PROMIS Versus Legacy Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Patients Undergoing Surgical Treatment for Symptomatic Acetabular Dysplasia.

BACKGROUND: No previous study has investigated how the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) performs compared with legacy patient-reported outcome measures in patients with symptomatic acetabular dysplasia treated with periacetabular osteotomy (PAO).

PURPOSE: To (1) measure the strength of correlation between the PROMIS and legacy outcome measures and (2) assess floor and ceiling effects of the PROMIS and legacy outcome measures in patients treated with PAO for symptomatic acetabular dysplasia.

STUDY DESIGN: Cohort study (Diagnosis); Level of evidence, 2.

METHODS: This study included 220 patients who underwent PAO for the treatment of symptomatic acetabular dysplasia. Outcome measures included the Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS) pain, HOOS activities of daily living (ADL), modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), PROMIS pain, and PROMIS physical function subsets, with scores collected preoperatively and/or postoperatively at a minimum 12-month follow-up. The change in mean scores from preoperatively to postoperatively was calculated only in a subgroup of 57 patients with scores at both time points. Distributions of the PROMIS and legacy scores were compared to evaluate floor and ceiling effects, and Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to evaluate agreement.

RESULTS: The mean age at the time of surgery was 27.7 years, and 83.6% were female. The mean follow-up time was 1.5 years. Preoperatively, neither the PROMIS nor the legacy measures showed significant floor or ceiling effects. Postoperatively, all legacy measures showed significant ceiling effects, with 15% of patients with a maximum HOOS pain score of 100, 29% with a HOOS ADL score of 100, and 21% with an mHHS score of 100. The PROMIS and legacy instruments showed good agreement preoperatively and postoperatively. The PROMIS pain had a moderate to strong negative correlation with the HOOS pain ( r = -0.66; P < .0001) and mHHS ( r = -0.60; P < .0001) preoperatively and the HOOS pain ( r = -0.64; P < .0001) and mHHS ( r = -0.64; P < .0001) postoperatively. The PROMIS physical function had a moderate positive correlation with the HOOS ADL ( r = 0.51; P < .0001) and mHHS ( r = 0.49; P < .0001) preoperatively and a stronger correlation postoperatively with the HOOS ADL ( r = 0.56; P < .0001) and mHHS ( r = 0.56; P < .0001).

CONCLUSION: We found good agreement between PROMIS and legacy scores preoperatively and postoperatively. PROMIS scores were largely normally distributed, demonstrating an expanded ability to capture variability in patients with improved outcomes after treatment.