Can patients help with long-term total knee arthroplasty surveillance? Comparison of the American Knee Society Score self-report and surgeon assessment

Rheumatology

Volumn 48, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 160-164

  Gioe, T J ^a,b   Pomeroy, D ^c   Suthers, K ^d   Singh, J A ^b,e,f  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^b VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^c University of Louisville School of Medicine   (United States)

^d Synthes Technical Center   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

^f MAYO CLINIC COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Function; Knee society score; Long term surveillance; Pain; Self report; Surgeon assessment; Total knee arthroplasty; Total knee replacement

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; AMERICAN KNEE SOCIETY PAIN KNEE AND FUNCTIONAL SCORE; ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DISEASE SURVEILLANCE; FEMALE; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT; HUMAN; KNEE FUNCTION; KNEE PAIN; LONG TERM CARE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PAIN ASSESSMENT; PHYSICIAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANGE OF MOTION; SCORING SYSTEM; SELF REPORT; SURGEON; TOTAL KNEE REPLACEMENT;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ARTHROPLASTY, REPLACEMENT, KNEE; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HEALTH STATUS INDICATORS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; ORTHOPEDICS; OSTEOARTHRITIS, KNEE; PAIN MEASUREMENT; QUESTIONNAIRES; RANGE OF MOTION, ARTICULAR; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 58749115948     PISSN: 14620324     EISSN: 14620332     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/rheumatology/ken439     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Bach CM, Nogler M, Steingruber IE et al. Scoring systems in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2002;399:184-96.
2. Davies AP. Rating systems for total knee replacement. Knee 2002;9:261-6.
3. Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Murray D, Carr A. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1998;80:63-9.
4. Drake BG, Callahan CM, Dittus RS, Wright JG. Global rating systems used in assessing knee arthroplasty outcomes. J Arthroplasty 1994;9:409-17.
5. Kantz ME, Harris WJ, Levitsky K, Ware JE Jr, Davies AR. Methods for assessing condition-specific and generic functional status outcomes after total knee replacement. Med Care 1992;30:MS240-52.
6. Konig A, Scheidler M, Rader C, Eulert J. The need for a dual rating system in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1997:161-7.
7. Bankes MJ, Coull R, Ferris BD. How long should patients be followed-up after total hip replacement? Current practice in the UK. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 1999;81:348-51.
8. Basch E, Iasonos A, McDonough T et al. Patient versus clinician symptom reporting using the national cancer institute common terminology criteria for adverse events: Results of a questionnaire-based study. Lancet Oncol 2006;7:903-9.
9. 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;16:740-7.
10. 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 2004;43:704-11.
11. 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 1996;11:565-71.
12. Lieberman JR, Dorey F, Shekelle P et al. Differences between patients' and physicians' evaluations of outcome after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1996;78:835-8.
13. Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN. Rationale of the knee society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1989;248:13-4.
14. 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;15:1833-40.
15. Stewart AL, Hays RD, Ware JE Jr. The MOS short-form general health survey. Reliability and validity in a patient population. Med Care 1988;26:724-35.
16. Ewald FC. The Knee Society total knee arthroplasty roentgenographic evaluation and scoring system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1989;248:9-12.
17. Brinker MR, Lund PJ, Barrack RL. Demographic biases of scoring instruments for the results of total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1997;79:858-65.
18. Lingard EA, Katz JN, Wright RJ, Wright EA, Sledge CB. Validity and responsiveness of the Knee Society clinical rating system in comparison with the SF-36 and WOMAC. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2001;83-A:1856-64.
19. Liow RY, Walker K, Wajid MA, Bedi G, Lennox CM. The reliability of the American Knee Society score. Acta Orthop Scand 2000;71:603-8.
20. Liow RY, Walker K, Wajid MA, Bedi G, Lennox CM. Functional rating for knee arthroplasty: Comparison of three scoring systems. Orthopedics 2003;26:143-9.
21. 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.
22. Boone DC, Azen SP, Lin CM, Spence C, Baron C, Lee L. Reliability of goniometric measurements. Phys Ther 1978;58:1355-90.
23. Bovens AM, van Baak MA, Vrencken JG, Wijnen JA, Verstappen FT. Variability and reliability of joint measurements. Am J Sports Med 1990;18:58-63.
24. Brosseau L, Balmer S, Tousignant M et al. Intra- and intertester reliability and criterion validity of the parallelogram and universal goniometers for measuring maximum active knee flexion and extension of patients with knee restrictions. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2001;82:396-402.
25. Mayerson NH, Milano RA. Goniometric measurement reliability in physical medicine. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1984;65:92-4.
26. Edwards JZ, Greene KA, Davis RS, Kovacik MW, Noe DA, Askew MJ. Measuring flexion in knee arthroplasty patients. J Arthroplasty 2004;19:369-72.
27. Kafer W, Fraitzl CR, Kinkel S, Clessienne CB, Puhl W, Kessler S. [Outcome assessment in total knee arthroplasty: Is the clinical measurement of range of motion a reliable measurable outcome variable?]. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 2005;143:25-9.
28. Shultz SJ, Nguyen AD, Windley TC, Kulas AS, Botic TL, Beynnon BD. Intratester and intertester reliability of clinical measures of lower extremity anatomic characteristics: Implications for multicenter studies. Clin J Sport Med 2006;16:155-61.
29. Walkins MA, Riddle DL, Lamb RL, Personius WJ. Reliability of goniometric measurements and visual estimates of knee range of motion obtained in a clinical setting. Phys Ther 1991;71:90-6; discussion 6-7.
30. Cella D, Yount S, Rothrock N et al. The patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (promis): Progress of an NIH roadmap cooperative group during its first two years. Med Care 2007;45:S3-11.
31. Wasson J, Gaudette C, Whaley F, Sauvigne A, Baribeau P, Welch HG. Telephone care as a substitute for routine clinic follow-up. J Am Med Assoc 1992;267:1788-93.
32. Mahomed NN, Arndt DC, McGrory BJ, Harris WH. The Harris Hip Score: comparison of patient self-report with surgeon assessment. J Arthroplasty 2001;16:575-80.
33. Miner AL, Lingard EA, Wright EA, Sledge CB, Katz JN. Knee range of motion after total knee arthroplasty: How important is this as an outcome measure? J Arthroplasty 2003;18:286-94.