Patient dissatisfaction following total knee arthroplasty: external validation of a new prediction model

  • Luke ZabawaEmail author
  • Keren Li
  • Samuel Chmell
Original Article • KNEE - ARTHROPLASTY


Tools designed to predict patient satisfaction following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) have the potential to guide patient selection. Our study aimed to validate a model that predicts patient satisfaction following TKA. Phone surveys were administered to 203 patients who underwent TKA between 2009 and 2016 at the University of Illinois. We utilized health records to document age, gender, body mass index (BMI), and comorbidities. First, we compared the descriptive variables between the satisfied and dissatisfied groups. We then performed multivariate linear regression and multiple logistic regression to assess the predictive value of the questions in the Van Onsem et al. model. The true satisfaction rate in our study was 65%. The Van Onsem et al. model predicted a satisfaction rate of 70%. The scatter plot of predicted satisfaction score versus observed satisfaction score showed poor agreement between actual satisfaction and predicted satisfaction. Comparing satisfied and dissatisfied groups, there was a significant difference with respect to pain prior to surgery and BMI. The validity of the Van Onsem et al. prediction tool was not supported. While the predicted satisfaction rate was near the measured satisfaction rate, the model misidentified which patients were likely to be satisfied. Preoperative variables including pain, anxiety/depression, and a patient’s ability to control pain symptoms showed potential for inclusion in future prediction models.

Level of evidence

Level III, developing a decision model.


Arthroplasty Patient satisfaction Prediction model Knee 



We thank Olufunmilayo Adeniji and Angie Figueroa for their help administering surveys. This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M (2007) Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89(4):780–785Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baker PN, Rushton S, Jameson SS, Reed M, Gregg P, Deehan DJ (2013) Patient satisfaction with total knee replacement cannot be predicted from pre-operative variables alone: a cohort study from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Bone Joint J 95-B(10):1359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bullens PHJ, van Loon CJM, de Waal Malefijt MC, Laan RF, Veth RP (2001) Patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty: a comparison between subjective and objective outcome assessments. J Arthroplast 16(6):740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Noble PC, Conditt MA, Cook KF, Mathis KB (2006) The John Insall Award: patient expectations affect satisfaction with total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 452(452):35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Scott CE, Howie CR, MacDonald D, Biant LC (2010) Predicting dissatisfaction following total knee replacement: a prospective study of 1217 patients. J Bone Joint Surg Br 92(9):1253–1258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Noble PC, Scuderi GR, Brekke AC et al (2012) Development of a new knee society scoring system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 470(1):20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW (1988) Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol 15(12):1833Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Roos EM, Roos HP, Lohmander LS, Ekdahl C, Beynnon BD (1998) Knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS)—development of a self-administered outcome measure. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 28(2):88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Murrary D, Carr A (1998) Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 80:63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bourne RB, Chesworth BM, Davis AM, Mahomed NN, Charron KDJ (2010) Patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty: who is satisfied and who is not? Clin Orthop Relat Res 468(1):57–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Blackburn J, Qureshi A, Amirfeyz R, Bannister G (2012) Does preoperative anxiety and depression predict satisfaction after total knee replacement? Knee 19(5):522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lunge E, Desmeules F, Dionne CE, Belzile EL, Vendittoli PA (2014) Prediction of poor outcomes six months following total knee arthroplasty in patients awaiting surgery. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 15:299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Williams DP, O’Brien S, Doran E et al (2013) Early postoperative predictors of satisfaction following total knee arthroplasty. Knee 20(6):442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Van Onsem S, Van der Straeten C, Arnout N, Deprez P, Van Damme G, Victor J (2016) A new prediction model for patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 31(12):2660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Altman DG, Vergouwe Y, Royston P, Moons KG (2009) Prognosis and prognostic research: validating a prognostic model. BMJ 338:b605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kim TK, Chang CB, Kang YG, Kim SJ, Seong SC (2009) Causes and predictors of patient’s dissatisfaction after uncomplicated total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 24(2):263–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nam D, Nunley RM, Barrack RL (2014) Patient dissatisfaction following total knee replacement: a growing concern? Bone Joint J 96-B(11 Supple A):96–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of MedicineUniversity of Illinois at ChicagoChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryUniversity of Illinois Hospital and Health Sciences SystemChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations