scholarly journals Does Clinically Important Change in Function After Knee Replacement Guarantee Good Absolute Function? The Multicenter Osteoarthritis Study

2013 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 60-64 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessica L. Maxwell ◽  
David T. Felson ◽  
Jingbo Niu ◽  
Barton Wise ◽  
Michael C. Nevitt ◽  
...  

Objective.Poor functional outcomes post–knee replacement are common, but estimates of its prevalence vary, likely in part because of differences in methods used to assess function. The agreement between improvement in function and absolute good levels of function after knee replacement has not been evaluated. We evaluated the attainment of improvement in function and absolute good function after total knee replacement (TKR) and the agreement between these measures.Methods.Using data from The Multicenter Osteoarthritis (MOST) Study, we determined the prevalence of achieving a minimal clinically important improvement (MCII, ≥ 14.2/68 point improvement) and Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS, ≤ 22/68 post-TKR score) on the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) Physical Function subscale at least 6 months after knee replacement. We also assessed the frequency of co-occurrence of the 2 outcomes, and the prevalence according to pre-knee replacement functional status.Results.We included 228 subjects who had a knee replacement during followup (mean age 65 yrs, mean body mass index 33.4, 73% female). Seventy-one percent attained the PASS for function after knee replacement, while only 44% attained the MCII. Of the subjects who met the MCII, 93% also attained the PASS; however, of subjects who did not meet the MCII, 54% still achieved a PASS. Baseline functional status was associated with attainment of each MCII and PASS.Conclusion.There was only partial overlap between attainment of a good level of function and actually improving by an acceptable amount. Subjects were more likely to attain an acceptable level of function than to achieve a clinically important amount of improvement post–knee replacement.

Medical Care ◽  
1992 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement) ◽  
pp. MS240-MS252 ◽  
Author(s):  
M Elizabeth Kantz ◽  
Wendy J. Harris ◽  
Kenneth Levitsky ◽  
John E. Ware ◽  
Allyson Ross Davies

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. e026736 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin C Deere ◽  
Michael R Whitehouse ◽  
Martyn Porter ◽  
Ashley W Blom ◽  
Adrian Sayers

ObjectivesTo investigate the relative performance of knee replacement constructs compared with the best performing construct and illustrate the substantial variability in performance.DesignA non-inferiority study.SettingEngland and Wales.ParticipantsAll primary total and unicondylar knee replacements performed and registered in the National Joint Registry between 1 April 2003 and 31 December 2016.Main outcome measuresKaplan-Meier failure function for knee replacement constructs. Failure difference between best performing construct (the benchmark) and other constructs.MethodsUsing a non-inferiority analysis, the performance of knee replacement constructs by brand were compared with the best performing construct. Construct failure was estimated using the 1-Kaplan Meier method, that is, an estimate of net failure. The difference in failure between the contemporary benchmark construct and all other constructs were tested.ResultsOf the 449 different knee replacement constructs used, only 27 had ≥500 procedures at risk at 10 years postprimary, 18 of which were classified as inferior to the benchmark by at least 20% relative risk of failure. Two of these 18 were unicondylar constructs that were inferior by at least 100% relative risk. In men, aged 55–75 years, 12 of 27 (44%) constructs were inferior by at least 20% to the benchmark at 7 years postprimary. In women, aged 55–75 years, 8 of 32 (25%) constructs were inferior at 7 years postprimary. Very few constructs were classified as non-inferior to the contemporary benchmark.ConclusionsThere are few knee replacement constructs that can be shown to be non-inferior to a contemporary benchmark. Unicondylar knee constructs have, almost universally, at least 100% worse revision outcomes compared with the best performing total knee replacement. These results will help to inform patients, clinicians and commissioners when considering knee replacement surgery.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document