术前干预是否影响全髋关节置换术后患者满意度或期望实现?系统回顾

April-Rose Matt , Joanne L. Kemp , Andrea B. Mosler , Lucy Salmon , Diogo Almeida Gomes , Alysha De Livera , Erica Hateley , Adam L. Semciw
{"title":"术前干预是否影响全髋关节置换术后患者满意度或期望实现?系统回顾","authors":"April-Rose Matt ,&nbsp;Joanne L. Kemp ,&nbsp;Andrea B. Mosler ,&nbsp;Lucy Salmon ,&nbsp;Diogo Almeida Gomes ,&nbsp;Alysha De Livera ,&nbsp;Erica Hateley ,&nbsp;Adam L. Semciw","doi":"10.1016/j.jsampl.2025.100089","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Preoperative interventions are routinely implemented for patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA), but little is known about how they affect patient satisfaction. With THA numbers projected to rapidly increase, the efficacy of perioperative models of care should be explored. This systematic review aimed to investigate the impact of preoperative interventions on patient satisfaction following THA.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Register of Clinical Trials, CINAHL and Sports Discus were searched from inception to May 2023. Randomised and quasi-experimental trials of interventions before THA that reported outcomes on patient satisfaction or expectation fulfilment were included. Secondary outcomes analysed were pain, function, length of stay (LOS), and postoperative complications. Meta-analysis was performed, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to rate the quality of the body of evidence.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Seven studies were included. Participants who received preoperative interventions were more satisfied (SMD -0.54 [-0.87, −0.21] p ​= ​0.001), and had better function postoperatively when compared to controls (SMD -1.86, 95%CI, −3.11, to 0.61, p ​= ​0.004). There was no difference between groups in pain outcomes (SMD -0.37, 95 ​% CI -0.86, 0.12, p ​= ​0.14), LOS (SMD -0.37, 95%CI -1.04, to 0.31, p ​= ​0.29), or odds of postoperative complications (OR 0.91, 95%CI 0.54, 1.55, p ​= ​0.73). All findings were supported by a very low quality body of evidence.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Preoperative intervention was associated with better satisfaction and function in patients following THA when compared with no intervention or usual care. Preoperative intervention was found to have no effect on pain, and no effect on LOS or the odds of postoperative complications when compared with no intervention or usual care. All findings were supported by a body of evidence that was very low quality with unvalidated outcome measures and thus the true effect of the interventions is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.</div><div>PROSPERO Registration number: CRD42023429861.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":74029,"journal":{"name":"JSAMS plus","volume":"5 ","pages":"Article 100089"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Do preoperative interventions affect patient satisfaction or expectation fulfilment following total hip arthroplasty? A systematic review\",\"authors\":\"April-Rose Matt ,&nbsp;Joanne L. Kemp ,&nbsp;Andrea B. Mosler ,&nbsp;Lucy Salmon ,&nbsp;Diogo Almeida Gomes ,&nbsp;Alysha De Livera ,&nbsp;Erica Hateley ,&nbsp;Adam L. Semciw\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jsampl.2025.100089\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Preoperative interventions are routinely implemented for patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA), but little is known about how they affect patient satisfaction. With THA numbers projected to rapidly increase, the efficacy of perioperative models of care should be explored. This systematic review aimed to investigate the impact of preoperative interventions on patient satisfaction following THA.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Register of Clinical Trials, CINAHL and Sports Discus were searched from inception to May 2023. Randomised and quasi-experimental trials of interventions before THA that reported outcomes on patient satisfaction or expectation fulfilment were included. Secondary outcomes analysed were pain, function, length of stay (LOS), and postoperative complications. Meta-analysis was performed, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to rate the quality of the body of evidence.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Seven studies were included. Participants who received preoperative interventions were more satisfied (SMD -0.54 [-0.87, −0.21] p ​= ​0.001), and had better function postoperatively when compared to controls (SMD -1.86, 95%CI, −3.11, to 0.61, p ​= ​0.004). There was no difference between groups in pain outcomes (SMD -0.37, 95 ​% CI -0.86, 0.12, p ​= ​0.14), LOS (SMD -0.37, 95%CI -1.04, to 0.31, p ​= ​0.29), or odds of postoperative complications (OR 0.91, 95%CI 0.54, 1.55, p ​= ​0.73). All findings were supported by a very low quality body of evidence.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Preoperative intervention was associated with better satisfaction and function in patients following THA when compared with no intervention or usual care. Preoperative intervention was found to have no effect on pain, and no effect on LOS or the odds of postoperative complications when compared with no intervention or usual care. All findings were supported by a body of evidence that was very low quality with unvalidated outcome measures and thus the true effect of the interventions is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.</div><div>PROSPERO Registration number: CRD42023429861.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74029,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JSAMS plus\",\"volume\":\"5 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100089\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JSAMS plus\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772696725000031\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JSAMS plus","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772696725000031","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景术前干预是全髋关节置换术(THA)患者的常规措施,但对其如何影响患者满意度知之甚少。随着全髋关节置换术数量预计将迅速增加,围手术期护理模式的有效性应予探讨。本系统综述旨在探讨THA术后术前干预对患者满意度的影响。方法检索medline、EMBASE、Cochrane Clinical Trials Register、CINAHL和Sports Discus自成立至2023年5月。纳入了THA前干预措施的随机和准实验试验,这些试验报告了患者满意度或期望实现的结果。次要结果分析为疼痛、功能、住院时间(LOS)和术后并发症。进行荟萃分析,并采用建议评估、发展和评价分级(GRADE)方法对证据体的质量进行评分。结果共纳入7项研究。与对照组相比,接受术前干预的参与者更满意(SMD -0.54 [-0.87, - 0.21] p = 0.001),术后功能也更好(SMD -1.86, 95%CI, - 3.11,至0.61,p = 0.004)。两组在疼痛结局(SMD -0.37, 95%CI -0.86, 0.12, p = 0.14)、LOS (SMD -0.37, 95%CI -1.04,至0.31,p = 0.29)和术后并发症发生率(or 0.91, 95%CI 0.54, 1.55, p = 0.73)方面均无差异。所有的发现都是由非常低质量的证据支持的。结论与不进行干预或常规护理相比,THA术后患者的术后满意度和功能改善均优于术前干预。与不干预或常规护理相比,术前干预对疼痛没有影响,对LOS或术后并发症的发生率没有影响。所有研究结果都得到了大量证据的支持,这些证据的质量非常低,结果测量也未经验证,因此干预措施的真实效果可能与效果的估计有很大不同。普洛斯彼罗注册号:CRD42023429861。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Do preoperative interventions affect patient satisfaction or expectation fulfilment following total hip arthroplasty? A systematic review

Background

Preoperative interventions are routinely implemented for patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA), but little is known about how they affect patient satisfaction. With THA numbers projected to rapidly increase, the efficacy of perioperative models of care should be explored. This systematic review aimed to investigate the impact of preoperative interventions on patient satisfaction following THA.

Methods

MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Register of Clinical Trials, CINAHL and Sports Discus were searched from inception to May 2023. Randomised and quasi-experimental trials of interventions before THA that reported outcomes on patient satisfaction or expectation fulfilment were included. Secondary outcomes analysed were pain, function, length of stay (LOS), and postoperative complications. Meta-analysis was performed, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to rate the quality of the body of evidence.

Results

Seven studies were included. Participants who received preoperative interventions were more satisfied (SMD -0.54 [-0.87, −0.21] p ​= ​0.001), and had better function postoperatively when compared to controls (SMD -1.86, 95%CI, −3.11, to 0.61, p ​= ​0.004). There was no difference between groups in pain outcomes (SMD -0.37, 95 ​% CI -0.86, 0.12, p ​= ​0.14), LOS (SMD -0.37, 95%CI -1.04, to 0.31, p ​= ​0.29), or odds of postoperative complications (OR 0.91, 95%CI 0.54, 1.55, p ​= ​0.73). All findings were supported by a very low quality body of evidence.

Conclusions

Preoperative intervention was associated with better satisfaction and function in patients following THA when compared with no intervention or usual care. Preoperative intervention was found to have no effect on pain, and no effect on LOS or the odds of postoperative complications when compared with no intervention or usual care. All findings were supported by a body of evidence that was very low quality with unvalidated outcome measures and thus the true effect of the interventions is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.
PROSPERO Registration number: CRD42023429861.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信