medigraphic.com
ISSN 2992-8036 (Electronic)
ISSN 2306-4102 (Print)
Órgano Oficial del Colegio Mexicano de Ortopedia y Traumatología

2020, Number 4

<< Back Next >>

Acta Ortop Mex 2020; 34 (4)

Functional and quality of life results after a total knee replacement per year and five years of follow-up

Torres-Claramunt R, Gil-González S, Hinarejos-Gómez P, Leal J, Sánchez-Soler J, Monllau-García J

Language: Spanish
References: 20
Page: 211-214
PDF size: 159.93 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction: Classically the results of any joint replacement surgery are evaluated at a minimum of 5 years. This period could be considered excessive to evaluate the functional results of this procedure. The objective of this study is to compare functional and quality of life results to 1 and five years of follow-up following a total knee replacement (TKR). Material and methods: Prospective observational study. All patients visited one year after the implantation of TKR were included. All of these filled out the SF-36 questionnaire and the KSS valuation scale. Both were administered again at age five after surgery. Results: 689 patients were initially included in the study (163 men [23.7%] and 526 women [76.3%]) with an average age of 72.2 years. At age 5,585 (84.9%) of these patients were re-analyzed. While the knee section of the KSS scale remained similar in these two periods, the function section of the KSS titration scale showed a slight worsening over time (p = 0.008). With respect to SF-36, the physical summation worsened at five years (p = 0.00) and the mental summation remained stable (n.s.) between the year and five years after surgery. Discussion: Five years after a TKR, the physical exam does not vary from the year of surgery. However, the subjective evaluation measured by the function-KSS section and the physical SF-36, worsen slightly during this period. This could be due to aging patients.


REFERENCES

  1. Ethgen O, Bruyère O, Richy F, Dardenne C, Reginster JY. Health-related quality of life in total hip and total knee arthroplasty. A qualitative and systemic review of the literature. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004; 86(5): 963-74.

  2. Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M. Projections of primary and revisions hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007; 89(4): 780-5.

  3. Kozma CM, Slaton T, Paris A, Edgell ET. Cost and utilization of healthcare services for hip and knee replacement. J Med Econ. 2013; 16(7): 888-96.

  4. Devane P, Horne G, Gehling DJ. Oxford hip scores at 6 months and 5 years are associated with total hip revision within the subsequent 2 years. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013; 471: 3870-4.

  5. Browne JP, Bastaki H, Dawson J. What is the optimal time point to assess patient-reported recovery after hip and knee replacement? A systematic review and analysis of routinely reported outcome data from the English patient-reported outcome measures programme. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013; 30(11): 128.

  6. Giesinger JM, Hamilton DF, Jost B, Behrend H, Giesinger K. WOMAC, EQ-5D and Knee Society Score thresholds for treatment success after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2015; 30(12): 2154-8.

  7. Instructions for authors. URL: http://jbjs.org/instructions-forauthors#ManuscriptStructure. (Accessed 22th Jun 2016). J Bone Joint Surg.

  8. Instruction for authors. URL: https://www.editorialmanager.com/corr/default.aspx. (Accessed 22 Jun 2016). Clin Orthop Relat Research.

  9. Naal FD, Impellizzeri FM, Lenze U, Wellauer V, von Eisehart-Rothe R, Leunig M. Clinical improvement and satisfaction after total joint replacement; a prospective 12-months evaluation on the patients’ prespective. Qual Life Res. 2015; 24 (12): 2017-25.

  10. Ahlbäck S. Osteoarthrosis of the knee, a radiographic investigation. Acta Radiol Diagn (Stockh): 1968; Suppl 277: 7-72.

  11. Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992; 30(6): 473-83.

  12. Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN. Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989; 248: 13-4.

  13. Alonso J, Prieto L, Antó JM. The Spanish version of the SF-36 Health Survey (the SF-36 health questionnaire): an instrument for measuring clinical results. Med Clin (Barc). 1995; 104(20): 771-6.

  14. Ares O, Castellet E, Maculé F, Leon V, Montañez E, Freire A, et al. Translation and validation of "The Knee Society Clinical Rating System" into Spanish. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthosc. 2013; 21(11): 2618-24.

  15. Papakostidou I, Dailiana ZH, Papapolychroniou T, Liaropoulos L, Zintzaras E, Karachalios TS, et al. Factors affecting the quality of life after total knee arthroplasties: a prospective study. BMC Musculoeskelet Disord. 2012; 13: 116.

  16. Escobar A, González 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(2): 87-92.

  17. Giesinger K, Hamilton DF, Jost B, Holzner B, Giesinger JM. Comparative responsiveness of outcome measures for total knee arthroplasty. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2014; 22(2): 184-9.

  18. Ko Y, Lo NN, Yeo SJ, Yang KY, Yeo W, Chong CH, Thumboo J. Comparison of the responsiveness of the SF-36, the Oxford Knee Score, and the Knee Society Clinical Rating System in patients undergoing total knee replacement. Qual Life Res. 2013; 22(9): 2455-9.

  19. Liebs TR, Herzberg W, Roth-Kroeger AM, Rüther W, Hassenpflug J. Women recover faster than men after standard knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011; 469(10): 2855-65.

  20. Williams DP, O’Brien S, Doran E, Price AJ, Beard DJ, Murray DW, et al. Early postoperative predictors of satisfaction following total knee arthroplasty. Knee. 2013; 20(6): 442-6.



EVIDENCE LEVEL

IV




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com