A cross-sectional look at patient concerns in the first six weeks following primary total knee arthroplasty

Ravi Rastogi, Aileen M Davis, Bert M Chesworth, Ravi Rastogi, Aileen M Davis, Bert M Chesworth

Abstract

Background: To date, no researchers have investigated patient concerns in the first six weeks following primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). An understanding of patient concerns at a time when physical therapists are involved in the treatment of these patients will aid clinicians in providing patient-centered care. Linking of items to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) allows for comparison and sharing of data amongst researchers, as the ICF is the accepted framework for evaluating disability in rehabilitation. The objective of this study was to identify patient concerns in the first six weeks following primary TKA and link these concerns to components of the ICF and map them to commonly used outcome measures.

Methods: Individual interviews were conducted to identify patient concerns during their recovery following primary TKA. Concerns identified by patients were analysed for content and linked to the components of the ICF using the operational definitions of the ICF components. These concerns were mapped to the WOMAC, KOOS and Oxford Knee Scale.

Results: Thirty patients (18 female) with an average age (SD) of 68.4 (11.1) years completed the study. Patients identified 32 concerns. Twenty-two percent (n = 7) of the concerns linked to Body Function and Structure, 47% (n = 15) to Activity, 13% (n = 4) to Participation, and 13% (n = 4) to the Environmental Factors component of the ICF. Six percent (n = 2) of the concerns did not link to the ICF. Of the 32 concerns identified by patients 14 mapped to the KOOS, 11 to the WOMAC and 4 to the Oxford Knee Scale.

Conclusion: Patient concerns linked to four different components of the ICF indicating that patients are involved in or are thinking of multiple aspects of life even in this early phase of recovery. The KOOS was found to be the most appropriate for use based on the patients' perspective. However, less than half of the concerns identified by patients were covered by the KOOS, WOMAC or Oxford Knee Scale indicating that other existing measures that evaluate the concepts identified as important to patients should be considered when evaluating outcomes during this acute phase of recovery following primary TKA.

References

    1. Davis MA, Ettinger WH, Neuhaus JM, Mallon KP. Knee osteoarthritis and physical functioning: Evidence from the NHANES I epidemiologic followup study. The Journal of Rheumatology. 1991;18:591–598.
    1. Heck DA, Robinson RL, Partridge CM, Lubitz R, Freund DA. Patient outcomes after knee replacement. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research. 1998;1:93–110. doi: 10.1097/00003086-199811000-00015.
    1. Hartley RC, Barton-Hanson NG, Finley R, Parkinson W. Early patient outcomes after primary and revision total knee arthroplasty. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. 2002;84B:994–999. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.84B7.12607.
    1. Liang MH, Fossel AH, Larson MG. Comparisons of five health status instruments for orthopedic evaluation. Medical Care. 1990;28:632–642. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199007000-00008.
    1. Kreibich DN, Vaz M, Bourne RB, et al. What is the best way of assessing outcome after total knee replacement? Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research. 1996;331:221–225. doi: 10.1097/00003086-199610000-00031.
    1. Stratford PW, Binkley JM, Watson J, Heath-Jones T. Validation of the LEFS on patients with total joint arthroplasty. Physiotherapy Canada. 2000;52:97–105.
    1. Dickstein R, Heffes Y, Shabtai E, Markowitz E. Total knee arthroplasty in the elderly: Patients' self-appraisal 6 and 12 months postoperatively. Gerontology. 1998;44:204–210. doi: 10.1159/000022011.
    1. Trousdale RT, McGrory BJ, Berry DJ, Becker MW, Harmsen WS. Patients' concerns prior to undergoing total hip and total knee arthroplasty. Mayo Clinic Proceedings. 1999;74:978–982.
    1. Moran M, Khan A, Sochart DH, Andrew G. Evaluation of patient concerns before total knee and hip arthroplasty. The Journal of Arthroplasty. 2003;18:442–445. doi: 10.1016/S0883-5403(03)00061-5.
    1. Weiss JM, Noble PC, Conditt MA, Kohl HW, Roberts S, Cook KF, Gordon MJ, Mathis KB. What functional activities are important to patients with knee replacements? Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research. 2002;404:172–188. doi: 10.1097/00003086-200211000-00030.
    1. McFarlane A, Brooks P. The assessment of disability and handicap in musculoskeletal disease. Journal of Rheumatology. 1997;24-5:985–989.
    1. Newman S. Psychosocial measures in musculoskeletal trials. Journal of Rheumatology. 1997;24-5:979–984.
    1. World Health Organization International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. 2001.
    1. Stucki G. International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF): A promising framework and classification for rehabilitation medicine. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 2005;84:733–740. doi: 10.1097/01.phm.0000179521.70639.83.
    1. Roos EM, Roos HP, Lohmander LS, Ekdahl C, Beynnon BD. Knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS)-development of a self-administered outcome measure. Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy. 1998;28:88–96.
    1. 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. Journal of Rheumatology. 1988;5:1833–1840.
    1. Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Murray D, Carr A. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total knee replacement. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. 1998;80B:63–69. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.80B1.7859.
    1. Roos EM, Toksvig-Larsen S. Knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS) – validation and comparison to the WOMAC in total knee replacement. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. 2003;1:17–26. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-1-17.
    1. Ethgen O, Bruyere O, Richy F, Dardennes C, Reginster J-V. Health-related quality of life in total hip and total knee arthroplasty. A qualitative and systematic review of the literature. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. 2004;86A:963–974.
    1. Salmon P, Hall GM, Peerbhoy D, Shenkin A, Parker C. Recovery from hip and knee arthroplasty: Patients' perspective on pain, function, quality of life and well-being up to 6 months postoperatively. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 2001;82:360–366. doi: 10.1053/apmr.2001.21522.
    1. Fitzgerald JD, Orav EJ, Lee TH, Marcantonio ER, Poss R, Goldman L, Mangione CM. Patient Quality of Life during the 12 months following joint replacement surgery. Arthritis and Rheumatism. 2004;51:100–109. doi: 10.1002/art.20090.
    1. Oldmeadow LB, McBurney H, Robertson VJ. Hospital stay and discharge outcomes after knee arthroplasty: Implications for physiotherapy practice. Australian Journal of Physiotherapy. 2002;48:117–121.
    1. Barksdale P, Backer J. Health-related stressors experienced by patients who underwent total knee replacement seven days after being discharged home. Orthopaedic Nursing. 2005;24:336–342. doi: 10.1097/00006416-200509000-00009.
    1. Karlson EW, Daltroy LH, Liang MH, Eaton HE, Katz JN. Gender differences in patient preferences may underlie differential utilization of elective surgery. The American Journal of Medicine. 1997;102:524–530. doi: 10.1016/S0002-9343(97)00050-8.
    1. Soever L, Mackay C. Final Report. Greater Toronto Area Rehabilitation Network; 2005. Best practices across the continuum of care for total joint replacement.

Source: PubMed

3
Předplatit