Dataset Information

Treatment decisions after interdisciplinary evaluation for nonarthritic hip pain: A randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Physical therapy and hip arthroscopy are two viable treatment options for patients with nonarthritic hip pain (NAHP); however, patients may experience considerable decisional conflict when making a treatment decision. Interdisciplinary evaluation with a physical therapist and surgeon may better inform the decision-making process and reduce decisional conflict.

Objective

To identify the extent to which an interdisciplinary evaluation between a surgeon, physical therapist, and patient influences treatment plans and decisional conflict of persons with NAHP.

Design

Randomized controlled trial.

Setting

Hip preservation clinic.

Participants

Adults with primary NAHP.

Interventions

Participants were randomized to receive a standard (surgeon) or interdisciplinary (surgeon+physical therapist) evaluation. Surgeon evaluations included patient interview, strength and range-of-motion examination, palpation, gross motor observation, and special testing. Interdisciplinary evaluations started with the surgeon evaluation, then a physical therapist evaluated movement impairments during sitting, sit-to-stand, standing, single-leg stance, single-leg squat, and walking. All evaluations concluded with treatment planning with the respective provider(s).

Outcome measures

Treatment plan and decisional conflict were collected pre- and postevaluation. Inclusion of physical therapy in participants' postevaluation treatment plans and postevaluation decisional conflict were compared between groups using chi-square tests and Mann-Whitney U tests, respectively.

Results

Seventy-eight participants (39 in each group) met all eligibility criteria and were included in all analyses. Sixty-six percent of participants who received an interdisciplinary evaluation included physical therapy in their postevaluation treatment plan, compared to 48% of participants who received a standard evaluation (p = .10). Participants who received an interdisciplinary evaluation reported 6.3 points lower decisional conflict regarding their postevaluation plan (100-point scale; p = .04). The interdisciplinary and standard groups reduced decisional conflict on average 24.8 ± 18.9 and 23.6 ± 14.6 points, respectively.

Conclusions

Adding a physical therapist to a surgical clinic increased interest in physical therapy treatment, but this increase was not statistically significant. The interdisciplinary group displayed lower postevaluation decisional conflict; however, both groups displayed similar reductions in decisional conflict from pre- to postevaluation. This study also demonstrated the feasibility of an interdisciplinary evaluation in a hip preservation clinic.

SUBMITTER: Brown-Taylor L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8712617 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Treatment decisions after interdisciplinary evaluation for nonarthritic hip pain: A randomized controlled trial.

Brown-Taylor Lindsey L Harris-Hayes Marcie M Foraker Randi R Vasileff William Kelton WK Glaws Kathryn K Di Stasi Stephanie S

PM & R : the journal of injury, function, and rehabilitation 20210816 3

<h4>Background</h4>Physical therapy and hip arthroscopy are two viable treatment options for patients with nonarthritic hip pain (NAHP); however, patients may experience considerable decisional conflict when making a treatment decision. Interdisciplinary evaluation with a physical therapist and surgeon may better inform the decision-making process and reduce decisional conflict.<h4>Objective</h4>To identify the extent to which an interdisciplinary evaluation between a surgeon, physical therapist ...[more]

PMID: 34181823

Similar Datasets

Project description:Residual disability after stroke is substantial; 65% of patients at 6 months are unable to incorporate the impaired upper extremity into daily activities. Task-oriented training programs are rapidly being adopted into clinical practice. In the absence of any consensus on the essential elements or dose of task-specific training, an urgent need exists for a well-designed trial to determine the effectiveness of a specific multidimensional task-based program governed by a comprehensive set of evidence-based principles. The Interdisciplinary Comprehensive Arm Rehabilitation Evaluation (ICARE) Stroke Initiative is a parallel group, three-arm, single blind, superiority randomized controlled trial of a theoretically-defensible, upper extremity rehabilitation program provided in the outpatient setting.The primary objective of ICARE is to determine if there is a greater improvement in arm and hand recovery one year after randomization in participants receiving a structured training program termed Accelerated Skill Acquisition Program (ASAP), compared to participants receiving usual and customary therapy of an equivalent dose (DEUCC). Two secondary objectives are to compare ASAP to a true (active monitoring only) usual and customary (UCC) therapy group and to compare DEUCC and UCC.Following baseline assessment, participants are randomized by site, stratified for stroke duration and motor severity. 360 adults will be randomized, 14 to 106 days following ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke onset, with mild to moderate upper extremity impairment, recruited at sites in Atlanta, Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. The Wolf Motor Function Test (WMFT) time score is the primary outcome at 1 year post-randomization. The Stroke Impact Scale (SIS) hand domain is a secondary outcome measure.The design includes concealed allocation during recruitment, screening and baseline, blinded outcome assessment and intention to treat analyses. Our primary hypothesis is that the improvement in log-transformed WMFT time will be greater for the ASAP than the DEUCC group. This pre-planned hypothesis will be tested at a significance level of 0.05.ICARE will test whether ASAP is superior to the same number of hours of usual therapy. Pre-specified secondary analyses will test whether 30 hours of usual therapy is superior to current usual and customary therapy not controlled for dose.www.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00871715

Project description:ObjectivesTo evaluate the effect of a collaborative interdisciplinary pain assessment program on pain and health-related quality of life among individuals with chronic pain who frequently visit the emergency department (ED).MethodsIndividuals with chronic pain who frequented the ED (ie, ≥8 visits within the previous 12 months) were randomly assigned to a collaborative chronic pain management program or treatment as usual. Primary outcomes were change in physical function and visits to the ED from baseline to 12 months using validated measures. Secondary measures included physical and emotional functioning, insomnia, health-related quality of life, risk of aberrant opioid use, and health care use. Mixed model analyses of variances were used to evaluate intervention effectiveness among the whole sample (ie, using intention to treat principles) and individuals who completed more than 50% of follow-up assessments.ResultsOne hundred participants were assessed for eligibility and 46 patients were enrolled with 24 being randomized to intervention and 22 to treatment as usual (TAU). Eleven of the 24 patients randomized to the intervention were lost to follow-up and 3 withdrew participation. Two of the 22 patients randomized to TAU were lost to follow-up, and 7 withdrew. Although patients assigned to the intervention improved more rapidly on measures of pain and health related quality of life, both groups had similar improvements overall between baseline to 12 months. Average pain intensity reduction (numeric rating scale [SE]) was 4.63 (0.40) in the intervention and 4.82 (0.53) in the treatment as usual at the 12-month follow-up. A significant group × time interaction was present for risk of aberrant opioid use, with individuals in the intervention group reporting greater improvement in risk of aberrant opioid use by 12-month follow-up.ConclusionParticipation in an interdisciplinary program may accelerate improvements in pain- and health-related quality of life and reduce risk of aberrant opioid use to manage pain and related distress. Further research is needed to better understand and address barriers to engagement in chronic pain care.

Project description:BackgroundThe effectiveness of robot-assisted surgery remains contentious due to the lack of high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to elevate the level of evidence. We aimed to evaluate the postoperative radiographic outcomes of robot-assisted (RAS-THA) versus manual (M-THA) total hip arthroplasty.MethodsThis multicenter RCT was performed from March 1, 2021 to December 1, 2021. Patients were randomly assigned to routine M-THA or to RAS-THA that used the TRex-RS orthopedic joint surgical navigation system. The primary outcome was to compare the acetabular component orientation, femoral stem alignment, femoral canal fill ratio, and leg length discrepancy between RAS-THA and M-THA using postoperative radiography. Subgroup analyses of the two groups stratified by surgical approach, gender, and BMI were also conducted.ResultsSeventy-three participants were randomly allocated to the RAS-THA group, while seventy-two participants were assigned to the M-THA group. Compared to the M-THA group, the RAS-THA group exhibited less variability in the preoperative planning of the vertical center of rotation (VCOR; P < 0.001), demonstrated a significant advantage in femoral stem alignment (P = 0.004), and showed pronounced decreases in inequality and in the variability in leg length discrepancy (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the Lewinnek safe-zone ratio (P = 0.081) and the femoral canal fill ratio (P > 0.05) between the two groups. Further subgroup analysis also showed that the RAS-THA group had fewer horizontal center of rotation (HCOR) and leg length differences when stratified by surgical approach, gender, and overweight status.ConclusionThis RCT found that, regardless of the surgical approach, gender, or body mass index, RAS-THA can effectively improve the postoperative VCOR and significantly reduce the variability of leg length difference. RAS-THA should be considered an effective method to enhance surgical precision by achieving less variability in challenging patients with leg length discrepancies.Trial registrationChiCTR2100044124.

Dataset Information

Treatment decisions after interdisciplinary evaluation for nonarthritic hip pain: A randomized controlled trial.

Background

Objective

Design

Setting

Participants

Interventions

Outcome measures

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Treatment decisions after interdisciplinary evaluation for nonarthritic hip pain: A randomized controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets