Skip to main content Accessibility help

The Alberta hip and knee replacement project: A model for health technology assessment based on comparative effectiveness of clinical pathways

  • Katherine L. Gooch (a1), Douglas Smith (a2), Tracy Wasylak (a3), Peter D. Faris (a2), Deborah A. Marshall (a2), Hoa Khong (a2), Julie E. Hibbert (a2), Robyn D. Parker (a2), Ronald F. Zernicke (a4), Lauren Beaupre (a5), Tim Pearce (a3), D. W. C. Johnston (a3) and Cyril B. Frank (a2)...


Background: The Alberta Hip and Knee Replacement Project developed a new evidence-based clinical pathway (NCP) for total hip (THR) and knee (TKR) replacement. The aim was to facilitate the delivery of services in a timely and cost-effective manner while achieving the highest quality of care for the patient across the full continuum of care from patient referral to an orthopedic surgeon through surgery, recovery, and rehabilitation. The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of the study design, rationale, and execution of this project as a model for health technology assessment based on comparative effectiveness of alternative clinical pathways.

Methods: A pragmatic randomized controlled trial study design was used to evaluate the NCP compared with the standard of care (SOC) for these procedures. The pragmatic study design was selected as a rigorous approach to produce high quality evidence suitable for informing decisions between relevant interventions in real clinical practice. The NCP was evaluated in three of the nine regional health authorities (RHAs) in Alberta with dedicated central intake clinics offering multidisciplinary care teams, constituting 80 percent of THR and TKR surgeries performed annually in Alberta. Patients were identified in the offices of twenty orthopedic surgeons who routinely performed THR or TKR surgeries. Evaluation outcome measures were based on the six dimensions of the Alberta Quality Matrix for Health (AQMH): acceptability, accessibility, appropriateness, effectiveness, efficiency and safety. Data were collected prospectively through patient self-completed questionnaires at baseline and 3 and 12 months after surgery, ambulatory and inpatient chart reviews, and electronic administrative data.

Results: The trial design was successful in establishing similar groups for rigorous evaluation. Of the 4,985 patients invited to participate, 69 percent of patients consented. A total of 3,434 patients were randomized: 1,712 to SOC and 1,722 to the NCP. The baseline characteristics of patients in the two study arms, including demographics, comorbidity as measured by CDS and exposure to pain medications, and health-related quality of life, as measured by Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index and Short Form-36, were similar.

Conclusions: The Alberta Hip and Knee Replacement Project demonstrates the feasibility and advantages of applying a pragmatic randomized controlled trial to ascertain comparative effectiveness. This is a model for health technology assessment that incorporates how clinical pathways can be effectively evaluated.



Hide All
1. Aaronson, NK, Acquadro, C, Alonso, J et al. , International quality of life assessment (IQOLA) project. Qual Life Res. 1992;1:349351.
2. Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality. US Department of Health & Human Services. National Guideline Clearinghouse. (accessed December 18, 2008).
3. Alberta Regional Health Authorities. The careguide source for seniors. (accessed November 14, 2008).
4. Australian Orthopaedic Association. National Joint Replacement Registry Annual Report 2007. (accessed November 23, 2008).
5. Bellamy, N. WOMAC osteoarthritis index- user guide VII. Brisbane, Australia: 2004.
6. 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;15:18331840.
7. Berry, DJ, Harmsen, WS, Cabanela, ME, Morrey, BF. Twenty-five-year survivorship of two thousand consecutive primary Charnley total hip replacements: Factors affecting survivorship of acetabular and femoral components. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84:171177.
8. Boutron, I, Moher, D, Altman, DG, Schulz, KF, Ravaud, P, CONSORT Group. Extending the CONSORT statement to randomized trials of nonpharmacologic treatment: Explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148:295309.
9. Brunenberg, DE van Steyn, MJ, Sluimer, JC et al. , Joint recovery programme versus usual care: An economic evaluation of a clinical pathway for joint replacement surgery. Med Care. 2005;43:10181026.
10. Canadian Institute of Health Information (CIHI). Canadian Joint Replacement Registry (CJRR) 2006 annual report. Hip and knee replacements in Canada 2006.
11. Clark, DO, Von Korff, M, Saunders, K, Baluch, WM, Simon, GE. A chronic disease score with empirically derived weights. Med Care. 1995;33:783795.
12. Cushnaghan, J, Bennett, J, Reading, I et al. , Long-term outcome following total knee arthroplasty: A controlled longitudinal study. Ann Rheum Dis. 2008 [Epub ahead of print].
13. Darer, J, Pronovost, P, Bass, EB. Use and evaluation of critical pathways in hospitals. Eff Clin Pract. 2002;5:114119.
14. Dixon, T, Shaw, ME, Dieppe, PA. Analysis of regional variation in hip and knee joint replacement rates in England using hospital episodes statistics. Public Health. 2006;120:8390.
15. Dowsey, MM, Kilgour, ML, Santamaria, NM, Choong, PF. Clinical pathways in hip and knee arthroplasty: A prospective randomised controlled study. Med J Aust. 1999;170:5962.
16. Dy, SM, Garg, P, Nyberg, D et al. , Critical pathway effectiveness: Assessing the impact of patient, hospital care, and pathway characteristics using qualitative comparative analysis. Health Serv Res. 2005;40:499516.
17. El Baz, N, Middel, B, van Dijk, JP et al. , Are the outcomes of clinical pathways evidence-based? A critical appraisal of clinical pathway evaluation research. J Eval Clin Pract. 2007;13:920929.
18. Ernst, E, Canter, PH. Limitations of “pragmatic” trials. Postgrad Med J. 2005;81:203.
19. Freemantle, N, Blonde, L, Bolinder, B et al. , Real-world trials to answer real-world questions. Pharmacoeconomics. 2005;23:747754.
20. Garrison, LP Jr, Neumann, PJ, Erickson, P, Marshall, D, Mullins, CD. Using real-world data for coverage and payment decisions: The ISPOR real-world data task force report. Value Health. 2007;10:326–35.
21. Glasgow, RE, Magid, DJ, Beck, A, Ritzwoller, D, Estabrooks, PA. Practical clinical trials for translating research to practice: Design and measurement recommendations. Med Care. 2005;43:551557.
22. Health Quality Council of Alberta. Alberta Quality Matrix for Health (AQMH) user guide 2005.
23. Healy, WL, Ayers, ME, Iorio, R et al. , Impact of a clinical pathway and implant standardization on total hip arthroplasty: A clinical and economic study of short-term patient outcome. J Arthroplasty. 1998;13:266276.
24. Jain, NB, Higgins, LD, Ozumba, D et al. , Trends in epidemiology of knee arthroplasty in the United States, 1990–2000. Arthritis Rheum. 2005;52:39283933.
25. Joint Replacement Unit, Sahlgrenska University Hospital. Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register annual report 2006. (accessed November 21, 2008).
26. Lin, YK, Su, JY, Lin, GT et al. , Impact of a clinical pathway for total knee arthroplasty. Kaohsiung J Med Sci. 2002;18:134140.
27. Lingard, EA, Berven, S, Katz, JN, Kinemax Outcomes Group. Management and care of patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty: Variations across different health care settings. Arthritis Care Res. 2000;13:129136.
28. Macario, A, Horne, M, Goodman, S et al. , The effect of a perioperative clinical pathway for knee replacement surgery on hospital costs. Anesth Analg. 1998;86:978984.
29. Macdonald, SJ, Charron, KD, Bourne, RB et al. , The John Insall Award: Gender-specific total knee replacement: Prospectively collected clinical outcomes. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466:26122616.
30. Macpherson, H. Pragmatic clinical trials. Complement Ther Med. 2004;12:136140.
31. McMahon, AD. Study control, violators, inclusion criteria and defining explanatory and pragmatic trials. Stat Med. 2002;21:13651376.
32. National Health Services Scotland. Scottish Arthroplasty Project annual report 2008. (accessed November 23, 2008).
33. Panella, M, Marchisio, S, Di Stanislao, F. Reducing clinical variations with clinical pathways: Do pathways work? Int J Qual Health Care. 2003;15:509521.
34. Pearson, SD, Kleefield, SF, Soukop, JR, Cook, EF, Lee, TH. Critical pathways intervention to reduce length of hospital stay. Am J Med. 2001;110:175180.
35. Pennington, JM, Jones, DP, McIntyre, S. Clinical pathways in total knee arthroplasty: A New Zealand experience. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong). 2003;11:166173.
36. Renholm, M, Leino-Kilpi, H, Suominen, T. Critical pathways. A systematic review. J Nurs Adm. 2002;32:196202.
37. Rissanen, P, Aro, S, Sintonen, H, Slatis, P, Paavolainen, P. Quality of life and functional ability in hip and knee replacements: A prospective study. Qual Life Res. 1996;5:5664.
38. Roland, M, Torgerson, DJ. What are pragmatic trials? BMJ. 1998;316:285.
39. Roos EM. Effectiveness and practice variation of rehabilitation after joint replacement. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2003;15:160162.
40. Schwartz, D, Lellouch, J. Explanatory and pragmatic attitudes in therapeutical trials. J Chronic Dis. 1967;20:637648.
41. Teutsch, SM, Berger, ML, Weinstein, MC. Comparative effectiveness: Asking the right questions, choosing the right method. Health Aff (Millwood). 2005;24:128132.
42. Tunis, SR, Stryer, DB, Clancy, CM. Practical clinical trials: Increasing the value of clinical research for decision making in clinical and health policy. JAMA. 2003;290:16241632.
43. Vanhaecht, K, Sermeus, W, Tuerlinckx, G et al. , Development of a clinical pathway for total knee arthroplasty and the effect on length of stay and in-hospital functional outcome. Acta Orthop Belg. 2005;71:439444.
44. Walter, FL, Bass, N, Bock, G, Markel, DC. Success of clinical pathways for total joint arthroplasty in a community hospital. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;457:133137.
45. Wertheimer, AI. The defined daily dose system (DDD) for drug utilization review. Hosp Pharm. 1986;21:233234, 239–241, 258.
46. WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology. ATC/DDD applications. (accessed January 16, 2009).
47. Wilensky, GR. Developing a center for comparative effectiveness information. Health Aff (Millwood). 2006;25:w572w585.
48. Zwarenstein, M, Treweek, S, Gagnier, JJ et al. , Improving the reporting of pragmatic trials: An extension of the CONSORT statement. BMJ. 2008;337:a2390.


Type Description Title
Supplementary materials

Gooch supplementary materials
Supplementary lists

 Word (56 KB)
56 KB


Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed