep;58(6):754–765. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Jonsson B., Larsson S. E. Functional improvement and costs of hip and knee arthroplasty in destructive rheumatoid arthritis. Scand J Rheumatol. 1991;20(5):351–357. doi: 10.3109/03009749109096811. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Kantz M. E., Harris W. J., Levitsky K., Ware J. E., Jr, Davies A. R. Methods for assessing condition-specific and generic functional status outcomes after total knee replacement. Med Care. 1992 May;30(5 Suppl):MS240–MS252. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199205001-00024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Katz J. N., Larson M. G., Phillips C. B., Fossel A. H., Liang M. H. Comparative measurement sensitivity of short and longer health status instruments. Med Care. 1992 Oct;30(10):917–925. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199210000-00004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Langan P., Weiss C. A. Hip rating scales: a clinical analysis. Int Surg. 1981 Oct-Dec;66(4):331–333. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Laupacis A., Bourne R., Rorabeck C., Feeny D., Wong C., Tugwell P., Leslie K., Bullas R. The effect of elective total hip replacement on health-related quality of life. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993 Nov;75(11):1619–1626. doi: 10.2106/00004623-199311000-00006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Liang M. H., Cullen K. E., Larson M. G., Thompson M. S., Schwartz J. A., Fossel A. H., Roberts W. N., Sledge C. B. Cost-effectiveness of total joint arthroplasty in osteoarthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 1986 Aug;29(8):937–943. doi: 10.1002/art.1780290801. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Lowry R. J., Donaldson L. J., Gregg P. J. Variations in clinical decisions: a study of orthopaedic patients. Public Health. 1991 Sep;105(5):351–355. doi: 10.1016/s0033-3506(05)80594-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Marmor L. Unicompartmental arthroplasty of the knee with a minimum ten-year follow-up period. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1988 Mar;(228):171–177. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. McDowell I. W., Martini C. J., Waugh W. A method for self-assessment of disability before and after hip replacement operations. Br Med J. 1978 Sep 23;2(6141):857–859. doi: 10.1136/bmj.2.6141.857. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. McHorney C. A., Ware J. E., Jr, Lu J. F., Sherbourne C. D. The MOS 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): III. Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability across diverse patient groups. Med Care. 1994 Jan;32(1):40–66. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199401000-00004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. McHorney C. A., Ware J. E., Jr, Raczek A. E. The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Med Care. 1993 Mar;31(3):247–263. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199303000-00006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Mont M. A., Antonaides S., Krackow K. A., Hungerford D. S. Total knee arthroplasty after failed high tibial osteotomy. A comparison with a matched group. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994 Feb;(299):125–130. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Naylor C. D., Baigrie R. S., Goldman B. S., Basinski A. Assessment of priority for coronary revascularisation procedures. Revascularisation Panel and Consensus Methods Group. Lancet. 1990 May 5;335(8697):1070–1073. doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(90)92640-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Naylor C. D., Baigrie R. S., Goldman B. S., Cairns J. A., Beanlands D. S., Berman N., Borts D., Fitchett D. H., Haq A., Hess A. Assigning priority to patients requiring coronary revascularization: consensus principles from a panel of cardiologists and cardiac surgeons. Can J Cardiol. 1991 Jun;7(5):207–213. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Naylor C. D. Grey zones of clinical practice: some limits to evidence-based medicine. Lancet. 1995 Apr 1;345(8953):840–842. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(95)92969-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Naylor C. D., Sibbald W. J., Sprung C. L., Pinfold S. P., Calvin J. E., Cerra F. B. Pulmonary artery catheterization. Can there be an integrated strategy for guideline development and research promotion? JAMA. 1993 May 12;269(18):2407–2411. doi: 10.1001/jama.269.18.2407. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Park R. E., Fink A., Brook R. H., Chassin M. R., Kahn K. L., Merrick N. J., Kosecoff J., Solomon D. H. Physician ratings of appropriate indications for six medical and surgical procedures. Am J Public Health. 1986 Jul;76(7):766–772. doi: 10.2105/ajph.76.7.766. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Peterson M. G., Hollenberg J. P., Szatrowski T. P., Johanson N. A., Mancuso C. A., Charlson M. E. Geographic variations in the rates of elective total hip and knee arthroplasties among Medicare beneficiaries in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1992 Dec;74(10):1530–1539. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Phelps C. E. The methodologic foundations of studies of the appropriateness of medical care. N Engl J Med. 1993 Oct 21;329(17):1241–1245. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199310213291707. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Rajaratnam G., Black N. A., Dalziel M. Total hip replacements in the National Health Service: is need being met? J Public Health Med. 1990 Feb;12(1):56–59. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.pubmed.a042507. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Ranawat C. S., Boachie-Adjei O. Survivorship analysis and results of total condylar knee arthroplasty. Eight- to 11-year follow-up period. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1988 Jan;(226):6–13. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Ranawat C. S., Padgett D. E., Ohashi Y. Total knee arthroplasty for patients younger than 55 years. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989 Nov;(248):27–33. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Sarmiento A., Ebramzadeh E., Gogan W. J., McKellop H. A. Total hip arthroplasty with cement. A long-term radiographic analysis in patients who are older than fifty and younger than fifty years. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1990 Dec;72(10):1470–1476. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Schurman D. J., Bloch D. A., Segal M. R., Tanner C. M. Conventional cemented total hip arthroplasty. Assessment of clinical factors associated with revision for mechanical failure. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989 Mar;(240):173–180. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Stern S. H., Insall J. N. Total knee arthroplasty in obese patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1990 Oct;72(9):1400–1404. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Surin V. V., Sundholm K. Survival of patients and prostheses after total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1983 Jul-Aug;(177):148–153. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Tierney W. M., Fitzgerald J. F., Heck D. A., Kennedy J. M., Katz B. P., Melfi C. A., Dittus R. S., Allen D. I., Freund D. A. Tricompartmental knee replacement. A comparison of orthopaedic surgeons' self reported performance rates with surgical indications, contraindications, and expected outcomes. Knee Replacement Patient Outcomes Research Team. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994 Aug;(305):209–217. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Tomlinson M., Cullen J. A clinical audit of patients on an orthopaedic waiting list for greater than two years. N Z Med J. 1992 Jul 8;105(937):266–268. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Ware J. E., Jr, Sherbourne C. D. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992 Jun;30(6):473–483. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Wennberg J. E., Freeman J. L., Culp W. J. Are hospital services rationed in New Haven or over-utilised in Boston? Lancet. 1987 May 23;1(8543):1185–1189. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(87)92152-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Williams M. H., Newton J. N., Frankel S. J., Braddon F., Barclay E., Gray J. A. Prevalence of total hip replacement: how much demand has been met? J Epidemiol Community Health. 1994 Apr;48(2):188–191. doi: 10.1136/jech.48.2.188. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Wright J. G., Coyte P., Hawker G., Bombardier C., Cooke D., Heck D., Dittus R., Freund D. Variation in orthopedic surgeons' perceptions of the indications for and outcomes of knee replacement. CMAJ. 1995 Mar 1;152(5):687–697. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Quality in Health Care are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES