Literature DB >> 29022778

The variability in Oxford hip and knee scores in the preoperative period: is there an ideal time to score?

C Quah1, D Holmes1, T Khan2, S Cockshott1, J Lewis1, A Stephen1.   

Abstract

Background All NHS-funded providers are required to collect and report patient-reported outcome measures for hip and knee arthroplasty. Although there are established guidelines for timing such measures following arthroplasty, there are no specific time-points for collection in the preoperative period. The primary aim of this study was to identify whether there was a significant amount of variability in the Oxford hip and knee scores prior to surgical intervention when completed in the outpatient clinic at the time of listing for arthroplasty or when completed at the preoperative assessment clinic. Methods A prospective cohort study of patients listed for primary hip or knee arthroplasty was conducted. Patients were asked to fill in a preoperative Oxford score in the outpatient clinic at the time of listing. They were then invited to fill in the official outcome measures questionnaire at the preoperative assessment clinic. The postoperative Oxford score was then completed when the patient was seen again at their postoperative follow up in clinic. Results Of the total of 109 patients included in this study period, there were 18 (17%) who had a worse score of 4 or more points difference and 43 (39.4%) who had an improvement of 4 or more points difference when the scores were compared between time of listing at the outpatient and at the preoperative assessment clinic. There was a statistically significant difference (P = 0.0054) in the mean Oxford scores. Conclusions The results of our study suggest that there should be standardisation of timing for completing the preoperative patient-reported outcome measures.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Oxford score; Patient reported outcome measures; Preoperative; Total hip replacement; Total knee replacement

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29022778      PMCID: PMC5838660          DOI: 10.1308/rcsann.2017.0090

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl        ISSN: 0035-8843            Impact factor:   1.891


  8 in total

1.  The epidemiology of revision total knee and hip arthroplasty in England and Wales: a comparative analysis with projections for the United States. A study using the National Joint Registry dataset.

Authors:  A Patel; G Pavlou; R E Mújica-Mota; A D Toms
Journal:  Bone Joint J       Date:  2015-08       Impact factor: 5.082

2.  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

3.  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

Review 4.  The experiences of professionals with using information from patient-reported outcome measures to improve the quality of healthcare: a systematic review of qualitative research.

Authors:  Maria B Boyce; John P Browne; Joanne Greenhalgh
Journal:  BMJ Qual Saf       Date:  2014-02-06       Impact factor: 7.035

5.  Use of SMS and tablet computer improves the electronic collection of elective orthopaedic patient reported outcome measures.

Authors:  N Roberts; B Bradley; D Williams
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2014-07       Impact factor: 1.891

6.  Patients' perspectives on total knee replacement.

Authors:  Ann F Jacobson; Rodney P Myerscough; Kirsten Delambo; Eileen Fleming; Amy M Huddleston; Natalie Bright; Joseph D Varley
Journal:  Am J Nurs       Date:  2008-05       Impact factor: 2.220

7.  The Oxford hip score: the patient's perspective.

Authors:  Vikki Wylde; Ian D Learmonth; Victoria J Cavendish
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2005-10-31       Impact factor: 3.186

8.  Meaningful changes for the Oxford hip and knee scores after joint replacement surgery.

Authors:  David J Beard; Kristina Harris; Jill Dawson; Helen Doll; David W Murray; Andrew J Carr; Andrew J Price
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2014-10-31       Impact factor: 6.437

  8 in total
  4 in total

1.  Similar clinical and radiographic outcomes after two different hypoallergenic medial unicompartmental knee in patients with metal allergy.

Authors:  Riccardo D'Ambrosi; Nicola Ursino; Ilaria Mariani; Katia Corona; Filippo Maria Anghilieri; Emanuele Franchi; Lorenzo Monti
Journal:  Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol       Date:  2022-05-29

2.  No Clinical or Radiographic Differences Between Cemented Cobalt-Chromium and Titanium-Niobium Nitride Mobile-Bearing Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Riccardo D'Ambrosi; Rafael Loucas; Marios Loucas; Riccardo Giorgino; Nicola Ursino; Giuseppe Maria Peretti
Journal:  Indian J Orthop       Date:  2021-08-15       Impact factor: 1.033

Review 3.  Outcome measures in total hip arthroplasty: have our metrics changed over 15 years?

Authors:  Roy H Lan; Jack W Bell; Linsen T Samuel; Atul F Kamath
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2021-02-11       Impact factor: 2.928

4.  Intraarticular osteotomy of malunited tibial plateau fractures: an analysis of clinical results with a mean follow-up after 4 years.

Authors:  Lena Alm; Jannik Frings; Matthias Krause; Karl-Heinz Frosch
Journal:  Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg       Date:  2020-07-25       Impact factor: 3.693

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.