Postoperative alignment and ROM affect patient satisfaction after TKA

Shuichi Matsuda, Shinya Kawahara, Ken Okazaki, Yasutaka Tashiro, Yukihide Iwamoto, Shuichi Matsuda, Shinya Kawahara, Ken Okazaki, Yasutaka Tashiro, Yukihide Iwamoto

Abstract

Background: Patient satisfaction has increasingly been recognized as an important measure after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, we do not know yet how and why the patients are satisfied or dissatisfied with TKA.

Questions/purposes: We asked: (1) After TKA, how satisfied are patients and which activities were they able to do? (2) Are patient-derived scores related to physician-derived scores? (3) Which factors affect patient satisfaction and function?

Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 375 patients who had undergone 500 TKAs between February 22, 2000 and December 1, 2009. We sent a questionnaire for The 2011 Knee Society Knee Scoring System to the patients. We determined the correlation of patient- and physician-derived scores and factors relating to the five questions relating to satisfaction and the 19 questions relating function. The minimum followup was 2 years (mean, 5 years; range, 2-11 years).

Results: The mean score for symptoms was 19 (74%), 23 (59%) for patient satisfaction, 10 (64%) for patient expectations, and 53 (53%) for functional activities. We found a poor correlation between the patient-derived and the physician-derived scores. Old age and varus postoperative alignment negatively correlated with the satisfaction. Varus alignment and limited range of motion (ROM) negatively correlated with the expectation. Old age, rheumatoid arthritis, and limited ROM negatively correlated with the functional activities.

Conclusions: Most patients did not report symptoms, but they experienced difficulty with activities of daily living after TKA. Patient satisfaction is difficult to measure, but avoiding varus alignment and achieving better ROM appear to be important for increasing satisfaction and meeting expectations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
The graph shows the relationship between the patient-derived symptom score of the 2011 Knee Society score and the physician-derived Knee Society pain score. Linear regression analysis showed a poor correlation between the patient-derived symptom scores and the physician-derived pain scores.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
The graph shows the relationship between the patient-derived functional activities score of the 2011 Knee Society score and the physician-based Knee Society functional score. Linear regression analysis showed a weak correlation between the patient-derived total functional score and the physician-derived functional score.

References

    1. Baumann C, Rat AC, Mainard D, Cuny C, Guillemin F. Importance of patient satisfaction with care in predicting osteoarthritis-specific health-related quality of life one year after total joint arthroplasty. Qual Life Res. 2011;20:1581–1588. doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-9913-8.
    1. Becker R, Doring C, Denecke A, Brosz M. Expectation, satisfaction and clinical outcome of patients after total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2011;19:1433–1441. doi: 10.1007/s00167-011-1621-y.
    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. J Rheumatol. 1988;15:1833–1840.
    1. Bourne RB, Chesworth B, Davis A, Mahomed N, Charron K. Comparing patient outcomes after THA and TKA: is there a difference? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:542–546. doi: 10.1007/s11999-009-1046-9.
    1. Bourne RB, Chesworth BM, Davis AM, Mahomed NN, Charron KD. Patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty: who is satisfied and who is not? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:57–63. doi: 10.1007/s11999-009-1119-9.
    1. Bullens PH, van Loon CJ, de Waal Malefijt MC, Laan RF, Veth RP. Patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty: a comparison between subjective and objective outcome assessments. J Arthroplasty. 2001;16:740–747.
    1. Callaghan JJ, O’Rourke MR, Saleh KJ. Why knees fail: lessons learned. J Arthroplasty. 2004;19:31–34. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2004.02.015.
    1. Cohen SB, Strand V, Aguilar D, Ofman JJ. Patient- versus physician-reported outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis patients treated with recombinant interleukin-1 receptor antagonist (anakinra) therapy. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2004;43:704–711. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keh152.
    1. Culliton SE, Bryant DM, Overend TJ, Macdonald SJ, Chesworth BM. The relationship between expectations and satisfaction in patients undergoing primary total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2012;27:490–492. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2011.10.005.
    1. Dahm DL, Barnes SA, Harrington JR, Sayeed SA, Berry DJ. Patient-reported activity level after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2008;23:401–407. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2007.05.051.
    1. 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. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.80B1.7859.
    1. Devers BN, Conditt MA, Jamieson ML, Driscoll MD, Noble PC, Parsley BS. Does greater knee flexion increase patient function and satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty? J Arthroplasty. 2011;26:178–186. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2010.02.008.
    1. Fitzgerald SJ, Trousdale RT. Why knees fail in 2011: patient, surgeon, or device? Orthopedics. 2011;34:e513–e515.
    1. Gandhi R, Davey JR, Mahomed N. Patient expectations predict greater pain relief with joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2009;24:716–721. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2008.05.016.
    1. Gandhi R, de Beer J, Petruccelli D, Winemaker M. Does patient perception of alignment affect total knee arthroplasty outcome? Can J Surg. 2007;50:181–186.
    1. Ghanem E, Pawasarat I, Lindsay A, May L, Azzam K, Joshi A, Parvizi J. Limitations of the Knee Society Score in evaluating outcomes following revision total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92:2445–2451. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.I.00252.
    1. Gioe TJ, Pomeroy D, Suthers K, Singh JA. Can patients help with long-term total knee arthroplasty surveillance? Comparison of the American Knee Society Score self-report and surgeon assessment. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2009;48:160–164. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/ken439.
    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. Khanna G, Singh JA, Pomeroy DL, Gioe TJ. Comparison of patient-reported and clinician-assessed outcomes following total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2011;93:e117.1–e117.7. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.J.00850.
    1. Kwon SK, Kang YG, Kim SJ, Chang CB, Seong SC, Kim TK. Correlations between commonly used clinical outcome scales and patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2010;25:1125–1130. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2009.10.015.
    1. Liow RY, Walker K, Wajid MA, Bedi G, Lennox CM. The reliability of the American Knee Society Score. Acta Orthop Scand. 2000;71:603–608. doi: 10.1080/000164700317362244.
    1. Lopez-Olivo MA, Landon GC, Siff SJ, Edelstein D, Pak C, Kallen MA, Stanley M, Zhang H, Robinson KC, Suarez-Almazor ME. Psychosocial determinants of outcomes in knee replacement. Ann Rheum Dis. 2011;70:1775–1781. doi: 10.1136/ard.2010.146423.
    1. Mahomed N, Gandhi R, Daltroy L, Katz JN. The self-administered patient satisfaction scale for primary hip and knee arthroplasty. Arthritis. 2011;2011:591253. doi: 10.1155/2011/591253.
    1. Marx RG, Jones EC, Atwan NC, Closkey RF, Salvati EA, Sculco TP. Measuring improvement following total hip and knee arthroplasty using patient-based measures of outcome. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:1999–2005. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.D.02286.
    1. Mizner RL, Petterson SC, Clements KE, Zeni JA, Jr, Irrgang JJ, Snyder-Mackler L. Measuring functional improvement after total knee arthroplasty requires both performance-based and patient-report assessments: a longitudinal analysis of outcomes. J Arthroplasty. 2011;26:728–737. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2010.06.004.
    1. Noble PC, Conditt MA, Cook KF, Mathis KB. The John Insall Award: Patient expectations affect satisfaction with total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;452:35–43. doi: 10.1097/01.blo.0000238825.63648.1e.
    1. Noble PC, Scuderi GR, Brekke AC, Sikorskii A, Benjamin JB, Lonner JH, Chadha P, Daylamani DA, Scott WN, Bourne RB. Development of a new Knee Society scoring system. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470:20–32. doi: 10.1007/s11999-011-2152-z.
    1. Padua R, Ceccarelli E, Bondi R, Campi A, Padua L. Range of motion correlates with patient perception of TKA outcome. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;460:174–177.
    1. Scott CE, Howie CR, MacDonald D, Biant LC. Predicting dissatisfaction following total knee replacement: a prospective study of 1217 patients. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010;92:1253–1258. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.92B9.24394.
    1. Scuderi GR, Bourne RB, Noble PC, Benjamin JB, Lonner JH, Scott WN. The new Knee Society knee scoring system. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470:3–19. doi: 10.1007/s11999-011-2135-0.
    1. Sullivan M, Tanzer M, Reardon G, Amirault D, Dunbar M, Stanish W. The role of presurgical expectancies in predicting pain and function one year following total knee arthroplasty. Pain. 2011;152:2287–2293. doi: 10.1016/j.pain.2011.06.014.
    1. 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.
    1. Ware JE., 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. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199206000-00002.
    1. Wylde V, Blom AW, Whitehouse SL, Taylor AH, Pattison GT, Bannister GC. Patient-reported outcomes after total hip and knee arthroplasty: comparison of midterm results. J Arthroplasty. 2009;24:210–216. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2007.12.001.
    1. Zisapel N, Nir T. Determination of the minimal clinically significant difference on a patient visual analog sleep quality scale. J Sleep Res. 2003;12:291–298. doi: 10.1046/j.0962-1105.2003.00365.x.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorzy i współpracownicy

Warunki medyczne

Interwencje lekowe

3
Subskrybuj