Why are patients dissatisfied following a total knee replacement? A systematic review

Naoki Nakano, Haitham Shoman, Fernando Olavarria, Tomoyuki Matsumoto, Ryosuke Kuroda, Vikas Khanduja, Naoki Nakano, Haitham Shoman, Fernando Olavarria, Tomoyuki Matsumoto, Ryosuke Kuroda, Vikas Khanduja

Abstract

Background: Although total knee replacement (TKR) is an effective intervention for end-stage arthritis of the knee, a significant number of patients remain dissatisfied following this procedure. Our aim was to identify and assess the factors affecting patient satisfaction following a TKR.

Materials and methods: In accordance with the PRISMA guidelines, two reviewers searched the online databases for literature describing factors affecting patient satisfaction following a TKR. The research question and eligibility criteria were established a priori. Any clinical outcome study that described factors relating to overall satisfaction after primary TKR was included. Quality assessment for the included studies was performed by two accredited orthopaedic surgeons experienced in clinical research.

Results: The systematic review identified 181 relevant articles in total. A history of mental health problems was the most frequently reported factor affecting patient satisfaction (13 reportings). When the results of the quality assessment were taken into consideration, a negative history of mental health problems, use of a mobile-bearing insert, patellar resurfacing, severe pre-operative radiological degenerative change, negative history of low back pain, no/less post-operative pain, good post-operative physical function and pre-operative expectations being met were considered to be important factors leading to better patient satisfaction following a TKR.

Conclusion: Surgeons performing a TKR should take these factors into consideration prior to deciding whether a patient is suitable for a TKR. Secondarily, a detailed explanation of these factors should form part of the process of informed consent to achieve better patient satisfaction following TKR. There is a great need for a unified approach to assessing satisfaction following a TKR and also the time at which satisfaction is assessed.

Keywords: Dissatisfaction; Satisfaction; Systematic review; Total knee arthroplasty; Total knee replacement.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
PRISMA flowchart for results of the literature database search
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Number of reportings in seven groups of factors for patient satisfaction following total knee replacement. Blue bar means FACTOR (‘it is a factor for patients’ satisfaction’) and orange bar means Not-FACTOR (‘it is a factor which does NOT relate to patients’ satisfaction’)
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Sum of percentage from full score (%) based on the quality assessment in each type of study for each factor. Blue bar means FACTOR (‘it is a factor for patients’ satisfaction’) and orange bar means Not-FACTOR (‘it is a factor which does NOT relate to patients’ satisfaction’). a Patients’ demographical factors. b Patients’ non-knee factors. c Patients’ knee factors. d Factors of implants/prostheses. e Intra-operative technical factors. f Post-operative outcome factors. g Surgeon and healthcare factors
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Sum of percentage from full score (%) based on the quality assessment in each type of study for each factor. Blue bar means FACTOR (‘it is a factor for patients’ satisfaction’) and orange bar means Not-FACTOR (‘it is a factor which does NOT relate to patients’ satisfaction’). a Patients’ demographical factors. b Patients’ non-knee factors. c Patients’ knee factors. d Factors of implants/prostheses. e Intra-operative technical factors. f Post-operative outcome factors. g Surgeon and healthcare factors
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Sum of percentage from full score (%) based on the quality assessment in each type of study for each factor. Blue bar means FACTOR (‘it is a factor for patients’ satisfaction’) and orange bar means Not-FACTOR (‘it is a factor which does NOT relate to patients’ satisfaction’). a Patients’ demographical factors. b Patients’ non-knee factors. c Patients’ knee factors. d Factors of implants/prostheses. e Intra-operative technical factors. f Post-operative outcome factors. g Surgeon and healthcare factors

References

    1. NICE report: Osteoarthritis: the care and management of osteoarthritis. . (date last accessed 16 Dec 2018)
    1. Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007;89(4):780–785. doi: 10.2106/00004623-200704000-00012.
    1. NJR Annual reports 2016. (date last accessed 16 Dec 2018)
    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. Hakim J, Volpin G, Amashah M, Alkeesh F, Khamaisy S, Cohen M, Ownallah J (2019) Long-term outcome of total knee arthroplasty in patients with morbid obesity. Int Orthop
    1. Cho KJ, Seon JK, Jang WY, Park CG, Song EK. Robotic versus conventional primary total knee arthroplasty: clinical and radiological long-term results with a minimum follow-up of ten years. Int Orthop. 2019;43(6):1345–1354. doi: 10.1007/s00264-018-4231-1.
    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 Arthroplast. 2001;16(6):740–747. doi: 10.1054/arth.2001.23922.
    1. Hawker GA. Who, when, and why total joint replacement surgery? The patientʼs perspective. Curr Opin Intern Med. 2006;5(6):639–643. doi: 10.1097/01.bor.0000240367.62583.51.
    1. Peersman G, Verhaegen J, Favier B (2019) The forgotten joint score in total and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a prospective cohort study. Int Orthop
    1. Sugita T, Miyatake N, Aizawa T, Sasaki A, Kamimura M, Takahashi A (2018) Quality of life after staged bilateral total knee arthroplasty: a minimum five-year follow-up study of seventy-eight patients. Int Orthop
    1. Robertsson O, Dunbar M, Pehrsson T, Knutson K, Lidgren L. Patient satisfaction after knee arthroplasty: a report on 27,372 knees operated on between 1981 and 1995 in Sweden. Acta Orthop Scand. 2000;71(3):262–267. doi: 10.1080/000164700317411852.
    1. Baker PN, Rushton S, Jameson SS, Reed M, Gregg P, Deehan DJ. 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. 2013;95B(10):1359–1365. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.95B10.32281.
    1. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.
    1. JBI JBI-CAT. Critical appraisal tools. (date last accessed 16 Dec 2018)
    1. van Tulder M, Furlan A, Bombardier C, Bouter L. Updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2003;28(12):1290–1299.
    1. Brander V, Gondek S, Martin E, Stulberg SD. Pain and depression influence outcome 5 years after knee replacement surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;464:21–26. doi: 10.1097/BLO.0b013e318126c032.
    1. Bonnin MP, Basiglini L, Archbold HA. What are the factors of residual pain after uncomplicated TKA? Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2011;19(9):1411–1417. doi: 10.1007/s00167-011-1549-2.
    1. Macleod U, Mitchell E, Black M, Spence G. Comorbidity and socioeconomic deprivation: an observational study of the prevalence of comorbidity in general practice. Eur J Gen Pract. 2004;10(1):24–26. doi: 10.3109/13814780409094223.
    1. Verra ML, Angst F, Staal JB, et al. Differences in pain, function and coping in Multidimensional Pain Inventory subgroups of chronic back pain: a one-group pretest-posttest study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2011;12:145. doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-12-145.
    1. Carothers JT, Kim RH, Dennis DA, et al. Mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis. J Arthroplast. 2011;26(4):537–542. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2010.05.015.
    1. Price AJ, Rees JL, Beard D, et al. A mobile-bearing total knee prosthesis compared with a fixed-bearing prosthesis: a multicentre single-blind randomised controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 2003;85-B:62–67. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.85B1.13233.
    1. Shakespeare D, Kinzel V, Ledger M. Achieving ligament stability and correct rotational alignment of the femur in knee arthroplasty: a study using the Medial Pivot knee. Knee. 2005;12:419–423. doi: 10.1016/j.knee.2005.03.002.
    1. Kim YH, Yoon SH, Kim JS. Early outcome of TKA with a medial pivot fixed-bearing prosthesis is worse than with a PFC mobile-bearing prosthesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467(2):493–503. doi: 10.1007/s11999-008-0221-8.
    1. Mayman D, Bourne RB, Rorabeck CH, Vaz M, Kramer J. Resurfacing versus not resurfacing the patella in total knee arthroplasty: 8- to 10-year results. J Arthroplast. 2003;18:541–545. doi: 10.1016/S0883-5403(03)00150-5.
    1. Roberts DW, Hayes TD, Tate CT, Lesko JP. Selective patellar resurfacing in total knee arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized, double-blind study. J Arthroplast. 2015;30(2):216–222. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2014.09.012.
    1. Waters TS, Bentley G. Patellar resurfacing in total knee arthroplasty. A prospective, randomized study. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85–A(2):212–217. doi: 10.2106/00004623-200302000-00005.
    1. Burnett RS, Haydon CM, Rorabeck CH, Bourne RB. The John Insall Award : patella resurfacing versus nonresurfacing in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;428:12–25. doi: 10.1097/01.blo.0000148594.05443.a3.
    1. Burnett RSJ, Boone JL, Rosenzweig SD, Steger-May K, Barrack RL. Patellar resurfacing compared with nonresurfacing in total knee arthroplasty: a concise follow-up of a randomized trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91(11):2562–2567. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.H.00109.
    1. Tanzer M, McLean CA, Laxer E, et al. Effect of femoral component designs on the contact and tracking characteristics of the unresurfaced patella in total knee arthroplasty. Can J Surg. 2001;44:127–133.
    1. Benjamin JB, Szivek JA, Hammond AS, et al. Contact areas and pressures between native patellas and prosthetic femoral components. J Arthroplast. 1998;13:693–698. doi: 10.1016/S0883-5403(98)80015-6.
    1. Andriacchi TP, Yoder D, Conley A, et al. Patellofemoral design influences function following total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast. 1997;12:243–249. doi: 10.1016/S0883-5403(97)90019-X.
    1. Kellgren JH, Lawrence JS. Radiological assessment of osteoarthrosis. Ann Rheum Dis. 1957;16(4):494–502. doi: 10.1136/ard.16.4.494.
    1. Riddle DL, Jiranek WA, Neff RS, Whitaker D, Hull JR. Extent of tibiofemoral osteoarthritis before knee arthroplasty: multicenter data from the osteoarthritis initiative. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470(10):2836–2842. doi: 10.1007/s11999-012-2328-1.
    1. Keurentjes JC, Fiocco M, So-Osman C, et al. Patients with severe radiographic osteoarthritis have a better prognosis in physical functioning after hip and knee replacement: a cohort-study. PLoS One. 2013;8(4):e59500. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0059500.
    1. Meding JB, Ritter MA, Faris PM, Keating EM, Harris W. Does the preoperative radiographic degree of osteoarthritis correlate to results in primary total knee arthroplasty? J Arthroplast. 2001;16(1):13–16. doi: 10.1054/arth.2001.16501.
    1. Wolterbeek N, Garling EH, Mertens BJ, Nelissen RG, Valstar ER. Kinematics and early migration in single-radius mobile- and fixed-bearing total knee prostheses. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2012;27(4):398–402. doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiomech.2011.10.013.
    1. Clement ND, MacDonald D, Simpson AHRW, Burnett R. Total knee replacement in patients with concomitant back pain results in a worse functional outcome and a lower rate of satisfaction. Bone Joint J. 2013;95-B(12):1632–1639. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.95B12.31684.
    1. Singh JA, O'Byrne M, Harmsen S, Lewallen D. Predictors of moderate-severe functional limitation after primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA): 4701 TKAs at 2-years and 2935 TKAs at 5-years. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2010;18(4):515–521. doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2009.12.001.
    1. Baker P, Muthumayandi K, Gerrand C, Kleim B, Bettinson K, Deehan D. Influence of body mass index (BMI) on functional improvements at 3 years following total knee replacement: a retrospective cohort study. PLoS One. 2013;8(3):e59079. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0059079.
    1. Dailiana ZH, Papakostidou I, Varitimidis S, et al. Patient-reported quality of life after primary major joint arthroplasty: a prospective comparison of hip and knee arthroplasty. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2015;16:366. doi: 10.1186/s12891-015-0814-9.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorit ja yhteistyökumppanit

Sairaudet

Huumeiden interventiot

3
Tilaa