Routine follow-up office visits after total joint replacement. Do asymptomatic patients wish to comply?

Journal of Arthroplasty

Volumn 15, Issue 2, 2000, Pages 183-186

  Sethuraman, Venkat ^a,b   McGuigan, John ^a   Hozack, William J ^a,b   Sharkey, Peter F ^a,b   Rothman, Richard H ^a,b  

^a THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b ROTHMAN INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

Cost benefit; Joint replacement; Outcomes

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HIP ARTHROPLASTY; HUMAN; JOINT PROSTHESIS; KNEE ARTHROPLASTY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; PATIENT SATISFACTION; TOTAL HIP PROSTHESIS; TOTAL KNEE REPLACEMENT; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 0034055042     PISSN: 08835403     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0883-5403(00)90176-1     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Wasson J, Gaudette C, Whaley F, et al: Telephone care as a substitute for routine clinic follow-up. JAMA 267:1788, 1992
2. McGrory BJ, Freiberg AA, Shinar AA, Harris WH: Correlation of measured range of hip motion following total hip arthroplasty and responses to a questionnaire. J Arthroplasty 11:565, 1996
3. Brinker MR, Lund PJ, Cox DD, Barrack RL: Demographic biases found in scoring instruments of total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 11:820, 1996
4. Hoher J, Bach T, Munster A, et al: Does the mode of data collection change results in a subjective knee score? Self-administration versus interview. Am J Sports Med 25:642, 1997
5. Siemiatycki J: A comparison of mail, telephone, and home interview strategies for household health surveys. Am J Public Health 69:238, 1979
6. O'Toole BI, Battistutta D, Long A, Crouch K: A comparison of costs and data quality of three health survey methods: mail, telephone and personal home interview. Am J Epidemiol 124:317, 1986
7. Ware JE, Sherbourne CD: The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). Med Care 30:473, 1992
8. Katz ME, Harris WJ, Levitsky K, et al: Methods for assessing condition-specific and generic functional status outcomes after total knee replacement. Med Care 30:240, 1992
9. Liang MH, Larson MG, Cullen KE, Schwartz JA: Comparative measurement efficiency and sensitivity of five health status instruments for arthritis research. Arthritis Rheum 28:542, 1985
10. McHorney CA, Ware JE, Rodgers W, et al: The validity and relative precision of MOS short and long form health status scales and Dartmouth COOP charts. Med Care 30:253, 1992
11. Stewart AL, Greenfield S, Hays RD, et al: Functional status and well-being of patients with chronic conditions: results from the Medical Outcomes Study. JAMA 272:907, 1989
12. Stewart AL, Hays RD, Ware JE: The MOS short-form general health survey: reliability and validity in patient populations. Med Care 26:724, 1988
13. McGrory BJ, Shinar AA, Freiberg AA, Harris WH: Enhancement of the value of hip questionnaires by telephone follow-up evaluation. J Arthroplasty 12: 340, 1997
14. McGuigan FX, Hozack WJ, Moriarty L, et al: Predicting quality-of-life outcomes following total joint arthroplasty: limitations of the SF-36 Health Status Questionnaire. J Arthroplasty 10:742, 1995
15. Ritter MA, Albohm MJ, Keating EM, et al: Comparative outcomes of total joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 10:737, 1995
16. McGrory BJ, Morrey BF, Rand JA, Ilstrup DM: Correlation of patient questionnaire responses and physician history in grading clinical outcome following hip and knee arthroplasty: a prospective study of 201 joint arthroplasties. J Arthroplasty 11:47, 1996
17. Hozack WJ, Mesa JJ, Carey C, Rothman RH: The relationship between polyethylene wear, pelvic osteolysis, and clinical symptomatology in patients with cementless acetabular components: a framework for decision-making. J Arthroplasty 11:769, 1996