Mid and Long Term Functional Outcome of Total Knee Arthroplasty

Abstract

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a surgical procedure performed throughout the world in high numbers and at a high cost for health systems. Many countries have published national guidelines for the selection of a cost effective implant. The major criterion for this selection is the long term survival of the artificial joint. On the other hand, the evaluation of functional outcome and quality of life is also an important issue if the operation has to be proved cost effective. However, there is no general agreement related to the use of functional outcome tools in evaluating TKA [1].

Keywords

Osteoarthritis 

References

  1. 1.
    Bourne RB. Measuring tools for functional outcomes in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop. 2008;466:2634–8.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ng CY, Ballantyne JA, Brenkel IJ. Quality of life and functional outcome after primary total hip replacement. A five-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007;89B:868–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ayers DC, Li W, Oatis C, Rosal MC, Franklin PD. Patient-reported outcomes after total knee replacement vary on the basis of preoperative coexisting disease in the lumbar spine and other nonoperatively treated joints: the need for a musculoskeletal comorbidity index. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2013;95A:1833–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Clement ND, MacDonald D, Simpson AH, Burnett R. Total knee replacement in patients with concomitant back pain results in a worse functional outcome and a lower rate of satisfaction. Bone Joint J. 2013;95B:1632–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Janse AJ, Gemke RJ, Uiterwaal CS, van der Tweel I, Kimpen JL, Sinnema G. Quality of life: patients and doctors don’t always agree: a meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004;57:653–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mantyselka P, Kumpusalo E, Ahonen R, Takala J. Patients’ versus general practitioners’ assessments of pain intensity in primary care patients with non-cancer pain. Br J Gen Pract. 2001;51:995–7.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mahomed NN, Liang MH, Cook EF, Daltroy LH, Fortin PR, Fossel AH, Katz JN. The importance of patient expectations in predicting functional outcomes after total joint arthroplasty. J Rheumatol. 2002;29:1273–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wylde V, Learmonth I, Potter A, Bettinson K, Lingard E. Patient reported outcomes after fixed- versus mobile-bearing total knee replacement: a multi-centre randomised controlled trial using the Kinemax total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90B:1172–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Thomsen MG, Husted H, Otte KS, Holm G, Troelsen A. Do patients care about higher flexion in total knee arthroplasty? A randomized, controlled, double-blinded trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2013;14:127.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Boese CK, Gallo TJ, Plantikow CJ. Range of motion and patient satisfaction with traditional and high-flexion rotating-platform knees. Iowa Orthop J. 2011;31:73–7.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chang MJ, Kim SH, Kang YG, Chang CB, Kim TK. Activity levels and participation in physical activities by Korean patients following total knee arthroplasty. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2014;15:24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Irrang JJ, Anderson AF, Boland AL, Harner CD, Kurosaka M, Neyret P, Richmond JC, Shelborne KD. Development and validation of the International Knee Documentation Committee subjective knee form. Am J Sports Med. 2001;29:600–13.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    McGuigan FX, Hozack WJ, Moriarty L, Eng K, Rothman RH. Predicting quality-of-life outcomes following total joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 1995;10:742–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Williams DP, Blakey CM, Hadfield SG, Murray DW, Price AJ, Field RE. Long-term trends in the Oxford knee score following total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2013;95B:45–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Melton JT, Mayahi R, Baxter SE, Facek M, Glezos C. Long-term outcome in an uncemented, hydroxyapatite-coated total knee replacement: a 15- to 18-year survivorship analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012;94B:1067–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Long WJ, Bryce CD, Hollenbeak CS, Benner RW, Scott WN. Total knee replacement in young, active patients: long-term follow-up and functional outcome: a concise follow-up of a previous report. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2014;96B:e159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lützner J, Hübel U, Kirschner S, Günther KP, Krummenauer F. Long-term results in total knee arthroplasty. A meta-analysis of revision rates and functional outcome. Chirurg. 2011;82:618–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bourne RB, Davis AM, Charron KDJ. Who is satisfied and who is not? Clin Orthop. 2010;468:57–63.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Orthopaedic Department, Center of Biomedical Sciences (CERETETH)University of ThessaliaLarissaHellenic Republic
  2. 2.Orthopaedic Department, Faculty of Medicine, School of Health Sciences, Center of Biomedical Sciences (CERETETH)University of Thessalia, University General Hospital of LarissaLarissaHellenic Republic

Personalised recommendations