Is restoration of healthy gait biomechanics following total knee replacement surgery reflected in patient reported outcome measures?

Abstract Background The degree to which a validated instrument is able to detect clinically significant change over time is an important issue for the better management of hip or knee replacement surgery. This study examines the internal responsiveness of the EQ-5D-3L, the Oxford Hip Score (OHS), and the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) by various methods. Data from NHS patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) linked to the Hospital Episodes Statistics (HES) dataset (2009–2015) was analysed for patients who underwent primary hip surgery (N = 181,424) and primary knee surgery (N = 191,379). Methods Paired data-specific univariate responsiveness was investigated using the standardized response mean (SRM), the standardized effect size (SES), and the responsiveness index (RI). Multivariate responsiveness was furthermore examined using the defined capacity of benefit score (i.e. paired data-specific MCID), adjusting baseline covariates such as age, gender, and comorbidities in the Box-Cox regression models. The observed and predicted percentages of patient improvement were examined both as a whole and by the patients' self-assessed transition level. Results The results showed that both the OHS and the OKS demonstrated great univariate and multivariate responsiveness. The percentages of the observed (predicted) total improvement were high: 51 (54)% in the OHS and 73 (58)% in OKS. The OHS and the OKS showed distinctive differences in improvement by the 3-level transition, i.e. a little better vs. about the same vs. a little worse. The univariate responsiveness of the EQ-5D-3L showed moderate effects in total by Cohen’s thresholds. The percentages of improvement in the EQ-5D-3L were moderate: 44 (48)% in the hip and 42 (44)% for the knee replacement population. Conclusions Distinctive percentage differences in patients’ perception of improvement were observed when the paired data-specific capacity of benefit score was applied to examine responsiveness. This is useful in clinical practice as rationale for access to surgery at the individual-patient level. This study shows the importance of analytic methods and instruments for investigation of the health status in hip and/or knee replacement surgery. The study finding also supports the idea of using a generic measure along with the disease-specific instruments in terms of cross-validation.

Download Full-text

PROMs in total knee replacement: analysis of negative outcomes

Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England ◽

10.1308/rcsann.2020.0186 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 103 (1) ◽

pp. 64-73

Author(s):

F Begum ◽

A Panagiotidou ◽

C Park ◽

T Ashdown ◽

S El-Tawil

Keyword(s):

Total Knee Replacement ◽

Knee Replacement ◽

Oxford Knee Score ◽

Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽

Patient Reported Outcome ◽

Replacement Policy ◽

Health Gains ◽

Patient Reported ◽

Post Operation ◽

Total Knee

Introduction NHS England uses the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) as part of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to evaluate ‘health gains’ following total knee replacement. Policy makers use this to guide healthcare funding and resource allocation. Our study aims to undertake a qualitative and quantitative analysis of OKS among patients who experienced a negative outcome after a total knee replacement at our centre. Materials and methods Between April 2017-March 2018, 19 of 189 (10%) patients had a worsened OKS at our centre. We retrospectively and prospectively reviewed 14 of these patients. Structured telephone interviews with a repeat OKS were carried out in September 2019 (18–29 months post-operation). Results Eight patients were female and the total age range was 57–95, mean average 75.6 (SD 9.9 years). Of 48 (higher scores meaning better outcomes), the average preoperative OKS was 24.2 and the average postoperative OKS at 6 months was 19.4 (decrease of 20%). The average postoperative OKS at 18–29 months was 35.6 (an increase of 83.5% from 6 months). Discussion The OKS was developed and validated over 20 years ago in Oxford. In our study, four patients asked for clarification of questions 4, 6 and 10 owing to ambiguous language. All 14 patients who had negative OKS outcomes had positive outcomes when retested after 18 months, depicting ‘health gains’ not conveyed in PROMs analysis. Conclusion The OKS needs to be revalidated on current patient groups for accurate and reliable data. Further prospective studies should be undertaken on larger cohorts to understand the recovery course and whether PROMs should be carried out later.

Download Full-text

The effect of numbness on outcome from total knee replacement

Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England ◽

10.1308/rcsann.2017.0026 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 99 (5) ◽

pp. 385-389 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

J Blackburn ◽

V Wylde ◽

R Greenwood ◽

AW Blom ◽

A Levy

Keyword(s):

Total Knee Replacement ◽

Knee Replacement ◽

Functional Limitations ◽

Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽

Patient Reported Outcome ◽

Self Report ◽

Pain Subscale ◽

Patient Reported ◽

Total Knee ◽

The Impact

INTRODUCTION Some patients report continuing pain and functional limitations after total knee replacement (TKR). While numbness around the TKR scar is common, the impact of numbness is less clear. One particular activity that could be influenced by numbness is kneeling. The aim of this study was to explore the impact of numbness around TKR scars on health related quality of life and kneeling ability. METHODS Fifty-six patients were recruited one year after primary TKR. Sensation around the knee was assessed through patient self-reporting, monofilament testing and vibration, and patients’ distress was measured on a visual analogue scale. Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) including the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC®) index, the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), the painDETECT® (Pfizer, Berlin, Germany) questionnaire and the EQ-5D™ (EuroQol, Rotterdam, Netherlands) questionnaire were used. Participants were also asked about kneeling ability. RESULTS While 68% of patients reported numbness around their TKR scar, there was no statistically significant correlation between numbness and distress at numbness (self-report: 0.23, p=0.08; monofilament: 0.15, p=0.27). Furthermore, numbness did not correlate significantly with joint specific PROMs (WOMAC®: 0.21, p=0.13; KOOS: 0.18, p=0.19). However, difficulty with kneeling did correlate with both self-reported numbness (0.36, p=0.020) and worse PROM scores (WOMAC® pain subscale: 0.62, p<0.001; KOOS: 0.64, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS Numbness after knee replacement is common but is not associated with worse patient reported outcomes.

Download Full-text