Outcome Measures in Total Knee Arthroplasty

  • Ayman Gabr
  • Rosamond Tansey
  • Fares S. Haddad


The accurate measurement of outcome after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is essential for both clinicians and researchers. However, there appears to be no consensus regarding which outcome measure or combination of measures is most appropriate for evaluating recovery after TKA. The World Health Organization (WHO) has introduced the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) in an attempt to establish a common language for describing health and health-related states. Outcome measures are broadly classified into subjective (patient-reported outcome measures, PROMs) and objective measures. Over the last decade, there has been a shift from objective outcome tools to the development and validation of PROMS. However, most PROMs have ‘floor’ and ‘ceiling’ effects. Performance-based outcome measures assess the ability of a patient to complete directly observed tasks. They assess the patient’s true performance rather than their perception of their performance. This can eliminate the difficulty of differentiating outcomes in patients at the lower and higher ends of a scale. Utilising the ICF framework, a combination of PROMs and performance-based outcomes can be used for both short- and long-term follow-up after TKA to assess patient outcome and evaluate implants, surgical approaches and rehabilitation regimes.


Outcome Measures PROM Knee Arthroplasty Replacement 


  1. 1.
    Bourne R (2008) Measuring tools for functional outcomes in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 466:2634–2638PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Giesinger K, Hamilton DF, Jost B, Holzner B, Giesinger JM (2014) Comparative responsiveness of outcome measures for total knee arthroplasty. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 22:184–189PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Poolman RW, Swiontkowski MF, Fairbank JC, Schemitsch EH, Sprague S, de Vet HC (2009) Outcome instruments: rationale for their use. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91(Suppl 3):41–49PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Terwee C, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, Bouter LM, de Vet HC (2007) Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 60:34–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Alviar M (2011) Do patient-reported outcome measures in hip and knee arthroplasty rehabilitation have robust measurement attributes? A systematic review. J Rehabil Med 43:572–583PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    WHO (2001) International classification of functioning, disability and health. World Health Organisation, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Riddle DL, Stratford PW, Bowman DH (2008) Findings of extensive variation in the types of outcome measures used in hip and knee replacement clinical trials: a systematic review. Arthritis Rheum 59:876–883PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Alnahdi A (2014) Outcome measures capturing ICF domains in patient with total knee arthroplasty. Int J Rehabil Res 37:281–289PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ware J, Kosinski M, Bayliss MS, McHorney CA, Rogers WH, Raczek A (1995) Comparison of methods for the scoring and statistical analysis of SF-36 health profile and summary measures: summary of results from the Medical Outcomes Study. Med Care 33(4 Suppl):AS264–AS279PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wright R (2009) Knee injury outcomes measures. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 17:31–39PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Patel AA, Donegan D, Albert T (2007) The 36-item short form. Am Acad Orthop Surg 15:126–134Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Suk M, Norvell DC, Hanson B, Dettori JR, Helfet D (2008) Evidence-based orthopaedic surgery: what is evidence without the outcomes? J Am Acad Orthop Surg 16:123–129PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Busija L, Osborne RH, Nilsdotter A, Buchbinder R, Roos EM (2008) Magnitude and meaningfulness of change in SF-36 scores in four types of orthopedic surgery. Health Qual Life Outcomes 6:55PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ware JM, Kosinski M, Keller S (1996) A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care 34:220233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ashby E, Grocott M, Haddad F (2008) Outcome measures for orthopaedic interventions on the hip. Bone Joint J 90-B:545–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hunt SM, McEwen J (1980) The development of a subjective health indicator. Soc Health Illness 2:231–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    The EuroQol Group (1990) EuroQol-a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 16:199–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jansson KÅ, Granath FM (2011) Health-related quality of life (EQ-5D) before and after orthopedic surgery. Acta Orthop 82:82–89PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tidermark J, Bergström G, Svensson O, Törnkvist H, Ponzer S (2003) Responsiveness of the EuroQol (EQ 5-D) and the SF-36 in elderly patients with displaced femoral neck fractures. Qual Life Res 12:1069–1079PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mcconnell S, Kolopack P, Davis A (2001) The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC): a review of its utility and measurement properties. Arthritis Care Res 45:453–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Gold-smith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW (1988) 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 15:1833–1840PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Angst F, Aeschlimann A, Stucki G (2001) Smallest detectable and minimal clinically important differences of rehabilitation intervention with their implications for required sample sizes using WOMAC and SF-36 quality of life measurement instruments in patients with osteoarthritis of the lower extremities. Arthritis Rheum 45:384–391PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Murray D, Carr A (1998) Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 80:63–69PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Whitehouse SL, Blom AW, Taylor AH, Pattison GTR, Bannister GC (2005) The Oxford Knee Score: problems and pitfalls. Knee 12:287–291PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Behrend H, Giesinger K, Giesinger JM, Kuster MS (2012) The “forgotten joint” as the ultimate goal in joint arthroplasty validation of a new patient- Reported outcome measure. J Arthroplasty 27:430–436PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Noble PC, Scuderi GR, Brekke AC, Sikorskii A, Benjamin JB, Lonner JH, Chadha P, Daylamani DA, Scott WN, Bourne RB (2012) Development of a new Knee Society scoring system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 470:20–32PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mizner RL, Petterson SC, Clements KE, Zeni JA Jr, Irrgang JJ, Snyder-Mackler L (2011) Measuring functional improvement after total knee arthroplasty requires both performance- based and patient-report assessments: a longitudinal analysis of outcomes. J Arthroplasty 26:728–737PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Konan S, Hossain F, Patel S, Haddad FS (2014) Measuring function after hip and knee surgery. The evidence to support performance-based functional outcome tasks. Bone Joint J 96-B:1431–1435PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kennedy DM, Stratford PW, Riddle DL, Hanna SE, Gollish JD (2008) Assessing recovery and establishing prognosis following total knee arthroplasty. Phys Ther 88:22–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hossain FS, Patel S, Fernandez MA, Konan S, Haddad FS (2013) A performance based patient outcome score for active patients following total knee arthroplasty. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 21:51–59PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Marmon AR, McClelland JA, Stevens-Lapsley J, Snyder-Mackler L (2013) Single-step test for unilateral limb ability following total knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 43:66–73PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Potvin AR, Syndulko K, Tourtellotte WW, Lemmon JA, Potvin JH (1980) Human neurologic function and the aging process. J Am Geriatr Soc 28:1–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Podsiadlo D, Richardson S (1991) The timed “Up & Go”: a test of basic functional mobility for frail elderly persons. J Am Geriatr Soc 39:142–148PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Steffen TM, Hacker TA, Mollinger L (2002) Age- and gender-related test performance in community-dwelling elderly people: Six-minute walk test, Berg balance scale, timed up & go test, and gait speeds. Phys Ther 82:128–137PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Shumway-Cook A, Brauer S, Woollacott M (2000) Predicting the probability for falls in community-dwelling older adults using the timed up & go test. Phys Ther 80:896–903PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bennell K, Dobson F, Hinman R (2011) Measures of physical performance assessments self-paced walk test (SPWT), stair climb test (SCT), six-minute walk test (6MWT), chair stand test (CST), timed up & go (TUG), sock test, lift and carry test (LCT), and car task. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 63(Suppl 11):S350–S370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Unver B, Karatosun V, Bakirhan S (2005) Ability to rise independently from a chair during 6 month follow up after unilateral and bilateral total knee replacement. J Rehabil Med 37:385–387PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Rejeski WJ, Ettinger WH Jr, Schumaker S, James P, Burns R, Elam JT (1995) Assessing performance-related disability in patients with knee osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 3:157–167PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Gill S, Mc Burney H (2008) Reliability of performance-based measures in people awaiting joint replacement surgery of the hip or knee. Physiother Res Int 13:141–152PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Rudolph KS, Axe MJ, Snyder-Mackler L (2000) Dynamic stability after ACL injury: who can hop? Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 8:262–269PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Cibere J, Bellamy N, Thorne A, Esdaile JM, McGorm KJ, Chalmers A, Huang S, Peloso P, Shojania K, Singer J, Wong H, Kopec J (2004) Reliability of the knee examination in osteoarthritis: effect of standardization. Arthritis Rheum 50:2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Hassaballa MA, Porteous AJ, Newman JH (2004) Observed kneeling ability after total, unicompartmental and patellofemoral knee arthroplasty: perception versus reality. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 12:136–139PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Mizner RL, Petterson SC, Stevens JE, Vandenborne K, Snyder-Mackler L (2005) Early quadriceps strength loss after total knee arthroplasty. The contributions of muscle atrophy and failure of voluntary muscle activation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87:​1047–1453PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Marmon AR, Milcarek BI, Snyder-Mackler L (2014) Associations between knee extensor power and functional performance in patients after total knee arthroplasty and normal controls without knee pain. Int J Sports Phys Ther 9:168–178PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryUniversity College London HospitalsLondonUK

Personalised recommendations