Patient-reported outcome measures after total knee arthroplasty

Bone and Joint Research - Tập 4 Số 7 - Trang 120-127 - 2015
Prem N. Ramkumar1,2,3, Joshua D. Harris1,2,3, Philip C. Noble1,2,3
1From Houston Methodist Orthopedics and Sports Medicine, Houston, Texas, United States
2Houston Methodist Orthopedics and Sports Medicine, 6550 Fannin Street, Smith Tower, Suite 2511 Houston, Texas 77030, USA.
3Medical Student Hospital for Special Surgery, 535 E 70th St, Bellaire Building, Suite 9-11, New York 10021, USA.

Tóm tắt

Objectives A lack of connection between surgeons and patients in evaluating the outcome of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has led to the search for the ideal patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) to evaluate these procedures. We hypothesised that the desired psychometric properties of the ideal outcome tool have not been uniformly addressed in studies describing TKA PROMS. Methods A systematic review was conducted investigating one or more facets of patient-reported scores for measuring primary TKA outcome. Studies were analysed by study design, subject demographics, surgical technique, and follow-up adequacy, with the ‘gold standard’ of psychometric properties being systematic development, validity, reliability, and responsiveness. Results A total of 38 articles reported outcomes from 47 different PROMS to 85 541 subjects at 26.3 months (standard deviation 30.8) post-operatively. Of the 38, eight developed new scores, 20 evaluated existing scores, and ten were cross-cultural adaptation of existing scores. Only six of 38 surveyed studies acknowledged all ‘gold standard’ psychometric properties. The most commonly studied PROMS were the Oxford Knee Score, New Knee Society Score, Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index. Conclusions A single, validated, reliable, and responsive PROM addressing TKA patients’ priorities has not yet been identified. Moreover, a clear definition of a successful procedure remains elusive. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2015;4:120–127

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

10.1097/01.blo.0000238825.63648.1e

10.1097/01.blo.0000150130.03519.fb

10.1007/s11999-011-2152-z

10.2340/16501977-0801

10.1016/j.cger.2012.05.007

Lingard EA, 2006, J Bone Joint Surg [Am, 88, 1201

10.1016/j.arth.2008.05.016

10.1177/112070000901900101

10.1016/j.rdc.2006.12.008

10.1371/journal.pone.0030195

10.2106/00004623-200403000-00026

10.1007/s00167-011-1631-9

10.1007/s11999-008-0468-0

10.1007/s11420-011-9203-6

10.1007/s11999-009-1119-9

10.1002/art.23565

10.1007/s11999-013-3118-0

10.1007/s11136-011-0058-6

10.1016/j.cger.2012.05.003

10.1007/s11999-013-3198-x

Howick J, Chalmers I, Glasziou P, et al.2015).

10.1097/00003086-200206000-00022

10.1007/s00167-011-1621-y

10.1016/j.arth.2011.06.035

10.1186/1477-7525-6-55

10.1016/j.joca.2009.01.005

10.1186/1477-7525-6-16

10.1080/000164700317411861

10.1007/s11999-012-2564-4

10.1002/bjs.8830

10.1016/j.knee.2011.04.006

10.1016/j.joca.2012.09.019

10.1016/j.arth.2010.07.027

10.1016/j.arth.2013.07.015

10.1016/j.otsr.2012.03.004

10.1016/j.otsr.2010.07.009

10.1007/s11999-012-2726-4

10.1016/j.joca.2009.04.004

10.1007/s11136-013-0376-y

10.1080/000164700317362244

10.3928/0147-7447-20030201-15

10.1155/2011/591253

10.2106/JBJS.D.02286

10.1097/PHM.0b013e31829f19d8

10.1007/s11999-011-2203-5

10.1016/j.joca.2008.05.017

10.1007/s11999-008-0358-5

10.1007/s11999-011-2152-z

10.1016/j.joca.2007.12.014

10.1186/1477-7525-1-17

Ruyssen-Witrand A, 2011, Clin Exp Rheumatol, 29, 231

10.1016/j.arth.2008.09.019

Toyé F, 2007, Clin Orthop Relat Res, 464, 190, 10.1097/BLO.0b013e31815725d9

10.1007/s11999-013-3149-6

10.1016/j.knee.2004.11.005

10.1016/j.joca.2007.02.013

10.1016/j.jval.2011.11.011

10.1016/j.knee.2014.02.004

10.1016/j.otsr.2014.03.025

10.1302/0301-620X.80B1.0800063

10.1302/0301-620X.89B8.19424

10.2519/jospt.1998.28.2.88

Bellamy N, 1988, J Rheumatol, 15, 1833

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Bone and Joint Research

Tập 4 Số 7

120-127

Thông tin tác giả