Does clinically important change in function after knee replacement guarantee good absolute function? the multicenter osteoarthritis study

Journal of Rheumatology

Volumn 41, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 60-64

  Maxwell, Jessica L ^a   Felson, David T ^a   Niu, Jingbo ^a   Wise, Barton ^b   Nevitt, Michael C ^c   Singh, Jasvinder A ^d   Frey Law, Laura ^e   Neogi, Tuhina ^f  

^a BOSTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

^f BOSTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Knee replacement; Outcomes; Physical function

Indexed keywords

AGED; ARTICLE; CLINICAL STUDY; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MINIMAL CLINICALLY IMPORTANT IMPROVEMENT; MULTICENTER OSTEOARTHRITIS STUDY; PATIENT ACCEPTABLE SYMPTOM STATE; PREVALENCE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SCORING SYSTEM; SELF REPORT; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; TOTAL KNEE REPLACEMENT; WESTERN ONTARIO AND MCMASTER UNIVERSITIES OSTEOARTHRITIS INDEX;

KNEE REPLACEMENT; OUTCOMES; PHYSICAL FUNCTION;

AGED; ARTHROPLASTY, REPLACEMENT, KNEE; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OSTEOARTHRITIS, KNEE; PAIN MEASUREMENT; PATIENT SATISFACTION; RECOVERY OF FUNCTION; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84891815028     PISSN: 0315162X     EISSN: 14992752     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.130313     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Kane R, Saleh KJ, Wilt TJ, Bershadsky B. The functional outcomes of total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005;87A:1719-24.
2. Singh JA, O'Byrne M, Harmsen S, Lewallen D. Predictors of moderate-severe functional limitation after primary Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA): 4701 TKAs at 2-years and 2935 TKAs at 5-years. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2007;18:515-21.
3. Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M. Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007;89:780-5.
4. Losina E, Katz J. Total TKR: pursuit of the paramount result. Rheumatology 2012;51:1735-6.
5. Tubach F, Ravaud P, Baron G, Falissard B, Logeart I, Bellamy N, et al. Evaluation of clinically relevant states in patient reported outcomes in knee and hip osteoarthritis: the patient acceptable symptom state. Ann Rheum Dis 2005;64:34-7.
6. Escobar A, Quintana JM, Bilbao A, Arostegui I, Lafuente I, Vidaurreta I. Responsiveness and clinically important differences for the WOMAC and SF-36 after total knee replacement. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2007;15:273-80.
7. Tubach F, Ravaud P, Martin-Mola E, Awada H, Bellamy N, Bombardier C, et al. Minimum clinically important improvement and patient acceptable symptom state in pain and function in rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, chronic back pain, hand osteoarthritis, and hip and knee osteoarthritis: results from a prospective multinational study. Arthritis Care Res 2012; 64:1699-707.
8. Perrot S, Bertin P. "Feeling better" or "feeling well" in usual care of hip and knee osteoarthritis pain: Determination of cutoff points for patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) and minimal clinically important improvement (MCII) at rest and on movement in a national multicenter cohort study of 2414 patients with painful osteoarthritis. Pain 2013;154:248-56.
9. Felson DT, Niu J, Guermazi A, Roemer F, Aliabadi P, Clancy M, et al. Correlation of the development of knee pain with enlarging bone marrow lesions on magnetic resonance imaging. Arthritis Rheum 2007;56:2986-92.
10. Davis A, Perruccio AV, Ibrahim S, Hogg-Johnson S, Wong R, Streiner DL, et al. The trajectory of recovery and the inter-relationships of symptoms, activity and participation in the first year following total hip and TKR. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2011;19:1413-21.
11. 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.
12. Escobar A, Gonzalez M, Quintana JM, Vrotsou K, Bilbao A, Herrera-Espiñeira C, et al. Patient acceptable symptom state and OMERACT-OARSI set of responder criteria in joint replacement. Identification of cut-off values. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2012; 20:87-92.
13. Hawker G, Wright J, Coyte P, Paul J, Dittus R, Croxford R, et al. Health-related quality of life after TKR. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1998;80:163-73.
14. Fortin PR, Penrod JR, Clarke AE, St-Pierre Y, Joseph L, Bélisle P, et al. Timing of total joint replacement affects clinical outcomes among patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. Arthritis Rheum 2002;46:3327-30.
15. Felson DT, Niu J, Gross KD, Englund M, Sharma L, Cooke TD, et al. Valgus malalignment is a risk factor for lateral knee osteoarthritis incidence and progression: findings from the Multicenter Osteoarthritis Study and the Osteoarthritis Initiative. Arthritis Rheum 2013;65:355-62.
16. Tubach F, Dougados M, Falissard B, Baron G, Logeart I, Ravaud P. Feeling good rather than feeling better matters more to patients. Arthritis Care Res 2006;55:526-30.
17. Lingard EA, Katz JN, Wright EA, Sledge CB, and the Kinemax Outcomes Group. Predicting the outcome of total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004;86:2179-86.
18. Goldsmith CH, Boers M, Bombardier C, Tugwell P. Criteria for clinically important changes in outcomes: development, scoring and evaluation of rheumatoid arthritis patient and trial profiles. OMERACT Committee. J Rheumatol 1993;20:561-5.
19. Leibs TR, Herzberg W, Roth-Krueger A, Ruther W, Hassenpflug J. Women recover faster than men after standard knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2011;469:2855-65.
20. Heiberg T, Kvien TK, Mowinckel P, Aletaha D, Smolen JS, Hagen KB. Identification of disease activity and health status cut-off points for the symptom state acceptable to patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 2008;67:967-71.
21. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 1989;10:407-15.