ORCID Profile
0000-0002-6715-8027
Current Organisations
University of St Andrews
,
Imperial College London
,
University of Nottingham
,
Korea University
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: BMJ
Date: 08-2016
Publisher: British Editorial Society of Bone & Joint Surgery
Date: 07-2020
DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.102B7.BJJ-2019-0102.R2
Abstract: To calculate how the likelihood of obtaining measurable benefit from hip or knee arthroplasty varies with preoperative patient-reported scores. Existing UK data from 222,933 knee and 209,760 hip arthroplasty patients were used to model an in idual’s probability of gaining meaningful improvement after surgery based on their preoperative Oxford Knee or Hip Score (OKS/OHS). A clinically meaningful improvement after arthroplasty was defined as ≥ 8 point improvement in OHS, and ≥ 7 in OKS. The upper preoperative score threshold, above which patients are unlikely to achieve any meaningful improvement from surgery, is 41 for knees and 40 for hips. At lower scores, the probability of improvement increased towards a maximum of 88% (knee) and 95% for (hips). By our definition of meaningful improvement, patients with preoperative scores above 41 (OKS) and 40 (OHS) should not be routinely referred to secondary care for possible arthroplasty. Using lower thresholds would incrementally increase the probability of meaningful benefit for those referred but will exclude some patients with potential to benefit. The findings are useful to support the complex shared decision-making process in primary care for referral to secondary care and in secondary care for experienced clinicians counselling patients considering knee or hip arthroplasty, but should not be used in isolation. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020 -B(7):941–949.
Publisher: BMJ
Date: 10-2019
DOI: 10.1136/BMJOPEN-2018-025357
Abstract: We have previously developed and validated the Arthritis Research UK Musculoskeletal Health Questionnaire (MSK-HQ) for use across musculoskeletal care pathways, showing encouraging psychometric test results. The objective of this study was to determine the responsiveness of MSK-HQ following MSK treatments and to determine the minimally important change (MIC). We collected data in four cohorts from community physiotherapy and secondary-care orthopaedic hip, knee and shoulder clinics. 592 in iduals were recruited 210 patients treated with physiotherapy for a range of MSK conditions in primary care 150 patients undergoing hip replacement, 150 patients undergoing knee replacement and 82 undergoing shoulder surgery in secondary care. Preoperative data were collected including the MSK-HQ, European Quality of Life-5D (EQ-5D) and the OHS, OKS or OSS in each joint-specific group. The same scores, together with anchor questions, were collected postintervention at 3 months for the physiotherapy group and 6 months for all others. Following COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidelines, responsiveness was assessed using correlation between scores and the MIC was calculated for the entire cohort using receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. The MSK-HQ demonstrated strong correlation (R=0.73) with EQ-5D across the entire cohort and with each of the joint-specific Oxford scores (hip R=0.87, knee R=0.92 and shoulder R=0.77). Moderate correlation was seen between MSK-HQ and EQ-5D across each in idual group (R value range 0.60–0.68), apart from the hip group where correlation was strong (R=0.77). The effect size with MSK-HQ was 0.93, in the entire cohort, double that measured with EQ-5D (0.43). In all subgroups, MSK-HQ measured a greater treatment effect compared with EQ-5D. The MIC is 5.5 (95% CI 2.7 to 8.3). Our study demonstrates that the MSK-HQ questionnaire is responsive to change across a range of musculoskeletal conditions, supporting its use as a generic MSK measurement instrument.
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 12-2017
DOI: 10.1016/J.KNEE.2017.08.003
Abstract: Since 2011, the knee service at the Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre has been offering a neutralising medial opening wedge high tibial osteotomy (HTO) to a specific group of patients with genu varum and early knee osteoarthritis. An observation was made concerning this group of patients and the presence of CAM deformity at the hip. The aim of this study is to establish whether or not any association exists between the OA phenotype shared by our HTO group and the incidence of CAM deformity at the hip. A cross-sectional study was designed to estimate the prevalence of CAM-type lesions across different groups of in iduals. Our HTO group (n=30) was compared to a pre-arthroplasty group (n=20) and control group (n=20). A total of 70 subjects were identified across the different groups all of whom had long-leg radiographs (LLRs) available for analysis. LLRs were analysed using an in house developed Matlab®-based (Matlab R2009b MathWorks) software package for hip measurements and MediCAD® (Hectec GmbH, Germany) for lower limb alignment measurements. The HTO group had a significantly higher prevalence of CAM lesions (57%) than both the pre-arthroplasty (40%) and control (30%) groups. This difference was maintained when results were adjusted for potential confounding factors (age, gender and laterality). Across the groups, in iduals with tibia vara were more likely to have CAM-deformity of the hip (p=0.021). Patients with symptomatic early knee OA and varus deformity of the knee have a high prevalence of CAM deformity in the hip.
Publisher: National Institute for Health and Care Research
Date: 06-2019
DOI: 10.3310/HTA23320
Abstract: There is no good evidence to support the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in setting preoperative thresholds for referral for hip and knee replacement surgery. Despite this, the practice is widespread in the NHS. Can clinical outcome tools be used to set thresholds for hip or knee replacement? What is the relationship between the choice of threshold and the cost-effectiveness of surgery? A systematic review identified PROMs used to assess patients undergoing hip/knee replacement. Their measurement properties were compared and supplemented by analysis of existing data sets. For each candidate score, we calculated the absolute threshold (a preoperative level above which there is no potential for improvement) and relative thresholds (preoperative levels above which in iduals are less likely to improve than others). Owing to their measurement properties and the availability of data from their current widespread use in the NHS, the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and Oxford Hip Score (OHS) were selected as the most appropriate scores to use in developing the Arthroplasty Candidacy Help Engine (ACHE) tool. The change in score and the probability of an improvement were then calculated and modelled using preoperative and postoperative OKS/OHSs and PROM scores, thereby creating the ACHE tool. Markov models were used to assess the cost-effectiveness of total hip/knee arthroplasty in the NHS for different preoperative values of OKS/OHSs over a 10-year period. The threshold values were used to model how the ACHE tool may change the number of referrals in a single UK musculoskeletal hub. A user group was established that included patients, members of the public and health-care representatives, to provide stakeholder feedback throughout the research process. From a shortlist of four scores, the OHS and OKS were selected for the ACHE tool based on their measurement properties, calculated preoperative thresholds and cost-effectiveness data. The absolute threshold was 40 for the OHS and 41 for the OKS using the preferred improvement criterion. A range of relative thresholds were calculated based on the relationship between a patient’s preoperative score and their probability of improving after surgery. For ex le, a preoperative OHS of 35 or an OKS of 30 translates to a 75% probability of achieving a good outcome from surgical intervention. The economic evaluation demonstrated that hip and knee arthroplasty cost of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year for patients with any preoperative score below the absolute thresholds (40 for the OHS and 41 for the OKS). Arthroplasty was most cost-effective for patients with lower preoperative scores. The ACHE tool supports but does not replace the shared decision-making process required before an in idual decides whether or not to undergo surgery. The OHS and OKS can be used in the ACHE tool to assess an in idual patient’s suitability for hip/knee replacement surgery. The system enables evidence-based and informed threshold setting in accordance with local resources and policies. At a population level, both hip and knee arthroplasty are highly cost-effective right up to the absolute threshold for intervention. Our stakeholder user group felt that the ACHE tool was a useful evidence-based clinical tool to aid referrals and that it should be trialled in NHS clinical practice to establish its feasibility. Future work could include (1) a real-world study of the ACHE tool to determine its acceptability to patients and general practitioners and (2) a study of the role of the ACHE tool in supporting referral decisions. The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
No related grants have been discovered for Sujin Kang.