Literature DB >> 26220999

Patient-reported outcome measures after total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review.

P N Ramkumar1, J D Harris2, P C Noble2.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: A lack of connection between surgeons and patients in evaluating the outcome of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has led to the search for the ideal patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) to evaluate these procedures. We hypothesised that the desired psychometric properties of the ideal outcome tool have not been uniformly addressed in studies describing TKA PROMS.
METHODS: A systematic review was conducted investigating one or more facets of patient-reported scores for measuring primary TKA outcome. Studies were analysed by study design, subject demographics, surgical technique, and follow-up adequacy, with the 'gold standard' of psychometric properties being systematic development, validity, reliability, and responsiveness.
RESULTS: A total of 38 articles reported outcomes from 47 different PROMS to 85 541 subjects at 26.3 months (standard deviation 30.8) post-operatively. Of the 38, eight developed new scores, 20 evaluated existing scores, and ten were cross-cultural adaptation of existing scores. Only six of 38 surveyed studies acknowledged all 'gold standard' psychometric properties. The most commonly studied PROMS were the Oxford Knee Score, New Knee Society Score, Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index.
CONCLUSIONS: A single, validated, reliable, and responsive PROM addressing TKA patients' priorities has not yet been identified. Moreover, a clear definition of a successful procedure remains elusive. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2015;4:120-127. ©2015 Noble et al.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Measure; Outcomes; TKA

Year:  2015        PMID: 26220999      PMCID: PMC4602194          DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.47.2000380

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Bone Joint Res        ISSN: 2046-3758            Impact factor:   5.853


  61 in total

1.  Scoring systems in total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Christian Michael Bach; Michael Nogler; Iris Eva Steingruber; Michael Ogon; Cornelius Wimmer; Georg Göbel; Martin Krismer
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  A validation study of the New Zealand score for hip and knee surgery.

Authors:  Francine Toyé; Julie Barlow; Chris Wright; Sarah E Lamb
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 3.  Assessment of outcomes after hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Vikki Wylde; Ashley W Blom
Journal:  Hip Int       Date:  2009 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 2.135

4.  The use of the Oxford hip and knee scores.

Authors:  D W Murray; R Fitzpatrick; K Rogers; H Pandit; D J Beard; A J Carr; J Dawson
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2007-08

5.  The Oxford Knee Score; problems and pitfalls.

Authors:  Sarah L Whitehouse; Ashley W Blom; Adrian H Taylor; Giles T R Pattison; Gordon C Bannister
Journal:  Knee       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 2.199

6.  Measuring improvement following total hip and knee arthroplasty using patient-based measures of outcome.

Authors:  Robert G Marx; Edward C Jones; Nawal C Atwan; Robert F Closkey; Eduardo A Salvati; Thomas P Sculco
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 5.284

7.  Which is the best activity rating scale for patients undergoing total joint arthroplasty?

Authors:  Florian D Naal; Franco M Impellizzeri; Michael Leunig
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2008-06-28       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 8.  Total joint arthroplasties: current concepts of patient outcomes after surgery.

Authors:  C Allyson Jones; Lauren A Beaupre; D W C Johnston; Maria E Suarez-Almazor
Journal:  Rheum Dis Clin North Am       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 2.670

9.  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.

Authors:  Yu Ko; Ngai-Nung Lo; Seng-Jin Yeo; Kuang-Ying Yang; William Yeo; Hwei-Chi Chong; Julian Thumboo
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2013-03-05       Impact factor: 4.147

10.  Functional rating for knee arthroplasty: comparison of three scoring systems.

Authors:  Raymond Y L Liow; Karen Walker; Mohammad A Wajid; Gurinder Bedi; Catherine M E Lennox
Journal:  Orthopedics       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 1.390

View more
  28 in total

1.  Comparing the validity and responsiveness of the EQ-5D-5L to the Oxford hip and knee scores and SF-12 in osteoarthritis patients 1 year following total joint replacement.

Authors:  Barbara L Conner-Spady; Deborah A Marshall; Eric Bohm; Michael J Dunbar; Tom W Noseworthy
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2018-02-08       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  What is the Minimum Clinically Important Difference for the WOMAC Index After TKA?

Authors:  Nicholas D Clement; Michelle Bardgett; David Weir; James Holland; Craig Gerrand; David J Deehan
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  Readability of Orthopaedic Patient-reported Outcome Measures: Is There a Fundamental Failure to Communicate?

Authors:  Jorge L Perez; Zachary A Mosher; Shawna L Watson; Evan D Sheppard; Eugene W Brabston; Gerald McGwin; Brent A Ponce
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2017-04-03       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  TKA patients experience less improvement than THA patients at 3 and 12 months after surgery. A retrospective observational cohort study.

Authors:  Carlos J Marques; Hans O Pinnschmidt; Karina Bohlen; Juergen Lorenz; Frank Lampe
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2020-09-17

5.  The utilization of artificial neural networks for the prediction of 90-day unplanned readmissions following total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Christian Klemt; Venkatsaiakhil Tirumala; Yasamin Habibi; Anirudh Buddhiraju; Tony Lin-Wei Chen; Young-Min Kwon
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2022-08-07       Impact factor: 2.928

6.  Computer-Assisted Surgery Enables Beginner Surgeons, Under Expert Guidance, to Achieve Long-Term Clinical Results not Inferior to Those of a Skilled Surgeon in Knee Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Ricardo Larrainzar-Garijo; Elisa M Molanes-López; Miguel Cañones-Martín; David Murillo-Vizuete; Natalia Valencia-Santos; Raul Garcia-Bogalo; Fernando Corella-Montoya
Journal:  Indian J Orthop       Date:  2022-06-22       Impact factor: 1.033

7.  The WOMAC score can be reliably used to classify patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Lucy C Walker; Nick D Clement; Michelle Bardgett; David Weir; Jim Holland; Craig Gerrand; David J Deehan
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2018-02-26       Impact factor: 4.342

8.  Quantifying the relative change in physical activity after Total Knee Arthroplasty using accelerometer based measurements.

Authors:  Vibhu Agarwal; Mathew Smuck; Nigam H Shah
Journal:  AMIA Jt Summits Transl Sci Proc       Date:  2017-07-26

9.  Evaluating physical function and activity in the elderly patient using wearable motion sensors.

Authors:  Bernd Grimm; Stijn Bolink
Journal:  EFORT Open Rev       Date:  2017-03-13

10.  Joint awareness in posttraumatic osteoarthritis of the knee: validation of the forgotten joint score in long term condition after tibial plateau fracture.

Authors:  Florian Baumann; Johannes Weber; Daniel Mahr; Martin Bäumlein; Maximilian Kerschbaum; Karolina Müller; Paavo Rillmann; Michael Nerlich; Markus Loibl
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2017-12-02       Impact factor: 3.186

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.