Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Measuring Tools for Functional Outcomes in Total Knee Arthroplasty

  • Symposium: Papers Presented at the Annual Meetings of the Knee Society
  • Published:
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research

Abstract

Total knee arthroplasty has come under increasing scrutiny attributable to the fact that it is a high-volume, high-cost medical intervention in an era of increasingly scarce medical resources. Health-related quality-of-life outcomes have been developed such that healthcare providers might determine how good an intervention is and whether it is cost-effective. Total knee arthroplasty has been subjected to disease-specific, patient-specific, global health, functional capacity, and cost-to-utility outcome measures. Patient satisfaction is high (90%) after total knee arthroplasty and 93% of patients would have this operative procedure again. Large improvements in preoperative to postoperative WOMAC scores occurred (over 39 of 100 points in 82% of patients). Cost-to-quality outcomes demonstrated total knee arthroplasties are extremely cost-effective. This analysis documents total knee arthroplasty is a highly efficacious procedure that competes favorably with all medical and surgical interventions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Advisory Council on Health Info Structure. Canada Health Infoway: Pass to Better Health. Health Canada Web site. Available at: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hcs-sss/pubs/ehealth-esante/1999-paths-voies-fin/index-eng.php. Accessed December 4, 2007.

  2. Annual Report of the Ontario Joint Replacement Registry. Guideline for Wait Time Thresholds for Total Hip and Knee Replacement Surgery Based on Severity. Ontario, Canada: Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care; 2005:50.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW. 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. 1988;15:1833–1840.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Binkley JM, Stratford PW, Lott SA, Riddle DL. The Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS): scale development, preassessment properties and clinical application. Phys Ther. 1999;9:371–383.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bourne RB, DeBoer D, Hawker G, Kreder H, Mahomed N, Paterson JM, Warner S, Williams J. Total hip and knee replacement. In: Access to Health Services in Ontario. Toronto, Ontario: Institute for Clinical Health Services; 2005:91–117.

  6. Bourne RB, Maloney WJ, Wright JG. An AOA critical issue—the outcome of the outcomes movement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86:633–640.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Bourne RB, McCalden RW, MacDonald SJ, Mokete L, Guerin J. Influence of patient factors on TKA outcomes at 5 to 11 years follow-up. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;464:27–31.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Bourne RB, Rorabeck CH, Laupacis A, Feeny D, Wong C, Tugwell P, Leslie K, Bullas R. A randomized clinical trial comparing cemented to cementless total hip replacement in 250 osteoarthritic patients: the impact on health related quality of life and cost effectiveness. Iowa Orthop J. 1994;14:108–114.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Brazier J, Janes N, Kind P. Testing the validity of the EuroQol and comparing it with the SF-36 health survey questionnaire. Qual Life Res. 1993;2:169–180.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Burnett RS, Haydon C, Rorabeck CH, Bourne RB. Patella resurfacing versus nonresurfacing in total knee arthroplasty. Results of a randomized controlled clinical trial at a minimum of 10 years followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;428:12–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Chesworth B, Mahomed N, Bourne RB, Davis A. Willingness to go through surgery again validated the WOMAC clinically important difference from THR/TKR surgery. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008 Feb 14 [Epub ahead of print].

  12. Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Murray D, Carr A. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1998;80:63–69.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Dunbar ML, Robertsson J, Ryd L, Lidgren L. Appropriate questionnaires for knee arthroplasty. Results of a survey of 3600 patients from the Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Registry. Acta Orthop Scand. 2000;71:262–267.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ellwood PM. Shattuck Lecture. Outcomes management. A technology of patient experience. N Engl J Med. 1988;318:1549–1556.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Guyatt GH, Sullivan MJ, Thompson PJ, Fallen EL, Pugsley SO, Taylor DW, Berman LB. The 6-minute walk: a new measure of exercise capacity in patients with chronic heart failure. Can Med Assoc J. 1985;132:919–923.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Hawker G, Wright J, Coyte P, Paul J, Dittus R, Croxford R, Katz B, Bombardier C, Heck S, Frelind D. Health-related quality of life after knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1998;80:163–173.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Irrang JJ, Anderson AF, Boland AL, Harner CD, Kurosaka M, Neyret P, Richmond JC, Shelborne KD. Development and validation of the International Knee Documentation Committee subjective knee form. Am J Sports Med. 2001;29:600–613.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status: ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials. 1989;10:407–415.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Kaper BP, Bourne RB. Total knee replacement is one of the most beneficial procedures both for patients and society. In: Laskin RS, ed. Controversies in Total Knee Replacement. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2001:1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Kirshner B, Guyatt G. Methodological framework for assessing health care indices. J Chronic Dis. 1985;38:27–36.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Laupaucis A, Bourne R, Rorabeck C, Feeny D, Wong C, Tugwell P, Leslie K, Bullas R. Costs of elective total hip arthroplasty during the first year. Cemented versus noncemented. J Arthroplasty. 1994;9:481–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Laupaucis A, Rorabeck RB, Feeny D, Tugwell P, Sim DA. Randomized trials in orthopaedics: why, how and when? J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1989;71:535–543.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Roos EM, Roos HP, Lohmander LS, Ekdahl C, Beynnon BD. Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)—development of a self-administered outcome measure. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1998;28:88–96.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WN, Gray JA, Hynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence-based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t. BMJ. 1996;312:71–72.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Sodermann P, Malchau H, Herberts P. Outcome of total hip replacement. A comparison of different measurement methods. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001;390:163–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Torrance GW. Measurement of health stake utilities for economic appraisal. J Health Econ. 1986;5:1–30.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Tugwell P, Bombardier C, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Grace E, Hanna B. The MACTAR patient preference disability questionnaire—an individualized functional priority approach for assessing improvement in physical disability in clinical trials in rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol. 1987;14:446–451.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Ware J Jr, Kosinki M, Keller SD. A 12-item Short-Form health survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care. 1996;34:220–233.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Ware J Jr, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item Short-Form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30:473–483.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Zahini CA, Schmalzried TP, Szuszewicz ES, Amstutz HC. Assessing activity in joint replacement patients. J Arthroplasty. 1998;13:890–895.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. London Health Sciences Centre, University of Western Ontario, University Campus, 339 Windermere Road, London, ON, Canada, N6A 5A5

    Robert B. Bourne MD, FRCSC

Authors
  1. Robert B. Bourne MD, FRCSC
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert B. Bourne MD, FRCSC.

Additional information

The author certifies that he has no commercial associations (eg, consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article.

The author certifies that his institution has approved the human protocol for this investigation, that all investigations were conducted in conformity with ethical principles of research, and that informed consent for participation in the study was obtained.

About this article

Cite this article

Bourne, R.B. Measuring Tools for Functional Outcomes in Total Knee Arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 466, 2634–2638 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-008-0468-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-008-0468-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation