Outcome Measurements Following Total Knee Arthroplasty
Article Sidebar
Published:
Oct 31, 2015
Keywords:
Total knee arthroplasty osteoarthritis outcome measurements
Main Article Content
Abstract
Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a definite surgical treatment for late stage knee osteoarthritis.
Currently, there are several outcome measurements following TKA which evaluate clinical signs and symptoms, functional activities, and postoperative radiographs. Patient-based evaluation with disease-specific assessment is simple while it provides good validity and reliability. Regarding patient-based evaluations with general health assessment, the short-form health survey (SF)-12 is less time consuming than the SF-36, while providing similar validity and reliability. Although the surgeon-based evaluation is still commonly used in outcome measurement following TKA, it has less responsiveness on the function subscale. Functional performance-based evaluation may not be a sufficient measurement at the immediate-term (< 3 months) follow up, as studies have shown poor improved function performance. However, to perform functional performance-based evaluation, the time-up-and-go test or 30-s chair stand test for performance functional-based evaluation are reliable and less time consuming assessments. On the other hand, the immediate post-surgery use of the 6-minute walk distance is somewhat questionable, as it takes a long evaluation time which may cause the patient to become exhausted.
Article Details
Section
Review Articles
References
1. Hamilton D, Henderson GR, Gaston P, et al. Comparative outcomes of total hip and knee arthroplasty: a prospective cohort study. Postgrad Med J. 2012;88:627-631.
2. Bourne RB, Chesworth BM, Davis AM, et al. Patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty: who is satisfied and who is not? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010;468: 57-63.
3. Robertsson O, Dunbar M, Pehrsson T, et al. Patient satisfaction after knee arthroplasty: a report on 27,372 knees operated on between 1981 and 1995 in Sweden. Acta Orthop Scand. 2000;71:262-267.
4. Noble PC, Conditt MA, Cook KF, Mathis KB. The John Insall Award: Patient expectations affect satisfaction with total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;452:35–43.
5. Hamilton DF, Lane JV, Gaston P, et al. What determines patient satisfaction with surgery? A prospective cohort study of 4709 patients following total joint replacement. BMJ Open. 2013;3:e002525.
6. Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, et al. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007;89A: 780.
7. Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Murray D, et al. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg (Br). 1998;80B:63-69.
8. Fitzpatrick R, Fletcher A, Gore S, et al. Quality of life measures in health care. I: Applications and issues in assessment. BMJ 1992; 305:1074-1077.
9. Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, et al. Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol 1988;15: 1833-1840.
10. Gandek B. Measurement Properties of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index: A Systematic Review. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2015;67:216-229.
11. Papathanasiou G, Stasi S, Oikonomou L, et al. Clinimetric properties of WOMAC index in Greek knee osteoarthritis patients: comparisons with both self-reported and physical performance measures. Rheumatol Int. 2015;35:115-123.
12. Jenny JY, Diesinger Y. The Oxford Knee Score: compared performance before and after knee replacement. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2012;98:409-412.
13. Jacobs CA, Christensen CP. Correlations between knee society function scores and functional force measures. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009;467: 2414-2419.
14. Giesinger JM, Kuster MS, Behrend H, et al. Association of psychological status and patient-reported physical outcome measures in joint arthroplasty: a lack of divergent validity. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013;11:64.
15. Pollard B, Johnson M, Dieppe P. What do osteoarthritis health outcome instruments measure? Impairment, activity limitation, or participation restriction? J Rheumatol 2005;33: 757-763.
16. Kantz ME, Harris WJ, Levitsky K, et al. Methods for assessing condition-specific and generic functional status outcomes after total knee replacement. Med Care. 1992 ;30:MS240-252.
17. Ko Y, Lo NN, Yeo SJ, et al. Rasch analysis of the Oxford Knee Score. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2009;17:1163-1169.
18. Ko Y, Lo NN, Yeo SJ, et al. Comparison of the responsiveness of the SF-36, the Oxford Knee Score, and the Knee Society Clinical Rating System in patients undergoing total knee replacement. Qual Life Res. 2013;22:2455-2459.
19. Roos EM, Roos HP, Lohmander LS, et al. Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)--development of a self-administered outcome measure. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1998;28:88-96.
20. Roos EM, Toksvig-Larsen S. Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) - validation and comparison to the WOMAC in total knee replacement. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003;1:17.
21. Tegner Y and Lysholm J. Rating systems in the evaluation of knee ligament injuries. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1985; 198:43-49.
22. Briggs KK, Lysholm J, Tegner Y, et al. The reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the Lysholm score and Tegner activity scale for anterior cruciate ligament injuries of the knee: 25 years later. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37:890-897.
23. Diduch DR, Insall JN, Scott WN, et al. Total knee replacement in young, active patients. Long-term follow-up and functional outcome. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997 ;79:575-582.
24. Ware JE Jr, Sherbourn CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992;30:473-483.
25. Ware J Jr, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care. 1996;34:220-233.
26. Rabin R, de Charro F. EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann Med 2001;33:337-343.
27. Fransen M, Edmonds J. Reliability and validity of the EuroQol in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. Rheumatology (Oxford). 1999;38:807-813.
28. Amstutz HC, Thomas BJ, Jinnah R, Kim W, Grogan T, Yale C. Treatment of primary osteoarthritis of the hip: a comparison of total joint and surface replacement arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1984;66:228–241.
29. Zahiri CA, Schmalzried TP, Szuszczewicz ES, et al. Assessing activity in joint replacement patients. J Arthroplasty. 1998;13:890-895.
30. Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN. Rationale of the Knee Society Clinical Rating System. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989;248:13–14.
31. Giles R. Scuderi MD, Robert B. The New Knee Society Knee Scoring System. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012; 470:3–19.
32. Noble PC, Scuderi GR, Brekke AC, et al. Development of a New Knee Society Scoring System. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470:20-32.
33. Dobson F, Hinman RS, Hall M, et al. Measurement properties of performance-based measures to assess physical function in hip and knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2012;20:1548-1562.
34. Dobson F, Hinman RS, Roos EM, et al. OARSI recommended performance-based tests to assess physical function in people diagnosed with hip or knee osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2013;21:1042-1052.
35. Jones CJ, Rikli RE, Beam WC. A 30-s chair-stand test as a measure of lower body strength in community-residing older adults. Res Q Exerc Sport. 1999;70:113-119.
36. Gill S, McBurney H. Reliability of performance-based measures in people awaiting joint replacement surgery of the hip or knee. Physiother Res Int. 2008;13:141-152.
37. Kennedy DM, Stratford PW, Wessel J, et al. Assessing stability and change of four performance measures: a longitudinal study evaluating outcome following total hip and knee arthroplasty. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2005;6:3.
38. Podsiadlo D, Richardson S. The timed “Up & Go”: a test of basic functional mobility for frail elderly persons. J Am Geriatr Soc 1991;39: 142-148.
39. Butland RJ, Pang J, Gross ER, Woodcock AA, et al. Two-, six-, and 12-minute walking tests in respiratory disease. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1982;284: 1607-1608.
40. Jakobsen TL, Kehlet H, Bandholm T. Reliability of the 6-min walk test after total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2013;21:2625-2628.
41. Ouellet D, Moffet H. Locomotor deficits before and two months after knee arthroplasty. Arthritis Rheum. 2002;47:484-493.
42. Ko V, Naylor JM, Harris IA, et al. The six-minute walk test is an excellent predictor of functional ambulation after total knee arthroplasty. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2013 ;14:145.
43. Gandhi R, Tsvetkov D, Davey JR, et al. Relationship between self-reportd and performance-based tests in a hip and knee joint replacement population. Clin Rheumatol 2009;28: 253-257.
44. Stratford PW, Kennedy DM, Maly MR, Macintyre NJ. Quantifying self-report measures' overestimation of mobility scores postarthroplasty. Phys Ther. 2010;90:1288-1296.
45. Mizner RL, Petterson SC, Clements KE, et al. Measuring functional improvement after total knee arthroplasty requires both performance-based and patient-report assessments: a longitudinal analysis of outcomes. J Arthroplasty. 2011;26:728-737.
46. Medalla GA, Moonot P, Peel T, Kalairajah Y, Field RE. Cost-benefit comparison of the Oxford Knee score and the American Knee Society score in measuring outcome of total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2009;24:652-656.
2. Bourne RB, Chesworth BM, Davis AM, et al. Patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty: who is satisfied and who is not? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010;468: 57-63.
3. Robertsson O, Dunbar M, Pehrsson T, et al. Patient satisfaction after knee arthroplasty: a report on 27,372 knees operated on between 1981 and 1995 in Sweden. Acta Orthop Scand. 2000;71:262-267.
4. Noble PC, Conditt MA, Cook KF, Mathis KB. The John Insall Award: Patient expectations affect satisfaction with total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;452:35–43.
5. Hamilton DF, Lane JV, Gaston P, et al. What determines patient satisfaction with surgery? A prospective cohort study of 4709 patients following total joint replacement. BMJ Open. 2013;3:e002525.
6. Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, et al. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007;89A: 780.
7. Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Murray D, et al. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg (Br). 1998;80B:63-69.
8. Fitzpatrick R, Fletcher A, Gore S, et al. Quality of life measures in health care. I: Applications and issues in assessment. BMJ 1992; 305:1074-1077.
9. Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, et al. Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol 1988;15: 1833-1840.
10. Gandek B. Measurement Properties of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index: A Systematic Review. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2015;67:216-229.
11. Papathanasiou G, Stasi S, Oikonomou L, et al. Clinimetric properties of WOMAC index in Greek knee osteoarthritis patients: comparisons with both self-reported and physical performance measures. Rheumatol Int. 2015;35:115-123.
12. Jenny JY, Diesinger Y. The Oxford Knee Score: compared performance before and after knee replacement. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2012;98:409-412.
13. Jacobs CA, Christensen CP. Correlations between knee society function scores and functional force measures. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009;467: 2414-2419.
14. Giesinger JM, Kuster MS, Behrend H, et al. Association of psychological status and patient-reported physical outcome measures in joint arthroplasty: a lack of divergent validity. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013;11:64.
15. Pollard B, Johnson M, Dieppe P. What do osteoarthritis health outcome instruments measure? Impairment, activity limitation, or participation restriction? J Rheumatol 2005;33: 757-763.
16. Kantz ME, Harris WJ, Levitsky K, et al. Methods for assessing condition-specific and generic functional status outcomes after total knee replacement. Med Care. 1992 ;30:MS240-252.
17. Ko Y, Lo NN, Yeo SJ, et al. Rasch analysis of the Oxford Knee Score. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2009;17:1163-1169.
18. Ko Y, Lo NN, Yeo SJ, et al. Comparison of the responsiveness of the SF-36, the Oxford Knee Score, and the Knee Society Clinical Rating System in patients undergoing total knee replacement. Qual Life Res. 2013;22:2455-2459.
19. Roos EM, Roos HP, Lohmander LS, et al. Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)--development of a self-administered outcome measure. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1998;28:88-96.
20. Roos EM, Toksvig-Larsen S. Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) - validation and comparison to the WOMAC in total knee replacement. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003;1:17.
21. Tegner Y and Lysholm J. Rating systems in the evaluation of knee ligament injuries. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1985; 198:43-49.
22. Briggs KK, Lysholm J, Tegner Y, et al. The reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the Lysholm score and Tegner activity scale for anterior cruciate ligament injuries of the knee: 25 years later. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37:890-897.
23. Diduch DR, Insall JN, Scott WN, et al. Total knee replacement in young, active patients. Long-term follow-up and functional outcome. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997 ;79:575-582.
24. Ware JE Jr, Sherbourn CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992;30:473-483.
25. Ware J Jr, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care. 1996;34:220-233.
26. Rabin R, de Charro F. EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann Med 2001;33:337-343.
27. Fransen M, Edmonds J. Reliability and validity of the EuroQol in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. Rheumatology (Oxford). 1999;38:807-813.
28. Amstutz HC, Thomas BJ, Jinnah R, Kim W, Grogan T, Yale C. Treatment of primary osteoarthritis of the hip: a comparison of total joint and surface replacement arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1984;66:228–241.
29. Zahiri CA, Schmalzried TP, Szuszczewicz ES, et al. Assessing activity in joint replacement patients. J Arthroplasty. 1998;13:890-895.
30. Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN. Rationale of the Knee Society Clinical Rating System. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989;248:13–14.
31. Giles R. Scuderi MD, Robert B. The New Knee Society Knee Scoring System. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012; 470:3–19.
32. Noble PC, Scuderi GR, Brekke AC, et al. Development of a New Knee Society Scoring System. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470:20-32.
33. Dobson F, Hinman RS, Hall M, et al. Measurement properties of performance-based measures to assess physical function in hip and knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2012;20:1548-1562.
34. Dobson F, Hinman RS, Roos EM, et al. OARSI recommended performance-based tests to assess physical function in people diagnosed with hip or knee osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2013;21:1042-1052.
35. Jones CJ, Rikli RE, Beam WC. A 30-s chair-stand test as a measure of lower body strength in community-residing older adults. Res Q Exerc Sport. 1999;70:113-119.
36. Gill S, McBurney H. Reliability of performance-based measures in people awaiting joint replacement surgery of the hip or knee. Physiother Res Int. 2008;13:141-152.
37. Kennedy DM, Stratford PW, Wessel J, et al. Assessing stability and change of four performance measures: a longitudinal study evaluating outcome following total hip and knee arthroplasty. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2005;6:3.
38. Podsiadlo D, Richardson S. The timed “Up & Go”: a test of basic functional mobility for frail elderly persons. J Am Geriatr Soc 1991;39: 142-148.
39. Butland RJ, Pang J, Gross ER, Woodcock AA, et al. Two-, six-, and 12-minute walking tests in respiratory disease. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1982;284: 1607-1608.
40. Jakobsen TL, Kehlet H, Bandholm T. Reliability of the 6-min walk test after total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2013;21:2625-2628.
41. Ouellet D, Moffet H. Locomotor deficits before and two months after knee arthroplasty. Arthritis Rheum. 2002;47:484-493.
42. Ko V, Naylor JM, Harris IA, et al. The six-minute walk test is an excellent predictor of functional ambulation after total knee arthroplasty. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2013 ;14:145.
43. Gandhi R, Tsvetkov D, Davey JR, et al. Relationship between self-reportd and performance-based tests in a hip and knee joint replacement population. Clin Rheumatol 2009;28: 253-257.
44. Stratford PW, Kennedy DM, Maly MR, Macintyre NJ. Quantifying self-report measures' overestimation of mobility scores postarthroplasty. Phys Ther. 2010;90:1288-1296.
45. Mizner RL, Petterson SC, Clements KE, et al. Measuring functional improvement after total knee arthroplasty requires both performance-based and patient-report assessments: a longitudinal analysis of outcomes. J Arthroplasty. 2011;26:728-737.
46. Medalla GA, Moonot P, Peel T, Kalairajah Y, Field RE. Cost-benefit comparison of the Oxford Knee score and the American Knee Society score in measuring outcome of total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2009;24:652-656.