Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Test Is Less Responsive Than Legacy Hip-Specific Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Patients Undergoing Arthroscopy for Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome

Abstract

PurposeTo evaluate and compare the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Physical Function (PF) computerized adaptive test and PROMIS Pain Interference (PI) instruments versus legacy patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome at 1-year follow-up.MethodsPatients undergoing primary hip arthroscopy for the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome without concomitant procedures performed by a single surgeon between August 2018 and January 2019 were identified. The PROMIS PF score, PROMIS PI score, Hip Outcome Score–Activities of Daily Living Subscale (HOS-ADL), Hip Outcome Score–Sports Subscale (HOS-SS), modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), International Hip Outcome Tool 12 (iHOT-12), and visual analog scale (VAS) pain score were obtained preoperatively and at 6 months and 1 year postoperatively. Bivariate correlation analyses between PROMIS and legacy PROMs were performed. The floor and ceiling effects, responsiveness, and relative efficiency (RE) of each PROM were calculated.ResultsThis study included 124 patients with an average age of 32.7 ± 12.3 years. The PROMIS PF score showed very good correlations with the HOS-ADL (r = 0.73, P < .001) and mHHS (r = 0.70, P < .001) and good correlations with the HOS-SS (r = 0.62, P < .001), iHOT-12 score (r = 0.62, P < .001), and VAS pain score (r = –0.64, P < .001). The PROMIS PI score showed very good inverse correlations with the HOS-ADL (r = –0.72, P < .001) and mHHS (r = –0.79, P < .001) and good correlations with the HOS-SS (r = –0.64, P < .001), iHOT-12 score (r = –0.65, P < .001), and VAS pain score (r = 0.65, P < .001). No floor effect was observed for any measure. Ceiling effects were not observed in the PROMIS PROMs but were detected for the HOS-ADL (16.1%) and mHHS (19.3%). The effect size was large for all outcomes: iHOT-12 score, d = 1.77; HOS-ADL, d = 1.37; HOS-SS, d = 1.45; PROMIS PI score, d = 1.05; and PROMIS PF score, d = 1.01. The iHOT-12 score was more responsive than the PROMIS PI score (RE = 1.69), PROMIS PF score (RE = 1.75), HOS-ADL (RE = 1.29), and HOS-SS (RE = 1.22).ConclusionsAt 1-year follow-up, PROMIS PROMs displayed very good correlations with legacy PROMs. However, PROMIS PROMs had lower effect sizes and were not as responsive as legacy PROMs.Level of EvidenceLevel II, development of diagnostic criteria on the basis of consecutive patients.