Search tips
Search criteria 


Logo of qualhcLink to Publisher's site
Qual Health Care. 1996 March; 5(1): 20–30.
PMCID: PMC1055350

Primary hip and knee replacement surgery: Ontario criteria for case selection and surgical priority.


OBJECTIVES--To develop, from simple clinical factors, criteria to identify appropriate patients for referral to a surgeon for consideration for arthroplasty, and to rank them in the queue once surgery is agreed. DESIGN--Delphi process, with a panel including orthopaedic surgeons, rheumatologists, general practitioners, epidemiologists, and physiotherapists, who rated 120 case scenarios for appropriateness and 42 for waiting list priority. Scenarios incorporated combinations of relevant clinical factors. It was assumed that queues should be organised not simply by chronology but by clinical and social impact of delayed surgery. The panel focused on information obtained from clinical histories, to ensure the utility of the guidelines in practice. Relevant high quality research evidence was limited. SETTING--Ontario, Canada. MAIN MEASURES--Appropriateness ratings on a 7-point scale, and urgency rankings on a 4-point scale keyed to specific waiting times. RESULTS--Despite incomplete evidence panellists agreed on ratings in 92.5% of appropriateness and 73.8% of urgency scenarios versus 15% and 18% agreement expected by chance, respectively. Statistically validated algorithms in decision tree form, which should permit rapid estimation of urgency or appropriateness in practice, were compiled by recursive partitioning. Rating patterns and algorithms were also used to make brief written guidelines on how clinical factors affect appropriateness and urgency of surgery. A summary score was provided for each case scenario; scenarios could then be matched to chart audit results, with scoring for quality management. CONCLUSIONS--These algorithms and criteria can be used by managers or practitioners to assess appropriateness of referral for hip or knee replacement and relative rankings of patients in the queue for surgery.

Full text

Full text is available as a scanned copy of the original print version. Get a printable copy (PDF file) of the complete article (1.8M), or click on a page image below to browse page by page. Links to PubMed are also available for Selected References.

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
  • Cleary PD, Greenfield S, McNeil BJ. Assessing quality of life after surgery. Control Clin Trials. 1991 Aug;12(4 Suppl):189S–203S. [PubMed]
  • Kantz ME, Harris WJ, Levitsky K, Ware JE, Jr, Davies AR. Methods for assessing condition-specific and generic functional status outcomes after total knee replacement. Med Care. 1992 May;30(5 Suppl):MS240–MS252. [PubMed]
  • Laupacis A, Bourne R, Rorabeck C, Feeny D, Wong C, Tugwell P, Leslie K, Bullas R. The effect of elective total hip replacement on health-related quality of life. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993 Nov;75(11):1619–1626. [PubMed]
  • Liang MH, Cullen KE, Larson MG, Thompson MS, Schwartz JA, Fossel AH, Roberts WN, Sledge CB. Cost-effectiveness of total joint arthroplasty in osteoarthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 1986 Aug;29(8):937–943. [PubMed]
  • Jonsson B, Larsson SE. Functional improvement and costs of hip and knee arthroplasty in destructive rheumatoid arthritis. Scand J Rheumatol. 1991;20(5):351–357. [PubMed]
  • Katz JN, Larson MG, Phillips CB, Fossel AH, Liang MH. Comparative measurement sensitivity of short and longer health status instruments. Med Care. 1992 Oct;30(10):917–925. [PubMed]
  • Wennberg JE, Freeman JL, Culp WJ. Are hospital services rationed in New Haven or over-utilised in Boston? Lancet. 1987 May 23;1(8543):1185–1189. [PubMed]
  • Peterson MG, Hollenberg JP, Szatrowski TP, Johanson NA, Mancuso CA, Charlson ME. Geographic variations in the rates of elective total hip and knee arthroplasties among Medicare beneficiaries in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1992 Dec;74(10):1530–1539. [PubMed]
  • Rajaratnam G, Black NA, Dalziel M. Total hip replacements in the National Health Service: is need being met? J Public Health Med. 1990 Feb;12(1):56–59. [PubMed]
  • Williams MH, Newton JN, Frankel SJ, Braddon F, Barclay E, Gray JA. Prevalence of total hip replacement: how much demand has been met? J Epidemiol Community Health. 1994 Apr;48(2):188–191. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Wright JG, Coyte P, Hawker G, Bombardier C, Cooke D, Heck D, Dittus R, Freund D. Variation in orthopedic surgeons' perceptions of the indications for and outcomes of knee replacement. CMAJ. 1995 Mar 1;152(5):687–697. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Tierney WM, Fitzgerald JF, Heck DA, Kennedy JM, Katz BP, Melfi CA, Dittus RS, Allen DI, Freund DA. Tricompartmental knee replacement. A comparison of orthopaedic surgeons' self reported performance rates with surgical indications, contraindications, and expected outcomes. Knee Replacement Patient Outcomes Research Team. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994 Aug;(305):209–217. [PubMed]
  • Lowry RJ, Donaldson LJ, Gregg PJ. Variations in clinical decisions: a study of orthopaedic patients. Public Health. 1991 Sep;105(5):351–355. [PubMed]
  • Tomlinson M, Cullen J. A clinical audit of patients on an orthopaedic waiting list for greater than two years. N Z Med J. 1992 Jul 8;105(937):266–268. [PubMed]
  • Coyte PC, Wright JG, Hawker GA, Bombardier C, Dittus RS, Paul JE, Freund DA, Ho E. Waiting times for knee-replacement surgery in the United States and Ontario. N Engl J Med. 1994 Oct 20;331(16):1068–1071. [PubMed]
  • Ho E, Coyte PC, Bombardier C, Hawker G, Wright JG. Ontario patients' acceptance of waiting times for knee replacements. J Rheumatol. 1994 Nov;21(11):2101–2105. [PubMed]
  • Brook RH, Chassin MR, Fink A, Solomon DH, Kosecoff J, Park RE. A method for the detailed assessment of the appropriateness of medical technologies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1986;2(1):53–63. [PubMed]
  • Park RE, Fink A, Brook RH, Chassin MR, Kahn KL, Merrick NJ, Kosecoff J, Solomon DH. Physician ratings of appropriate indications for six medical and surgical procedures. Am J Public Health. 1986 Jul;76(7):766–772. [PubMed]
  • Naylor CD, Baigrie RS, Goldman BS, Basinski A. Assessment of priority for coronary revascularisation procedures. Revascularisation Panel and Consensus Methods Group. Lancet. 1990 May 5;335(8697):1070–1073. [PubMed]
  • Naylor CD, Baigrie RS, Goldman BS, Cairns JA, Beanlands DS, Berman N, Borts D, Fitchett DH, Haq A, Hess A, et al. Assigning priority to patients requiring coronary revascularization: consensus principles from a panel of cardiologists and cardiac surgeons. Can J Cardiol. 1991 Jun;7(5):207–213. [PubMed]
  • Phelps CE. The methodologic foundations of studies of the appropriateness of medical care. N Engl J Med. 1993 Oct 21;329(17):1241–1245. [PubMed]
  • Hicks NR. Some observations on attempts to measure appropriateness of care. BMJ. 1994 Sep 17;309(6956):730–733. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Naylor CD, Sibbald WJ, Sprung CL, Pinfold SP, Calvin JE, Cerra FB. Pulmonary artery catheterization. Can there be an integrated strategy for guideline development and research promotion? JAMA. 1993 May 12;269(18):2407–2411. [PubMed]
  • Naylor CD. Grey zones of clinical practice: some limits to evidence-based medicine. Lancet. 1995 Apr 1;345(8953):840–842. [PubMed]
  • Callahan CM, Drake BG, Heck DA, Dittus RS. Patient outcomes following tricompartmental total knee replacement. A meta-analysis. JAMA. 1994 May 4;271(17):1349–1357. [PubMed]
  • Ranawat CS, Boachie-Adjei O. Survivorship analysis and results of total condylar knee arthroplasty. Eight- to 11-year follow-up period. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1988 Jan;(226):6–13. [PubMed]
  • Marmor L. Unicompartmental arthroplasty of the knee with a minimum ten-year follow-up period. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1988 Mar;(228):171–177. [PubMed]
  • Stern SH, Insall JN. Total knee arthroplasty in obese patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1990 Oct;72(9):1400–1404. [PubMed]
  • Langan P, Weiss CA. Hip rating scales: a clinical analysis. Int Surg. 1981 Oct-Dec;66(4):331–333. [PubMed]
  • McDowell IW, Martini CJ, Waugh W. A method for self-assessment of disability before and after hip replacement operations. Br Med J. 1978 Sep 23;2(6141):857–859. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Harris WH. Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. An end-result study using a new method of result evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1969 Jun;51(4):737–755. [PubMed]
  • Insall JN, Ranawat CS, Aglietti P, Shine J. A comparison of four models of total knee-replacement prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1976 Sep;58(6):754–765. [PubMed]
  • Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW. Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol. 1988 Dec;15(12):1833–1840. [PubMed]
  • Ware JE, Jr, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992 Jun;30(6):473–483. [PubMed]
  • McHorney CA, Ware JE, Jr, Raczek AE. The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Med Care. 1993 Mar;31(3):247–263. [PubMed]
  • McHorney CA, Ware JE, Jr, Lu JF, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): III. Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability across diverse patient groups. Med Care. 1994 Jan;32(1):40–66. [PubMed]
  • Hochberg MC, Chang RW, Dwosh I, Lindsey S, Pincus T, Wolfe F. The American College of Rheumatology 1991 revised criteria for the classification of global functional status in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 1992 May;35(5):498–502. [PubMed]
  • Broughton NS, Newman JH, Baily RA. Unicompartmental replacement and high tibial osteotomy for osteoarthritis of the knee. A comparative study after 5-10 years' follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1986 May;68(3):447–452. [PubMed]
  • Ranawat CS, Padgett DE, Ohashi Y. Total knee arthroplasty for patients younger than 55 years. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989 Nov;(248):27–33. [PubMed]
  • Coventry MB. Upper tibial osteotomy for gonarthrosis. The evolution of the operation in the last 18 years and long term results. Orthop Clin North Am. 1979 Jan;10(1):191–210. [PubMed]
  • Mont MA, Antonaides S, Krackow KA, Hungerford DS. Total knee arthroplasty after failed high tibial osteotomy. A comparison with a matched group. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994 Feb;(299):125–130. [PubMed]
  • Surin VV, Sundholm K. Survival of patients and prostheses after total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1983 Jul-Aug;(177):148–153. [PubMed]
  • Schurman DJ, Bloch DA, Segal MR, Tanner CM. Conventional cemented total hip arthroplasty. Assessment of clinical factors associated with revision for mechanical failure. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989 Mar;(240):173–180. [PubMed]
  • Sarmiento A, Ebramzadeh E, Gogan WJ, McKellop HA. Total hip arthroplasty with cement. A long-term radiographic analysis in patients who are older than fifty and younger than fifty years. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1990 Dec;72(10):1470–1476. [PubMed]
  • Cook EF, Goldman L. Empiric comparison of multivariate analytic techniques: advantages and disadvantages of recursive partitioning analysis. J Chronic Dis. 1984;37(9-10):721–731. [PubMed]

Articles from Quality in Health Care : QHC are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group