Literature DB >> 16513355

The effect of preoperative symptom severity on functional outcome of total knee replacement--patients with the lowest preoperative scores achieve the lowest marks.

J T K Lim1, K L Luscombe, P W Jones, S H White.   

Abstract

To determine if the functional outcome of total knee replacement (TKR) was affected by the level of preoperative symptom severity, the association between preoperative Oxford Knee Scores (OKS), and 2 year OKS, American Knee Society clinical and function scores (AKSS) was assessed. Data were prospectively collected on 45 cases who had single joint osteoarthritis and no other comorbidities. We have specifically focused on patients with single knee involvement to remove the effect of multiple joint involvement and comorbidities on the OKS. The mean preoperative OKS was 21.4, postoperative OKS 40.0 and postoperative ROM 117 degrees. The postoperative mean AKSS was 86.7 and mean function score was 85.0. The 'usual pain' and 'limp' components of the OKS had the greatest rises and the 'kneel' component had the least improvement. Rather than all patients achieving uniform results post-TKR, patients with more severe symptoms achieved poorer absolute outcomes. The Spearman correlation coefficient between pre- and postoperative OKS was r = 0.4 (p = 0.006). Although the results suggest that waiting too long before intervention compromises the final outcome, a correlation of 0.4 is not strong enough to necessitate change in current practice.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16513355     DOI: 10.1016/j.knee.2006.01.006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Knee        ISSN: 0968-0160            Impact factor:   2.199


  8 in total

1.  Severity of valgus knee osteoarthritis has no effect on clinical outcomes after total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Kilian Rueckl; Armin Runer; Anna Jungwirth-Weinberger; Maximilian F Kasparek; Martin Faschingbauer; Friedrich Boettner
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2021-01-30       Impact factor: 3.067

2.  Patient reported outcomes in three hundred and twenty eight bilateral total knee replacement cases (simultaneous versus staged arthroplasty) using the Oxford Knee Score.

Authors:  Simon G F Abram; Fiona Nicol; Simon J Spencer
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2016-02-10       Impact factor: 3.075

3.  Five-year results of the Innex total knee arthroplasty system.

Authors:  Urs K Munzinger; Nicola A Maffiuletti; Thomas Guggi; Mario Bizzini; Stefan Preiss; Tomas Drobny
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2009-10-14       Impact factor: 3.075

4.  Effect of gender and preoperative diagnosis on results of revision total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Stephanie Y Pun; Michael D Ries
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2008-08-26       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  Mechanism and influencing factors of proximal fibular osteotomy for treatment of medial compartment knee osteoarthritis: A prospective study.

Authors:  Di Qin; Wei Chen; Juan Wang; Hongzhi Lv; Wenhui Ma; Tianhua Dong; Yingze Zhang
Journal:  J Int Med Res       Date:  2018-05-30       Impact factor: 1.671

6.  The Evaluation of Single-Sided Total Knee Arthroplasty Versus Simultaneous Bilateral Total Knee Arthroplasty Improvements and Postoperative Progression Based on Patient-Based Outcome Scoring: A Rural Retrospective Clinical Orthopaedic Study.

Authors:  Arielle Harnik; Jay Boughanem; Patrick Hart; Omer Margolin; Landon Collins; Ryan Hilton
Journal:  J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev       Date:  2019-07-09

7.  Functionality and Safety of an Ultra-Congruent Rotating Platform Knee Prosthesis at 5.6 Years: More than 5- Year Follow-Up of the e.motion ((®)) UC-TKA.

Authors:  Jean-Baptiste Chavoix
Journal:  Open Orthop J       Date:  2013-05-17

8.  Knee Flexion and Daily Activities in Patients following Total Knee Replacement: A Comparison with ISO Standard 14243.

Authors:  Markus A Wimmer; William Nechtow; Thorsten Schwenke; Kirsten C Moisio
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2015-08-11       Impact factor: 3.411

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.