Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® 6/2012

01-06-2012 | Clinical Research

When Do Patient-reported Assessments Peak after Revision Knee Arthroplasty?

Authors: Ajay Malviya, FRCSEd(Tr & Orth), Karen Bettinson, MSc, Steven M. Kurtz, PhD, David J. Deehan, FRCS(Tr & Orth)

Published in: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® | Issue 6/2012

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The best timing for patient visits after revision TKA is unclear. Predictors of pain and function reported in the literature typically look at the influence at a given time that might not be ideal if the score is not at a peak or the earliest possible time. Moreover, most reports of predictors include revisions for infection, which typically have a poorer outcome, or for other indications with variable outcome.

Questions/purposes

We therefore determined (1) the trend of recovery after revision TKA to determine the best time to measure the peak patient-reported pain and function scores and (2) the influence of comorbidities and age on the patterns of recovery.

Methods

We prospectively followed 120 patients who had revision TKAs from 2003 to 2008. The patients were assessed within 6 weeks before surgery and at 12 weeks, 1 year, and annually thereafter. We obtained WOMAC and SF-36 scores at each visit. We used a linear mixed model analysis to assess predictors. The minimum followup was 2 years (mean, 3 years; range, 2–7 years).

Results

The majority of improvements in the WOMAC and SF-36 scores occurred during the first year after surgery after which the scores stabilized. One of the seven independent preoperative variables studied (comorbidities) predicted a trend toward improvement of WOMAC pain, WOMAC function, and SF-36 bodily pain scores. The greater the numbers of comorbidities, the worse were the scores. Age, gender, BMI, indication for surgery, and surgeon did not independently influence the WOMAC or SF-36.

Conclusion

Our data suggest that one of the times for patient visits after revision TKA should be 1 year after surgery. This time allows for key discrimination of implant performance. The data also confirm that patients with a greater number of comorbidities had less functional benefit from revision surgery.

Level of Evidence

Level II, prognostic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Baker PN, van der Meulen JH, Lewsey J, Gregg PJ; National Joint Registry for england and Wales. The role of pain and function in determining patient satisfaction after total knee replacement: data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007;89:893–900.PubMedCrossRef Baker PN, van der Meulen JH, Lewsey J, Gregg PJ; National Joint Registry for england and Wales. The role of pain and function in determining patient satisfaction after total knee replacement: data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007;89:893–900.PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Barrack RL, Engh G, Rorabeck C, Sawhney J, Woolfrey M. Patient satisfaction and outcome after septic versus aseptic revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2000;15:990–993.PubMedCrossRef Barrack RL, Engh G, Rorabeck C, Sawhney J, Woolfrey M. Patient satisfaction and outcome after septic versus aseptic revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2000;15:990–993.PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference 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 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
4.
go back to reference Coyte PC, Young W, Croxford R. Costs and outcomes associated with alternative discharge strategies following joint replacement surgery: analysis of an observational study using a propensity score. J Health Econ. 2000;19:907–929.PubMedCrossRef Coyte PC, Young W, Croxford R. Costs and outcomes associated with alternative discharge strategies following joint replacement surgery: analysis of an observational study using a propensity score. J Health Econ. 2000;19:907–929.PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Deehan DJ, Murray JD, Birdsall PD, Pinder IM. Quality of life after knee revision arthroplasty. Acta Orthop. 2006;77:761–766.PubMedCrossRef Deehan DJ, Murray JD, Birdsall PD, Pinder IM. Quality of life after knee revision arthroplasty. Acta Orthop. 2006;77:761–766.PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Dudley TE, Gioe TJ, Sinner P, Mehle S. Registry outcomes of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty revisions. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466:1666–1670.PubMedCrossRef Dudley TE, Gioe TJ, Sinner P, Mehle S. Registry outcomes of unicompartmental knee arthroplasty revisions. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466:1666–1670.PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Ethgen O, Bruyere O, Richy F, Dardennes C, Reginster JY. Health-related quality of life in total hip and total knee arthroplasty:a qualitative and systematic review of the literature. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86:963–974.PubMed Ethgen O, Bruyere O, Richy F, Dardennes C, Reginster JY. Health-related quality of life in total hip and total knee arthroplasty:a qualitative and systematic review of the literature. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86:963–974.PubMed
8.
go back to reference Ghomrawi HM, Kane RL, Eberly LE, Bershadsky B, Saleh KJ; North American Knee Arthroplasty Revision (NAKAR) Study Group. Patterns of functional improvement after revision knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91:2838–2845.PubMedCrossRef Ghomrawi HM, Kane RL, Eberly LE, Bershadsky B, Saleh KJ; North American Knee Arthroplasty Revision (NAKAR) Study Group. Patterns of functional improvement after revision knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91:2838–2845.PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Goodfellow JW, O’Connor JJ, Murray DW. A critique of revision rate as an outcome measure: re-interpretation of knee joint registry data. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010;92:1628–1631.PubMedCrossRef Goodfellow JW, O’Connor JJ, Murray DW. A critique of revision rate as an outcome measure: re-interpretation of knee joint registry data. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010;92:1628–1631.PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Griffin WL, Scott RD, Dalury DF, Mahoney OM, Chiavetta JB, Odum SM. Modular insert exchange in knee arthroplasty for treatment of wear and osteolysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;464:132–137.PubMed Griffin WL, Scott RD, Dalury DF, Mahoney OM, Chiavetta JB, Odum SM. Modular insert exchange in knee arthroplasty for treatment of wear and osteolysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;464:132–137.PubMed
11.
go back to reference Heck DA, Robinson RL, Partridge CM, Lubitz RM, Freund DA. Patient outcomes after knee replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998;356:93–110.PubMedCrossRef Heck DA, Robinson RL, Partridge CM, Lubitz RM, Freund DA. Patient outcomes after knee replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998;356:93–110.PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Lingard EA, Muthumayandi K, Holland JP. Comparison of patient-reported outcomes between hip resurfacing and total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009;91:1550–1554.PubMedCrossRef Lingard EA, Muthumayandi K, Holland JP. Comparison of patient-reported outcomes between hip resurfacing and total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2009;91:1550–1554.PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Naumova EN, Must A, Laird NM. Tutorial in biostatistics: evaluating the impact of ‘critical periods’ in longitudinal studies of growth using piecewise mixed effects models. Int J Epidemiol. 2001;30:1332–1341.PubMedCrossRef Naumova EN, Must A, Laird NM. Tutorial in biostatistics: evaluating the impact of ‘critical periods’ in longitudinal studies of growth using piecewise mixed effects models. Int J Epidemiol. 2001;30:1332–1341.PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Pun SY, Ries MD. Effect of gender and preoperative diagnosis on results of revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466:2701–2705.PubMedCrossRef Pun SY, Ries MD. Effect of gender and preoperative diagnosis on results of revision total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466:2701–2705.PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Saleh KJ, Dykes DC, Tweedie RL, Mohamed K, Ravichandran A, Saleh RM, Gioe TJ, Heck DA. Functional outcome after total knee arthroplasty revision: a meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty. 2002;17:967–977.PubMedCrossRef Saleh KJ, Dykes DC, Tweedie RL, Mohamed K, Ravichandran A, Saleh RM, Gioe TJ, Heck DA. Functional outcome after total knee arthroplasty revision: a meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty. 2002;17:967–977.PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Sangha O, Stucki G, Liang MH, Fossel AH, Katz JN. The Self-Administered Comorbidity Questionnaire: a new method to assess comorbidity for clinical and health services research. Arthritis Rheum. 2003;49:156–163.PubMedCrossRef Sangha O, Stucki G, Liang MH, Fossel AH, Katz JN. The Self-Administered Comorbidity Questionnaire: a new method to assess comorbidity for clinical and health services research. Arthritis Rheum. 2003;49:156–163.PubMedCrossRef
18.
go back to reference Singh JA, O’Byrne MM, Harmsen WS, Lewallen DG. Predictors of moderate-severe functional limitation 2 and 5 years after revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2010;25:1091–1095.PubMedCrossRef Singh JA, O’Byrne MM, Harmsen WS, Lewallen DG. Predictors of moderate-severe functional limitation 2 and 5 years after revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2010;25:1091–1095.PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Theiler R, Spielberger J, Bischoff HA, Bellamy N, Huber J, Kroesen S. Clinical evaluation of the WOMAC 3.0 OA Index in numeric rating scale format using a computerized touch screen version. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2002;10:479–481.PubMedCrossRef Theiler R, Spielberger J, Bischoff HA, Bellamy N, Huber J, Kroesen S. Clinical evaluation of the WOMAC 3.0 OA Index in numeric rating scale format using a computerized touch screen version. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2002;10:479–481.PubMedCrossRef
20.
go back to reference Ware JE Jr. SF-36 health survey update. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25:3130–3139.CrossRef Ware JE Jr. SF-36 health survey update. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25:3130–3139.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Wright RJ, Sledge CB, Poss R, Ewald FC, Walsh ME, Lingard EA. Patient-reported outcome and survivorship after Kinemax total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86:2464–2470.PubMed Wright RJ, Sledge CB, Poss R, Ewald FC, Walsh ME, Lingard EA. Patient-reported outcome and survivorship after Kinemax total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86:2464–2470.PubMed
22.
23.
go back to reference Wylde V, Learmonth I, Potter A, Bettinson K, Lingard E. Patient-reported outcomes after fixed- versus mobile-bearing total knee replacement: a multi-centre randomised controlled trial using the Kinemax total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90:1172–1179.PubMed Wylde V, Learmonth I, Potter A, Bettinson K, Lingard E. Patient-reported outcomes after fixed- versus mobile-bearing total knee replacement: a multi-centre randomised controlled trial using the Kinemax total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90:1172–1179.PubMed
Metadata
Title
When Do Patient-reported Assessments Peak after Revision Knee Arthroplasty?
Authors
Ajay Malviya, FRCSEd(Tr & Orth)
Karen Bettinson, MSc
Steven M. Kurtz, PhD
David J. Deehan, FRCS(Tr & Orth)
Publication date
01-06-2012
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® / Issue 6/2012
Print ISSN: 0009-921X
Electronic ISSN: 1528-1132
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-011-2169-3

Other articles of this Issue 6/2012

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® 6/2012 Go to the issue

Symposium: Injuries in Overhead Athletes

Biographical Sketch: George E. Bennett, MD (1885–1962)