Abstract
Background
Most joint-replacement surgeries are currently performed in community hospitals. We sought to determine whether the functional outcomes of joint-replacement surgery differ between academic and community hospitals.
Methods
We surveyed 471 patients for demographic data, Western Ontario McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores and Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 (SF-36) scores at baseline and at 3-month and 1-year follow-up. We assessed patient satisfaction at 1 year with a single survey question.
Results
Community hospital patients (n = 269) were significantly older and had greater comorbidity than academic hospital patients (n = 202; p < 0.05). We found no difference in WOMAC scores, SF-36 scores or in patient satisfaction between hospitals at 1-year follow-up (p > 0.05). Adjusted analysis showed that patients undergoing surgery in an academic or community hospitals have the same functional outcomes.
Conclusion
There is no significant difference in the functional outcomes of joint-replacement surgery between academic and community hospitals. Further work will involve evaluating cost of care differences between these types of hospitals.
Abstract
Contexte
La plupart des arthroplasties sont actuellement pratiquées dans des hôpitaux communautaires. Nous avons cherché à déterminer si les résultats fonction-nels de l’arthroplastie diffèrent entre les hôpitaux universitaires et les hôpitaux communautaires.
Méthodes
Nous avons sondé 471 patients pour obtenir leurs données démo-graphiques, les résultats selon l’indice Western Ontario et McMaster sur l’arthrose (WOMAC) et les résultats du questionnaire abrégé 36 (SF-36) de l’étude sur les résultats médicaux au départ et au suivi à 3 mois et à 1 an. Nous avons évalué la satisfaction des patients à 1 an en leur posant une seule question.
Résultats
Les patients des hôpitaux communautaires (n = 269) étaient beaucoup plus âgés et avaient plus de comorbidités que ceux des hôpitaux universitaires (n = 202; p < 0,05). Nous n’avons constaté aucune différence au niveau des scores WOMAC et SF-36, de même qu’au niveau de la satisfaction des patients entre les hôpitaux au suivi à 1 an (p > 0,05). L’analyse rajustée a montré que les patients qui ont subi leur intervention dans un hôpital universitaire ou communautaire ont les mêmes résultats fonctionnels.
Conclusion
Il n’y a pas de différences importantes au niveau des résultats fonction-nels de l’arthroplastie pratiquée dans les hôpitaux universitaires et les hôpitaux communautaires. Une étude plus poussée consistera à évaluer les différences au niveau du coût des soins entre ces types d’hôpitaux.
Total joint arthroplasty (TJA) has been shown to be an effective procedure for relieving pain and improving quality of life.1–3 Literature from both the United States and Canada projects that the number of joint replacements being performed will continue to rise owing to an aging population and a greater proportion of young patients who are undergoing these operations.4–6
Most joint-replacement surgeries are currently being performed in community hospitals, and therefore it is important to evaluate patient outcomes from these hospitals.7,8 Presently, there are few published reports on joint-replacement surgery outcomes from nonteaching hospitals.9–13 Moreover, there are few studies evaluating the costs and resource utilization for TJAs performed at academic and community hospitals.14
The primary goal of our study was to determine whether patient-reported functional outcomes and satisfaction after hip- and knee-replacement surgery differ between academic and community hospitals.
Methods
We performed a case–control study from previously and prospectively collected data to compare patient outcomes for joint-replacement surgery after patient participation in a home-based or inpatient rehabilitation program.15 The original study collected data from 10 randomly selected hospitals across the Greater Toronto Area (GTA; 5 academic and 5 community hospitals). All hospitals were considered to be high-volume centres, performing at least 500 hip- or knee-replacement surgeries each year. All surgeons from the academic hospitals had arthroplasty fellowship training, and all surgeons from all 10 hospitals had been practising in the field for 5 years or more. The study involved patients aged 19 years or older who were undergoing primary hip- or knee-replacement surgery.
We recorded baseline demographic data, including age, sex, diagnosis and comorbidity; comorbidity was defined by the 14 categories of chronic illness adapted from the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale.16,17 The scale covers the domains of cardiac, vascular, hematological, respiratory, otorhinolaryngological and ophthalmological, upper gastrointestinal, lower gastrointestinal, hepatic and pancreatic, renal, genitourinary, musculoskeletal and tegmental, neurologic, endocrine, metabolic and breast, and psychiatric systems. We assessed patients’ functional status and quality of life preoperatively and at 3 months and 1 year postsurgery based on the Western Ontario McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC)18 and the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 (SF-36),19–21 respectively.
We assessed patient satisfaction at 1 year postsurgery with a single question scored on a 4-point Likert scale: “How satisfied were you with the results of your surgery?” We collapsed responses of “very satisfied” and “somewhat satisfied” into a “satisfied” group, and we collapsed responses of “somewhat dissatisfied” and “very dissatisfied” into a “not satisfied” group.
We compared continuous data such as age, body mass index (BMI), comorbidities, SF-36 and WOMAC scores between groups using Student t tests. Means and standard deviations are reported for all continuous variables. Categorical data such as sex and satisfaction are reported with frequencies, and we compared groups using the Fisher exact test.
We performed multivariate linear regression modelling to determine the impact of hospital status on 1-year WOMAC and SF-36 scores. We created separate models for each dependent variable; the relevant covariates entered in the models were age, sex, BMI, comorbidities and the relevant preoperative score.
A minimally clinically significant change on the WOMAC score has been defined as a change of 7.4 points with a standard deviation (SD) of 14 by Bellamy and colleagues.22 A sample size of 471 patients in our study, assuming a type I error rate of 5%, yielded 99% power to detect this difference.
We performed all statistical analyses with SPSS version 13.0 (SPSS Inc.). Beta coefficients for regression modelling and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) are reported. All reported p values are 2-tailed with an α of 0.05.
Results
In our study, there were 202 patients from the academic hospitals and 269 patients from the community hospitals. Three-month follow-up data were available for 384 of 471 (81.5%) patients. In total, 228 of the 384 (75.1%) participants who had complete 3-month follow-up data also had complete 1-year follow-up data.
Patients with complete data did not differ significantly from those with incomplete data for age, sex, comorbidity, baseline total WOMAC or total SF-36 scores.
The patients from the community hospitals were older by 3.2 years and had significantly greater comorbidities than the patients from the academic hospitals (p < 0.05) There were no differences in sex distribution between groups (Table 1).
Table 1.
Comparison of demographic characteristics of patients who underwent hip- or knee-replacement surgery at an academic or community hospital
| Characteristic | Academic, n = 202 | Community, n = 269 | p value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age, mean (SD) yr | 65.1 (11.5) | 68.3 (9.2) | 0.001 |
| Male sex, % | 59 | 64 | 0.18 |
| Comorbidity, mean (SD) no. | 1.1 (1.2) | 1.8 (1.5) | < 0.001 |
| Rheumatoid arthritis, % | 7.5 | 8.9 | 0.53 |
SD = standard deviation.
We found no differences in mean WOMAC and SF-36 scores preoperatively, at 3 months or at 1 year postsurgery between the 2 groups of patients (Table 2). Similarly, we found no significant difference in patient satisfaction between patients at academic and community hospitals at 1 year, with 95.3% and 95.8% reporting satisfaction, respectively (Table 2).
Table 2.
Comparison of preoperative, 3-month and 1-year WOMAC and SF-36 scores, and 1-year satisfaction scores of patients who underwent hip- or knee-replacement surgery at an academic or community hospital
| Test; time | Hospital; mean (SD) score | p value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Academic, n = 202 | Community, n = 269 | ||
| WOMAC | |||
| Preoperative | |||
| Total | 46.2 (16.9) | 45.9 (16.5) | 0.83 |
| Function | 35.9 (13.6) | 35.6 (13.4) | 0.77 |
| Pain | 10.3 (3.7) | 10.3 (4.0) | 0.85 |
| 3-month follow-up | |||
| Total | 19.5 (13.7) | 20.2 (14.1) | 0.61 |
| Function | 15.9 (11.0) | 16.4 (11.3) | 0.63 |
| Pain | 3.6 (3.5) | 3.8 (3.3) | 0.61 |
| 1-year follow-up | |||
| Total | 15.6 (13.2) | 14.4 (13.0) | 0.50 |
| Function | 12.7 (10.4) | 12.1 (10.4) | 0.64 |
| Pain | 2.9 (3.4) | 2.4 (3.0) | 0.20 |
| SF-36 | |||
| Preoperative | |||
| Total | 85.3 (14.0) | 83.0 (15.5) | 0.13 |
| Physical component | 29.9 (9.0) | 31.9 (7.9) | 0.02 |
| Mental component | 55.4 (11.3) | 51.1 (12.6) | 0.001 |
| 3-month follow-up | |||
| Total | 93.1 (14.6) | 92.6 (15.4) | 0.79 |
| Physical component | 38.2 (10.2) | 39.2 (9.3) | 0.28 |
| Mental component | 54.9 (10.2) | 53.4 (11.1) | 0.18 |
| 1-year follow-up | |||
| Total | 96.5 (14.7) | 97.4 (16.1) | 0.64 |
| Physical component | 42.2 (9.9) | 43.2 (10.1) | 0.43 |
| Mental component | 54.3 (9.3) | 54.2 (10.6) | 0.95 |
| Satisfied with surgery, % | 95.3 | 95.8 | 0.83 |
Linear regression modelling showed that hospital status was not a significant predictor of a better 1-year total WOMAC scores or SF-36 scores adjusting for age, sex, comorbidity and the relevant preoperative score (Table 3).
Table 3.
Linear regression modelling reporting β coefficients for predicting 1-year WOMAC scores
| Variable | β coefficient (95% CI) | p value |
|---|---|---|
| Hospital type | 0.04 (−3.49 to 3.57) | 0.98 |
| Sex | 2.63 (−1.11 to 6.38) | 0.17 |
| Comorbidity | −0.06 (−1.46 to 1.33) | 0.93 |
| Age | 0.06 (−0.12 to 0.24) | 0.53 |
| Preoperative WOMAC score | 0.22 (0.11 to 0.34) | < 0.001 |
CI = confidence interval; WOMAC = Western Ontario McMaster University
Osteoarthritis Index.18
Discussion
The results of our study show that there is no difference in functional outcomes, quality of life or satisfaction between patients undergoing hip- or knee-replacement surgery in an academic institution versus a community hospital in the GTA. This finding is consistent with that of others who have shown that clinical outcomes of joint-replacement surgery are no different between academic and community hospitals.11–13
The costs of care have been shown to be higher in teaching hospitals than in nonteaching hospitals.23–26 One group reported a 22% increase in resource consumption for joint-replacement surgery in an academic hospital versus a nonacademic hospital.14 One hypothesis proposed to explain these increased costs is that the patients treated in an academic centre have greater medical comorbidities.25 Our study demonstrated the opposite finding, in that the patients from the community hospitals had greater medical comorbidities than the patients from the academic hospitals.
One of the strengths of our paper is that we collected data from 10 different hospitals (5 academic and 5 community), which increases the external validity of our study. One potential limitation of our study is that the 1-year response rate was only 228 of 384 (75.1%), despite 2 follow-up phone calls from research staff. However, we found no difference between responders and nonresponders in terms of age, sex, comorbidity or baseline WOMAC or SF-36 scores, and we believe our conclusions remain valid and generalizable.
In conclusion, we have shown that there are no differences in functional outcomes for joint-replacement surgery when performed in academic or community hospitals. Future work will be directed toward understanding the differences in resource utilization between these types of hospitals with the goal of improving the efficiency of care while maximizing resident education, clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction.
Footnotes
Competing interests: None declared.
Contributors: All authors designed the study. Drs. Davis and Mahomed acquired the data, which all authors analyzed. Dr. Gandhi and Ms. Tso wrote the article, which Drs. Davis and Mahomed reviewed. All authors approved publication.
References
- 1.Shields RK, Enloe LJ, Leo KC. Health related quality of life in patients with total hip or knee replacement. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1999;80:572–9. doi: 10.1016/s0003-9993(99)90202-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Jones CA, Voaklander DC, Johnston DW, et al. Health related quality of life outcomes after total hip and knee arthroplasties in a community based population. J Rheumatol. 2000;27:1745–52. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Hawker G, Wright J, Coyte P, et al. Health-related quality of life after knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1998;80:163–73. doi: 10.2106/00004623-199802000-00003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, et al. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States 2006 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:780–5. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.F.00222. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Canadian Institute for Health Information (CIHI) Canadian Joint Replacement Registry (CJRR) total hip and knee replacements in Canada. 2003. [(accessed 2009 Aug 24)]. Available: http://secure.cihi.ca/cihiweb/dispPage.jsp?cw_page=media_22jan2003_e.
- 6.Jain NB, Higgins LD, Ozumba D, et al. Trends in epidemiology of knee arthroplasty in the United States, 1990–2000. Arthritis Rheum. 2005;52:3928–33. doi: 10.1002/art.21420. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Coyte PC, Wright JG, Hawker GA, et al. Waiting times for knee-replacement surgery in the United States and Ontario. N Engl J Med. 1994;331:1068–71. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199410203311607. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Coyte PC, Hawker G, Croxford R, et al. Rates of revision knee replacement in Ontario, Canada. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1999;81:773–82. doi: 10.2106/00004623-199906000-00004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Perkins TR, Gunckle W. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: 3- to 10-year results in a community hospital setting. J Arthroplasty. 2002;17:293–7. doi: 10.1054/arth.2002.30413. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Rajasekhar C, Das S, Smith A. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. 2- to 12-year results in a community hospital. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2004;86:983–5. doi: 10.1302/0301-620x.86b7.15157. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Robinson RP. The impact of resident teaching on total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;465:196–201. doi: 10.1097/BLO.0b013e3181576006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Thompson R, Kane RL, Gromala T, et al. Complications and short-term outcomes associated with total hip arthroplasty in teaching and community hospitals. J Arthroplasty. 2002;17:32–40. doi: 10.1054/arth.2002.28725. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Woolson ST, Kang MN. A comparison of the results of total hip and knee arthroplasty performed on a teaching service or a private practice service. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89:601–7. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.F.00584. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Lavernia CJ, Sierra RJ, Hernandez RA. The cost of teaching total knee arthroplasty surgery to orthopaedic surgery residents. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2000;380:99–107. doi: 10.1097/00003086-200011000-00014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.McGlasson R. Total Joint Network: an integrated model of care for total joint replacement. Toronto (ON): Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care; Jul, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- 16.Linn BS, Linn MW, Gurel L. Cumulative illness rating scale. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1968;16:622–6. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.1968.tb02103.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Miller MD, Paradis CF, Houck PR, et al. Rating chronic medical illness burden in geropsychiatric practice and research: application of the Cumulative Illness Rating Scale. Psychiatry Res. 1992;41:237–48. doi: 10.1016/0165-1781(92)90005-n. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, et al. 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;15:1833–40. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Ware JE, Jr, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30:473–83. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.McHorney CA, Ware JE, Jr, Raczek AE. 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;31:247–63. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199303000-00006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.McHorney CA, Ware JE, Jr, Lu JF, et al. 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;32:40–66. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199401000-00004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Bellamy N, Kean WF, Buchanan WW, et al. Double blind randomized controlled trial of sodium meclofenamate (Meclomen) and diclofenac sodium (Voltaren): post validation reapplication of the WOMAC Osteoarthritis Index. J Rheumatol. 1992;19:153–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Sloan FA, Feldman RD, Steinwald B. Effects of teaching on hospital costs. J Health Econ. 1983;2:1–28. doi: 10.1016/0167-6296(83)90009-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Sloan FA, Valvona J. Uncovering the high cost of teaching hospitals. Health Aff (Millwood) 1986;5:68–85. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.5.3.68. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Iezzoni LI, Shwartz M, Moskowitz MA, et al. Illness severity and costs of admissions at teaching and nonteaching hospitals. JAMA. 1990;264:1426–31. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Zimmerman JE, Shortell SM, Knaus WA, et al. Value and cost of teaching hospitals: a prospective, multicenter inception cohort study. Crit Care Med. 1993;21:1432–42. doi: 10.1097/00003246-199310000-00009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]