Patient-based outcome analysis is important to determine the success of total knee arthroplasty: result of a focus group discussion

Balaji Zacharia, Manu Paul, Mohammed Thanveeruddin Sherule, Balaji Zacharia, Manu Paul, Mohammed Thanveeruddin Sherule

Abstract

Background: Total knee replacement (TKR) results in an excellent outcome in terms of pain relief. The reporting of outcomes was traditionally focused on implant survivorship and objective outcomes such as range of motion, knee stability, and radiographic alignment. However, patients and doctors had differing perceptions of all domains of outcome, especially subjective quality of life domains such as emotions and social functioning. In this study, we tried to find out the expectations of Indian patients regarding TKR and assess the level of satisfaction among our patients from their view point using focus group discussion (FGD), and whether these expectations have an impact on outcomes and patient satisfaction.

Materials and methods: This study was conducted in the Department of Orthopedics, Government Medical College, Kozhikode, Kerala, India, in November 2014. Patients between the ages 60 and 65 years who met inclusion criteria were selected. A total of 50 patients were selected for FGDs. Among them, 42 patients participated in FGD. The remaining eight did not appear for the discussion. A total of four FGD sessions were conducted.

Results and discussion: It was found that there is a discrepancy between the satisfaction levels of patient and surgeon. There is a difference in satisfaction level achieved depending on socioeconomic, geographic, and cultural characteristics.

Conclusion: Newer methods of TKR outcome assessment combining radiological outcome, surgeon-based assessment, and patient satisfaction based on their socioeconomic status and cultural characteristics should be developed for different populations.

Keywords: focus group discussion; patient-specific objectives; total knee arthroplasty.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
A focus group discussion.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Sex distribution.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Occupation.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Knee society score.

References

    1. Ranawat CS. History of total knee replacement. J South Orthop Assoc. 2002;11(4):218–226.
    1. Murray DW, Frost SJD. Pain in the assessment of total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1998;80-B(3):426–431.
    1. Janse AJ, Gemke RJBJ, Uiterwaal CSPM, van der Tweel I, Kimpen JLL, Sinnema G. Quality of life: patients and doctors don’t always agree: a meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004;57(7):653–661.
    1. Bullens PHJ, van Loon CJM, de Waal Malefijt MC, Laan RFJM, Veth RPH. Patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty: a comparison between subjective and objective outcome assessments. J Arthroplasty. 2001;16(6):740–747.
    1. Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN. Rationale of the knee society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989;248:13–14.
    1. Woolhead GM, Donovan JL, Dieppe PA. Outcome of total knee replacement; a qualitative study. Oxford J Rheumatol. 2005;44(8):1032–1037.
    1. Uhlman RF, Inui TS, Carter WB. Patient requests and expectations. Definitions and clinical applications. Med Care. 1984;22:681–685.
    1. Krueger RA. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research. London: Sage; 1988.
    1. Morgan DL. Focus Group as Qualitative Research. London: Sage; 1988.
    1. Stewart DW, Shamdasani PN. Focus Groups: Theory and Practices. London: Sage; 1990.
    1. Al-Taiar A, Al-Sabah R, Elsalawy E, Shehab D, Al-Mahmoud S. Attitudes to knee osteoarthritis and total knee replacement in Arab women: a qualitative study. BMC Res Notes. 2013;6:406.
    1. Lingard EA, Katz JN, Wright EA, Sledge CB, Kinemax Outcomes Group Predicting the outcome of total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86-A(10):2179–2186.
    1. Kennedy LG, Newman JH, Ackroyd CE, Dieppe P. A. When should we do knee replacements. Knee. 2003;10(2):161–166.
    1. Deshmukh RG, Hayes JH, Pinder IM. Does body weight influence outcome after total knee arthroplasty? A 1-year analysis. J Arthroplasty. 2002;17(3):315–319.
    1. Utrillas-Compaired A, De la Torre-Escuredo BJ, Tebar-Martínez AJ, Asúnsolo-Del Barco Á. Does preoperative psychologic distress influence pain, function, and quality of life after TKA? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2014;472(8):2457–2465.
    1. Irgit K, Nelson CL. Defining racial and ethnic disparities in THA and TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469(7):1817–1823.
    1. Street RL, Jr, Richardson MN, Cox V, Suarez-Almazor ME. (Mis) understanding in patient-health care provider communication about total knee replacement. Arthritis Rheum. 2009;61(1):100–107.
    1. Hawker GA. Who, when, and why total joint replacement surgery? The patient’s perspective. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2006;18(5):526–530.
    1. Sjöling M, Nordahl G, Olofsson N, Asplund K. The impact of preoperative information on state anxiety, postoperative pain and satisfaction with pain management. Patient Educ Couns. 2003;51(2):169–176.
    1. Ghanem E, Pawasarat I, Lindsay A, et al. Limitations of the knee society score in evaluating outcomes following revision total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92(14):2445–2451.
    1. Noble PC, Scuderi GR, Brekke AC, et al. Development of a new knee society scoring system. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470(1):20–32.

Source: PubMed

Sponzoři a spolupracovníci

Zdravotní podmínky

Drogové intervence

3
Předplatit