Literature DB >> 21811857

Expectation, satisfaction and clinical outcome of patients after total knee arthroplasty.

Roland Becker1, Carl Döring, Andreas Denecke, Mathias Brosz.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: There is a well-known difference between patients expectation, satisfaction and the measured clinical outcome in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). It has been hypothesized that higher expectation prior to surgery and higher satisfaction will show better clinical outcome according to well-established scoring systems, frequently used for assessment after TKA.
METHODS: A consecutive group of 102 patients was included who received TKA for degenerative osteoarthritis. A modified patients expectation form was used prior and 8 months after surgery. Furthermore, the KSS, WOMAC and SF-36 served for patient assessment. Patients were grouped in responder and non-responder according to their level of expectation and fulfilment of expectation after surgery using a Likert scale.
RESULTS: A total of 54 patients (53%) showed expectation prior to surgery of 1 or 2 and a satisfaction after surgery of 1 or 2 according to the Likert scales. These patients were classified as responders. Considering the continuous parameters of KSS, SF-36 and WOMAC, a few statistically significant differences were found between the responders and non-responders at baseline (pre-surgery) and at the fulfilment of their expectation after surgery. Patient expectation prior to surgery did not differ between both groups. The more satisfied patients showed significant better results in the KSS, WOMAC and SF-36 after surgery. The parameters general health (SF-36) and role emotional (SF-36) measured prior to surgery dominate the predictive potential to get a responder with sensitivity of 74%, specificity of 81% and a rate of correct classification of 78%.
CONCLUSION: This study has shown that patient satisfaction correlates well with the clinical outcome according to the KSS, WOMAC and SF-36. The indication for TKA should consider the general health, emotional role and knee function of the patients as well in order to predict patient's outcome.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21811857     DOI: 10.1007/s00167-011-1621-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc        ISSN: 0942-2056            Impact factor:   4.342


  34 in total

1.  Impact of two types of expectancy on recovery from total knee replacement surgery (TKR) in adults with osteoarthritis.

Authors:  Connie Engel; Nancy A Hamilton; Phillip T Potter; Alex J Zautra
Journal:  Behav Med       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 3.104

2.  Overview of the SF-36 Health Survey and the International Quality of Life Assessment (IQOLA) Project.

Authors:  J E Ware; B Gandek
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1998-11       Impact factor: 6.437

3.  The burden of waiting for hip and knee replacements in Ontario. Ontario Hip and Knee Replacement Project Team.

Authors:  J I Williams; H Llewellyn Thomas; R Arshinoff; N Young; C D Naylor
Journal:  J Eval Clin Pract       Date:  1997-02       Impact factor: 2.431

4.  Prevalence of clinically significant improvement following total knee replacement.

Authors:  Khalid Alzahrani; Rajiv Gandhi; Justin Debeer; Danielle Petruccelli; Nizar Mahomed
Journal:  J Rheumatol       Date:  2011-01-15       Impact factor: 4.666

5.  Differences between patients' and physicians' evaluations of outcome after total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  J R Lieberman; F Dorey; P Shekelle; L Schumacher; B J Thomas; D J Kilgus; G A Finerman
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1996-06       Impact factor: 5.284

6.  Relationship between self-reported and performance-based tests in a hip and knee joint replacement population.

Authors:  Rajiv Gandhi; Dmitry Tsvetkov; J Roderick Davey; Khalid A Syed; Nizar N Mahomed
Journal:  Clin Rheumatol       Date:  2008-10-08       Impact factor: 2.980

7.  Comparison of clinic- and home-based rehabilitation programs after total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  John F Kramer; Mark Speechley; Robert Bourne; Cecil Rorabeck; Margaret Vaz
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  Causes and predictors of patient's dissatisfaction after uncomplicated total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Tae Kyun Kim; Chong Bum Chang; Yeon Gwi Kang; Sung Ju Kim; Sang Cheol Seong
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2008-04-02       Impact factor: 4.757

9.  Impact of psychological distress on pain and function following knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Lingard; Daniel L Riddle
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2007-06       Impact factor: 5.284

10.  Satisfaction with care after total hip or knee replacement predicts self-perceived health status after surgery.

Authors:  Cédric Baumann; Anne Christine Rat; Georges Osnowycz; Didier Mainard; Christian Cuny; Francis Guillemin
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2009-12-03       Impact factor: 2.362

View more
  66 in total

1.  No difference between tibia-first and femur-first techniques in TKA using computer-assisted surgery.

Authors:  Roland Becker; Markus Malzdorf; Christian Stärke; Pirtkien Randolf; Christoph Lohmann
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2012-02-25       Impact factor: 4.342

2.  Longitudinal Postoperative Course of Pain and Dysfunction Following Total Knee Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Katherine Hadlandsmyth; M Bridget Zimmerman; Roohina Wajid; Kathleen A Sluka; Keela Herr; Charles R Clark; Nicolas O Noiseux; John J Callaghan; Barbara A Rakel
Journal:  Clin J Pain       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 3.442

3.  Patient expectations and long-term outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis patients: results from the SARA (Silicone Arthroplasty in Rheumatoid Arthritis) study.

Authors:  Kevin C Chung; Kate W Nellans; Patricia B Burns; E F Shaw Wilgis; Frank D Burke; David A Fox; H Myra Kim
Journal:  Clin Rheumatol       Date:  2014-09-30       Impact factor: 2.980

4.  Symptom importance, patient expectations, and satisfaction in chronic rhinosinusitis.

Authors:  Jose L Mattos; Luke Rudmik; Rodney J Schlosser; Timothy L Smith; Jess C Mace; Jeremiah Alt; Zachary M Soler
Journal:  Int Forum Allergy Rhinol       Date:  2019-02-12       Impact factor: 3.858

5.  Higher forgotten joint score for fixed-bearing than for mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  E Thienpont; D Zorman
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2015-06-03       Impact factor: 4.342

6.  Patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty: an Asian perspective.

Authors:  Matthew Dhanaraj Thambiah; Sahaya Nathan; Branden Z X Seow; Shen Liang; Krishna Lingaraj
Journal:  Singapore Med J       Date:  2015-05       Impact factor: 1.858

7.  Long-term subjective outcomes of computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Naoki Nakano; Tomoyuki Matsumoto; Kazunari Ishida; Nobuhiro Tsumura; Ryosuke Kuroda; Masahiro Kurosaka
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2013-06-27       Impact factor: 3.075

8.  Early surrender to knee arthroplasty.... Not so fast.... Let the knee tissue preservation and function sustainability dialogue begin!

Authors:  John Nyland; David N M Caborn; Roland Jakob
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2014-11       Impact factor: 4.342

9.  Postoperative alignment and ROM affect patient satisfaction after TKA.

Authors:  Shuichi Matsuda; Shinya Kawahara; Ken Okazaki; Yasutaka Tashiro; Yukihide Iwamoto
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 4.176

10.  Pre-operative arthritis severity as a predictor for total knee arthroplasty patients' satisfaction.

Authors:  Christoph Schnurr; Maike Jarrous; Isabell Güdden; Peer Eysel; Dietmar Pierre König
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2013-03-23       Impact factor: 3.075

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.