Correlations between commonly used clinical outcome scales and patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty

Journal of Arthroplasty

Volumn 25, Issue 7, 2010, Pages 1125-1130

  Kwon, Sae Kwang ^a   Kang, Yeon Gwi ^a   Kim, Sung Ju ^c   Chang, Chong Bum ^a,b   Seong, Sang Cheol ^b   Kim, Tae Kyun ^a,b  

^a Seoul National University Bundang Hospital   (South Korea)

^b Seoul National University College of Medicine   (South Korea)

^c Korea University   (South Korea)

Author keywords

Outcome scale; Patient satisfaction; Total knee arthroplasty

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; AMERICAN KNEE SOCIETY OUTCOME SCALE; ARTICLE; ASIAN; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; KNEE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT SATISFACTION; POSTOPERATIVE PERIOD; PREOPERATIVE PERIOD; RATING SCALE; SHORT FORM 36; TOTAL KNEE REPLACEMENT; WESTERN ONTARIO MCMASTER UNIVERSITY OSTEOARTHRITIS INDEX SCALE;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ARTHROPLASTY, REPLACEMENT, KNEE; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HEALTH SURVEYS; HUMANS; KNEE JOINT; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OSTEOARTHRITIS, KNEE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PATIENT SATISFACTION; RANGE OF MOTION, ARTICULAR; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES;

EID: 77957259004     PISSN: 08835403     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2009.10.015     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Insall J.N., Dorr L.D., Scott R.D., et al. Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1989, 248:13.
2. Bellamy N., Buchanan W.W., Goldsmith C.H., et al. 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.
3. Ware J.E., Sherbourne C.D. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992, 30:473.
4. Bombardier C., Melfi C.A., Paul J., et al. Comparison of a generic and a disease-specific measure of pain and physical function after knee replacement surgery. Med Care 1995, 33:AS131.
5. Ethgen O., Bruyere O., Richy F., et al. 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-A:963.
6. Kreibich D.N., Vaz M., Bourne R.B., et al. What is the best way of assessing outcome after total knee replacement?. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1996, 331:221.
7. Lingard E.A., Katz J.N., Wright R.J., et al. 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.
8. Bullens P.H., van Loon C.J., de Waal Malefijt M.C., et al. Patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty: a comparison between subjective and objective outcome assessments. J Arthroplasty 2001, 16:740.
9. Baker P.N., van der Meulen J.H., Lewsey J., et al. 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.
10. Robertsson O., Dunbar M.J. Patient satisfaction compared with general health and disease-specific questionnaires in knee arthroplasty patients. J Arthroplasty 2001, 16:476.
11. Clarke G., Hall R.T., Rosencrance G. Physician-patient relations: no more models. Am J Bioeth 2004, 4:W16.
12. Courtney M.J. Information about surgery: what does the public want to know?. ANZ J Surg 2001, 71:24.
13. Kane R.L., Maciejewski M., Finch M. The relationship of patient satisfaction with care and clinical outcomes. Med Care 1997, 35:714.
14. Noble P.C., Conditt M.A., Cook K.F., et al. The John Insall Award: patient expectations affect satisfaction with total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006, 452:35.
15. Anderson J.G., Wixson R.L., Tsai D., et al. Functional outcome and patient satisfaction in total knee patients over the age of 75. J Arthroplasty 1996, 11:831.
16. Lingard E.A., Katz J.N., Wright E.A., et al. Predicting the outcome of total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004, 86-A:2179.
17. Aichroth P., Freeman M.A.R., Smillie I.S., et al. A knee function assessment chart. From the British Orthopaedic Association Research Sub-Committee. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1978, 60:308.
18. Waters T.S., Bentley G. Patellar resurfacing in total knee arthroplasty. A prospective, randomized study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003, 85:212.
19. Landis J.R., Koch G.G. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977, 33:159.
20. Carr-Hill R.A. The measurement of patient satisfaction. J Public Health Med 1992, 14:236.
21. Ritter M.A., Harty L.D., Davis K.E., et al. Predicting range of motion after total knee arthroplasty. Clustering, log-linear regression, and regression tree analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003, 85:1278.
22. Kim Y.H., Sohn K.S., Kim J.S. Range of motion of standard and high-flexion posterior stabilized total knee prostheses. A prospective, randomized study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005, 87:1470.
23. Marx R.G., Jones E.C., Atwan N.C., et al. Measuring improvement following total hip and knee arthroplasty using patient-based measures of outcome. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005, 87:1999.
24. Crowninshield R.D., Rosenberg A.G., Sporer S.M. Changing demographics of patients with total joint replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006, 443:266.
25. Kurtz S., Mowat F., Ong K., et al. Prevalence of primary and revision total hip and knee arthroplasty in the united states from 1990 through 2002. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005, 87:1487.
26. Kim T.H., Lee D.H., Bin S.I. The NexGen LPS-flex to the knee prosthesis at a minimum of three years. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2008, 90:1304.
27. Kim T.K., Chung B.J., Kang Y.G., et al. Clinical implications of anthropometric patellar dimensions for TKA in Asians. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009, 467:1007.
28. Kim Y.H., Kim J.S., Hong K.S., et al. Prevalence of fat embolism after total knee arthroplasty performed with or without computer navigation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2008, 90:123.
29. Park K.K., Chang C.B., Kang Y.G., et al. Correlation of maximum flexion with clinical outcome after total knee replacement in Asian patients. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2007, 89:604.
30. Song E.K., Seon J.K., Yoon T.R., et al. Comparative study of stability after total knee arthroplasties between navigation system and conventional techniques. J Arthroplasty 2007, 22:1107.
31. Kim H.A., Kim S., Seo Y.I., et al. The epidemiology of total knee replacement in South Korea: national registry data. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2008, 47:88.
32. Hashimoto H., Hanyu T., Sledge C.B., et al. Validation of a Japanese patient-derived outcome scale for assessing total knee arthroplasty: comparison with Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index (WOMAC). J Orthop Sci 2003, 8:288.
33. Razmjou H., Yee A., Ford M., et al. Response shift in outcome assessment in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006, 88:2590.
34. Fortin P.R., Clarke A.E., Joseph L., et al. Outcomes of total hip and knee replacement: preoperative functional status predicts outcomes at six months after surgery. Arthritis Rheum 1999, 42:1722.
35. Fortin P.R., Penrod J.R., Clarke A.E., et al. Timing of total joint replacement affects clinical outcomes among patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. Arthritis Rheum 2002, 46:3327.
36. Escalante A., Beardmore T.D. Predicting length of stay after hip or knee replacement for rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 1997, 24:146.