Objective To compare the cl inical results between high-flexion and standard cruciate-stabling prostheses in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) by using the 36-item short form health survey (SF-36). Methods Between August 2007 and January 2009, 98 patients (106 knees) underwent TKA with standard cruciate-stabl ing prostheses (standard group), and 46 patients (50 knees) underwent TKA with high-flexion prostheses (high-flexion group). In standard group, there were30 males (32 knees) and 68 females (74 knees) with an age of (70.0 ± 3.5) years, including 78 cases (82 knees) of osteoarthritis (OA) and 20 cases (24 knees) of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with a disease duration of (14.5 ± 3.3) years; the Hospital for Special Surgery Scoring System (HSS) and the range of motion (ROM) were 56.1 ± 21.6 and (89.0 ± 16.1)°, respectively. In high-flexion group, there were 8 males (10 knees) and 38 females (40 knees) with an age of (68.6 ± 8.9) years, including 44 cases (47 knees) of OA and 2 cases (3 knees) of RA with a disease duration of (13.9 ± 4.1) years; the HSS and ROM were 58.9 ± 25.3 and (91.0 ± 19.3)°, respectively. There was no significant difference in the general data (P gt; 0.05) between 2 groups, so the cl inical data of 2 groups had comparabil ity. Results In standard group, poor wound heal ing and persistent headache caused by cerebrospinal fluid leakage occurred in 1 case, respectively. In high-flexion group, transient common peroneal nerve palsy occurred in 1 case. There was significant difference (P lt; 0.05) in the hospital ization expense between standard group [ (39 000 ± 6 000)] and highflexion goup [ (52 000 ± 8 000)]. The follow-up time was 12-26 months (18 months on average) in standard group (91 cases, 98 knees) and 11-19 months (13 months on average) in high-flexion group (44 cases, 47 knees). The SF-36 showed significant difference in role-physical score (P lt; 0.05), but no significant difference in other 7 indices scores (P gt; 0.05). At the final follow-up, the ROM was (129.1 ± 19.2)° in high-flexion group and (123.6 ± 16.7)° in standard group; showing significant difference (P lt; 0.05). The HSS was 91.2 ± 17.6 in high-flexion group and 92.5 ± 14.5 in standard group; showing no significant difference (P gt; 0.05). Conclusion After TKA, the ROM in high-flexion group is superior to that in standard group, but there is no obvious advantages in terms of the HSS and SF- 36 outcomes.
ObjectiveThe application of the coefficient of variation (CV) in the development of clinical practice guidelines is limited to evaluating the consistency of the consensus panel in clinical questions rating, and the application of variability was limited. This study presents the application and results of variability evaluation in the development of guidelines. MethodsWe conducted a large-scale clinical survey through questionnaire survey, and conducted two rounds of questionnaire survey and face-to-face consensus meeting for the consensus group. Means and CV were calculated for clinical questions and outcome importance ratings. We performed the summary and analysis by SPSS and Microsoft Excel. ResultsA total of 356 clinical survey questionnaires and two rounds survey in consensus panel were collected. We found that in the clinical survey and the first-round of the consensus panel, the CV was greater than 25% for all clinical questions regardless of the overall importance score. In the consensus panel, the results of the second-round were greatly changed. On the one hand, compared with the first-round, the CV of almost all clinical questions was smaller in the second-round, and the CV of high-priority clinical questions was less than 25%, while the clinical questions with a CV greater than 25% were of low-priority. In view of the CV of outcome importance, the clinical survey was similar to the results of the first-round of consensus panel. The CV of very important outcomes was less than 30%. In the second-round of consensus panel, the variability of very important outcomes was less than 20%. The higher the importance level of the outcome was, the smaller the CV was. ConclusionThe study of variability evaluation has practical methodological value, which can assist clinical questions and outcomes priority selection, and help to fully consider the influence of different factors and values, and develop high-quality guidelines.
In the process of formation of recommendations of clinical practice guidelines, experts have many difficult problems of lack of transparency and high subjectivity in making final decisions, such as incomplete comprehensive consideration of dimensions and great heterogeneity in the evaluation of importance between dimensions, etc. As a decision-making tool, multi-criterion decision analysis improves the decision-making level of recommendation by adding the combination of qualitative and quantitative methods. By analyzing the challenges facing the formation of recommendations, this paper introduces the decision assistance of multi-criterion decision, and analyzes and summarizes the advantages and methods of the application of multi-criterion decision, so as to provide reference and guidance for guide makers to solve the difficulties in the formation of recommendations.