Literature DB >> 22840304

Patient-reported outcomes for total hip and knee arthroplasty: commonly used instruments and attributes of a "good" measure.

Natalie J Collins1, Ewa M Roos.   

Abstract

Although the effectiveness of THA and TKA as interventions for end-stage degenerative joint disease has been well established, the use of instruments that measure outcome from the patient's perspective are relatively poorly investigated. Considering the increasing prevalence, associated risks, and high personal and financial cost associated with THA and TKA, patient-reported outcomes are required to ensure optimal selection of patients, and that postoperative outcomes outweigh the burden associated with surgical procedures. It is clear from the information presented that clinicians need to consider a number of factors when selecting a "good" patientreported outcome for use in their TJA patients. Not only does the instrument need to measure dimensions appropriate for THA and TKA patients, but it also needs to have minimal administrative burden, accessibility to a variety of clinicians and patients, reliability, validity, and responsiveness to change. Furthermore, knowledge regarding the minimal score that patients deem to be meaningful is useful in interpreting whether a patient has experienced real improvement in their condition after surgery. It is clear that further studies are required, particularly to fill some of the gaps regarding known psychometric properties of patient-reported outcomes for THA and TKA. Based on data acquired in THA and TKA patients for the instruments reviewed, it appears that OA-specific and TJA-specific measures for which patients have been involved in the developmental process (HOOS, KOOS, WOMAC, Oxford Hip and Knee Scores) can more consistently be considered "good" patient-reported outcomes for THA and TKA. Clinicians wishing to evaluate a broader range of dimensions may choose to complement these with one of the generic measures evaluated, bearing in mind the practical issues and psychometric limitations of these instruments when applied to THA and TKA patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22840304     DOI: 10.1016/j.cger.2012.05.007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Geriatr Med        ISSN: 0749-0690            Impact factor:   3.076


  40 in total

1.  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

2.  Evaluating quality of life outcomes following joint replacement: psychometric evaluation of a short form of the WHOQOL-Bref.

Authors:  Deborah L Snell; Richard J Siegert; Lois J Surgenor; Jennifer A Dunn; Gary J Hooper
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2015-06-12       Impact factor: 4.147

3.  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

4.  A survey of physiotherapists' experience using outcome measures in total hip and knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  C McAuley; M D Westby; A Hoens; D Troughton; R Field; M Duggan; W D Reid
Journal:  Physiother Can       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 1.037

5.  The minimal clinically important difference in the Oxford knee score and Short Form 12 score after total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  N D Clement; D MacDonald; A H R W Simpson
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2013-11-20       Impact factor: 4.342

6.  Predictive values of WOMAC, KOOS, and SF-12 score for knee arthroplasty: data from the OAI.

Authors:  M Faschingbauer; M Kasparek; P Schadler; A Trubrich; S Urlaub; F Boettner
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2016-11-11       Impact factor: 4.342

7.  Joint awareness in osteoarthritis of the hip and knee evaluated with the 'Forgotten Joint' Score before and after joint replacement.

Authors:  E Thienpont; A Vanden Berghe; P E Schwab; J P Forthomme; O Cornu
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2016-01-06       Impact factor: 4.342

8.  Commonalities, differences, and challenges with patient-derived outcome measurement tools: function/activity scales.

Authors:  Philip C Noble; Maureen Dwyer; Adam Brekke
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 9.  Incorporating patient-reported outcomes in total joint arthroplasty registries: challenges and opportunities.

Authors:  Patricia D Franklin; Leslie Harrold; David C Ayers
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 4.176

10.  Integrating patient-reported outcomes into orthopaedic clinical practice: proof of concept from FORCE-TJR.

Authors:  David C Ayers; Hua Zheng; Patricia D Franklin
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2013-11       Impact factor: 4.176

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.