Comparison of patient-reported and clinician-assessed outcomes following total knee arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND Although the necessity of long-term follow-up after total knee arthroplasty is unquestioned, this task may become burdensome as greater numbers of total knee arthroplasties are performed. We sought to use comparisons with clinician-assessed values to determine whether patients could reliably assess their own outcome with use of a combination of American Knee Society Score and Oxford Knee Score questionnaires and self-reported knee motion. We hypothesized that patients would self-report worse pain and function and a similar range of knee motion than clinicians would. METHODS One hundred and forty patients (181 knees) scheduled for routine follow-up at two centers after primary total knee arthroplasty were mailed American Knee Society Score and Oxford Knee Score questionnaires, a set of photographs illustrating knee motion in 5° increments for comparison with the patient's range of knee motion, and a goniometer with instructions. The patient's American Knee Society Score, Oxford Knee Score, and knee motion were then independently assessed within two weeks of the self-evaluation by one of three clinicians who had not been involved with the surgery. Patient-reported and clinician-assessed measures were compared with use of a paired-sample t test and the Spearman correlation coefficient. RESULTS The mean patient-reported American Knee Society pain subscore was 4 points worse than the clinician-assessed score, and the function subscore was 10 points worse (p < 0.001 for both). The mean Oxford Knee Score did not differ significantly between the patient self-assessment and the clinician assessment (p = 0.05). The mean maximum flexion reported by the patient with use of the photographs differed by <1° from the mean value reported by the patient with use of the goniometer or the mean value measured by the clinician; these differences were not clinically important. CONCLUSIONS Patients' self-reported American Knee Society pain and function subscores were worse than the corresponding clinician assessments, but the two Oxford Knee Scores were similar. Range of knee motion may reasonably be self-assessed by comparison with photographs. Long-term follow-up of patients after total knee arthroplasty may be possible with use of patient-reported measures, alleviating the burden of clinic visits yet maintaining contact, but further studies involving other validated instruments is warranted.

[1]  R. Bourne Measuring Tools for Functional Outcomes in Total Knee Arthroplasty , 2008, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[2]  S. Haley,et al.  Establishing minimal clinically important differences for scores on the pediatric evaluation of disability inventory for inpatient rehabilitation. , 2003, Physical therapy.

[3]  T. Gioe,et al.  Why Are Total Knee Replacements Revised?: Analysis of Early Revision in a Community Knee Implant Registry , 2004, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[4]  M. Bankes,et al.  How long should patients be followed-up after total hip replacement? Current practice in the UK. , 1999, Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England.

[5]  P. Sharkey,et al.  Why Are Total Knee Arthroplasties Failing Today? , 2002 .

[6]  N. Zisapel,et al.  Determination of the minimal clinically significant difference on a patient visual analog sleep quality scale , 2003, Journal of sleep research.

[7]  R. Dittus,et al.  Patient outcomes following tricompartmental total knee replacement. A meta-analysis. , 1994, JAMA.

[8]  A. Carr,et al.  Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total knee replacement. , 1998, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[9]  Sally C. York,et al.  Long-term follow-up care recommendations after total hip and knee arthroplasty: results of the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons' member survey. , 2003, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[10]  G. Bedi,et al.  Functional rating for knee arthroplasty: comparison of three scoring systems. , 2003, Orthopedics.

[11]  F. Wolf,et al.  Commercially funded and United States-based research is more likely to be published; good-quality studies with negative outcomes are not. , 2007, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[12]  B. Morrey Prevalence of Primary and Revision Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty in the United States From 1990 Through 2002Kurtz S, Mowat F, Ong K, et al (Exponent Inc, Philadelphia) J Bone Joint Surg Am 87-A:1487–1497, 2005§ , 2006 .

[13]  V. Strand,et al.  Patient- versus physician-reported outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis patients treated with recombinant interleukin-1 receptor antagonist (anakinra) therapy. , 2004, Rheumatology.

[14]  K. Greene,et al.  Measuring flexion in knee arthroplasty patients. , 2004, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[15]  W. Harris,et al.  Correlation of measured range of hip motion following total hip arthroplasty and responses to a questionnaire. , 1996, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[16]  John D. Childs,et al.  Responsiveness of the Neck Disability Index in patients with mechanical neck disorders. , 2009, The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society.

[17]  P. Sharkey,et al.  Insall Award paper. Why are total knee arthroplasties failing today? , 2002, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[18]  S. Kurtz,et al.  Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. , 2007, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[19]  J. Singh,et al.  Challenges With Health‐related Quality of Life Assessment in Arthroplasty Patients: Problems and Solutions , 2010, The Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons.

[20]  J. Katz,et al.  Knee range of motion after total knee arthroplasty: how important is this as an outcome measure? , 2003, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[21]  R Y Liow,et al.  The reliability of the American Knee Society Score , 2000, Acta orthopaedica Scandinavica.

[22]  P. Moonot,et al.  Cost-benefit comparison of the Oxford Knee score and the American Knee Society score in measuring outcome of total knee arthroplasty. , 2009, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[23]  M. C. de Waal Malefijt,et al.  Patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty: a comparison between subjective and objective outcome assessments. , 2001, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[24]  D W Murray,et al.  The use of the Oxford hip and knee scores. , 2007, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume.

[25]  T. Gioe,et al.  Can patients help with long-term total knee arthroplasty surveillance? Comparison of the American Knee Society Score self-report and surgeon assessment. , 2009, Rheumatology.