Thank you for this invitation from Anna. My name is Olufemi Ayani from Canada. I'd like to also acknowledge my co-author, Yoan Bourgeois-Gagnon, who is currently a fellow. My topic today is on post-operative protocols and patient-reported outcomes, and I give you my best regards from McMaster University. Here are my disclosures. There are several types of outcome measures, which we're all aware of. Some are patient-reported and known as PROMs, and also there are some that are physician-derived. The patient-reported outcomes directly link to patient status, function, or quality of life, and these PROMs can be qualitative or quantitative. And if they're, for example, qualitative, they tend to be more subjective, and quantitative do have objective metrics that are measured. They certainly are increasingly being used to really assess how we perform our procedures and the impact on patient quality of life, and it certainly depends on patient participation. When it comes to physician-derived measures, these tend to be quantitative in nature, for example, range of motion and functional assessments, and these measurements, although important, may not always correlate or correspond with the impact on quality of life, and typically they require inpatient assessments. When it comes to patient-reported outcome measures, they certainly are subjective when reported by patients, but they can provide insights into the recovery, the milestones the patients are attaining, and also really fill in that additional information or gap that a quantitative objective measure may not provide. And they're certainly more important with regards to measuring the outcomes after surgery, and when you look at patient-reported outcomes in the literature at hip preservation or hip arthroscopy, you've seen a general increase in the number of publications addressing this because it is quite an important topic, really looking at assessing how well surgeons and other clinicians are doing in this field. There's certainly many types of patient-reported outcome measures. The point here with this slide is to really highlight the key components of them and perhaps not cover every single one. General PROMs usually broadly assess the patient's quality of life, and these include the visual analog scale, which addresses pain, the SF-12 and EQ-5D, really looking at general quality of life measurements. And also, separate ones may include return to sport assessments or return to work assessments, but broadly you're looking at the impact of the intervention on the patient quality of life through these general measures, and these are important because with these general measures that you see on this slide, you can compare different procedures. Then there are hip-specific PROMs that really assess, as you see on this slide, hip-specific measures that impact quality of life. These are very important, hip-specific, and really designed to target the procedures or interventions that relate to hip preservation or hip arthroscopy in this case. There are also indirect measures of hip function and surgical adverse events. You may be looking at investigating a hip procedure or a hip-based procedure, but really looking at components such as urinary function post-intervention, sexual function post-intervention. So these are indirect measures that don't directly measure hip function, but do measure associated important outcomes that are clearly important to the patient. PROMs for FAI. The Warwick Agreement on Femoris Tabula Impingement Syndrome was an international consensus. It certainly was a very comprehensive consensus meeting, and it did provide some guardrails as to what we should be looking at when it comes to hip preservation and hip arthroscopy, specifically for FAI. The IHOT, the International Hip Outcome Tool, the Hip and Groin Outcome Score, or HIGAS, and the Hip Outcome Score, or HOS, were noted to be valid measures to assess young adults with hip pain. With FAI in particular, the IHOT and HIGAS were patient-derived in populations in those who typically sustain the condition, and they were noted to be very important. As mentioned before, general quality of life measurements, including the EQ5D, the SF12, or SF36, or the PROMs were noted to be recommended scores to assess general quality of life with this condition. Choosing the right PROMs. Well, there are certainly factors to consider. Making sure you have age appropriateness is important because hip conditions such as FAI are typically reported in the young adult, and so really making sure your measure of outcome is addressing that population or has been derived from that population is important. And for now, we do have gaps in the pediatric or adolescent population that would require future investigation. It's also important to make sure that you're measuring your PROMs at the right timelines or really understanding that timelines are important. Short-term measures are typically one to two years post-intervention, medium-term, five years, and long-term, 10 years. So really measuring patient outcomes immediately after surgery may not capture the impact of your intervention. And then also having a good context understanding is important to ensure that the outcomes that patients, specifically athletic patients, are interested in are captured in your outcome measure. Relevant PROs are what's important. So really administer patient-reported outcome measures that are relevant to your population of study. But apart from that, be aware of the minimally clinically important difference. So you may have a significant difference, but ask yourself the question, is that difference important to the patient? And there are numerous measures now of many of these outcome tools that have been documented in the literature. So don't just strictly look at significant outcomes or differences, but also ensure that those differences do make a difference to the patient. And I'd advise you to keep up to date as these measures are always evolving and improving and targeting different populations that we encounter in practice. Thank you.

post-operative protocols

patient-reported outcome measures

quality of life

surgical outcomes

minimal clinically important difference