Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Scoring Systems for the Comparison of International Data — Hips and Knees

  • Chapter
Book cover Minimally Invasive Total Joint Arthroplasty

  • 225 Accesses

Abstract

The gold standard for the assessment of outcomes after hip and knee arthroplasty is prosthesis survivorship. However, modern advances in prosthetic design and technique are such that the threshold for joint arthroplasty has moved from salvage operations performed in extreme cases, to an intervention designed to improve the quality of life in patients who might otherwise cope without surgery. Hence, judging the success of the surgery may relate more to subtler improvements in quality of life, including relief of pain and improvement in function. Furthermore, technological innovation has improved the design of prostheses, ensuring survival in situ, barring infection, for at least a decade with relative certainty [19, 29, 47]. Consequently, the homogeneity of current prostheses (with respect to stable and lasting designs) has produced an emerging emphasis on quantifying subtler outcomes after arthroplasty.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 74.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Apley AG (1990) An assessment of assessment [editorial]. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 72 (6): 957–958

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Bellamy N, Buchanan WW (1984) Outcome measurement in osteoarthritis clinical trials: the case for standardisation. Clin Rheumatol 3 (3): 293–303

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith 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 (12): 1833–1840

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Brazier JE, Harper R, Jones NM,O’Cathain A,Thomas KJ, Usherwood T, Westlake L (1992) Validating the SF-36 health survey questionnaire: new outcome measure for primary care. BMJ 305 (6846): 160–164

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Brinker MR, Lund PJ, Barrack RL (1997) Demographic biases of scoring instruments for the results of total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 79 (6): 858–865

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Brown L (1993) The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. New York, Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  7. Callahan CM, Drake BG, Heck DA, Dittus RS (1994) Patient outcomes following tricompartmental total knee replacement. A meta-analysis. Jama 271 (17): 1349–1357

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Charnley J (1979) Low friction arthroplasty of the hip. Berlin, Springer

    Google Scholar 

  9. Cooke TD, Harrison L, Khan B, Scudamore A, Chaudhary MA (2002) Analysis of limb alignment in the pathogenesis of osteoarthritis: a comparison of Saudi Arabian and Canadian cases. Rheumatol Int 22 (4): 160–164

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Carr A, Murray D (1996) Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 78 (2): 185–190

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. 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 (1): 63–69

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Dunbar MJ (2001) Subjective outcomes after knee arthroplasty. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl 72 (301): 1–63

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Dunbar MJ, Robertsson O, Ryd L, Lidgren L (2001) Appropriate questionnaires for knee arthroplasty. Results of a survey of 3600 patients from The Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Registry. J Bone Joint Surg Br 83 (3): 339–344

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Espehaug B, Havelin LI, Engesaeter LB, Vollset SE, Langeland N (1995) Early revision among 12,179 hip prostheses. A comparison of 10 different brands reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register, 1987–1993. Acta Orthop Scand 66 (6): 487–493

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Guillemin F, Bombardier C, Beaton D (1993) Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: literature review and proposed guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol 46 (12): 1417–1432

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Guyatt GH (1993) The philosophy of health-related quality of life translation. Qual Life Res 2 (6): 461–465

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Hawker G, Melfi C, Paul J, Green R, Bombardier C (1995) Comparison of a generic (SF-36) and a disease specific (WOMAC) (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index) instru¬ment in the measurement of outcomes after knee replacement surgery. J Rheumatol 22 (6): 1193–1196

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Hawker G et al. (1998) Health-related quality of life after knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 80 (2): 163–173

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Herberts P, Malchau H (2000) Long-term registration has improved the quality of hip replacement: a review of the Swedish THR Register comparing 160,000 cases. Acta Orthop Scand 71 (2): 111–121

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Hilding MB, Backbro B, Ryd L (1997) Quality of life after knee arthroplasty. A randomized study of 3 designs in 42 patients, compared after 4 years. Acta Orthop Scand 68 (2): 156–160

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Hill A, Roberts J, Ewings P, Gunnell D (1997) Non-response bias in a lifestyle survey. J Public Health Med 19 (2): 203–207

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Hoher J, Bach T, Munster A, Bouillon B,Tiling T (1997) Does the mode of data collection change results in a subjective knee score? Self-administration versus interview. Am J Sports Med 25 (5): 642–647

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Hunt SM, McKenna SP, McEwen J, Backett EM, Williams J, Papp E (1980) A quantitative approach to perceived health status: a validation study. J Epidemiol Community Health 34 (4): 281–286

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN (1989) Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop (248): 13–14

    Google Scholar 

  25. Insall JN, Ranawat CS, Aglietti P, Shine J (1976) A comparison of four models of total knee-replacement prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 58 (6): 754–765

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Karrholm J, Herberts P, Hultmark P, Malchau H, Nivbrant B,Thanner J (1997) Radiostereometryof hip prostheses. Review of methodology and clinical results. Clin Orthop (344): 94–110

    Google Scholar 

  27. Katz JN, Wright EA.Guadagnoli E, Liang MH, Karlson EW,Cleary PD (1994) Differences between men and women undergoing major orthopedic surgery for degenerative arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 37 (5): 687–694

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Kirshner B, Guyatt G (1985) A methodological framework for assessing health Indices. J Chronic Dis 38 (1): 27–36

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Knutson K, Lewold S, Robertsson O, Lidgren L (1994) The Swedish knee arthroplasty register. A nation-wide study of 30,003 knees 1976–1992. Acta Orthop Scand 65 (4): 375–386

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Konig A, Scheidler M, Rader C, Eulert J (1997) The need for a dual rating system total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop (345): 161–167

    Google Scholar 

  31. Kreibich DN, Vaz M, Bourne RB, Rorabeck CH, Kim P, Hardie R, Kramer J, Kirkley A (1996) What is the best way of assessing outcome after total knee replacement? Clin Orthop (331): 221–225

    Google Scholar 

  32. Laupacis A, Bourne R, Rorabeck C, Feeny D.Wong C.Tugwell P, Leslie K, Bullas R (1993) The effect of elective total hip replacement on health-related quality of life. J Bone Joint Surg Am 75 (11): 1619–1626

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Lequesne M (1989) Informational indices. Validation of criteria and tests. Scand J Rheumatol Suppl 80: 17–28

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Lequesne MG, Mery C, Samson M, Gerard P (1987) Indexes of severity for osteoarthritis of the hip and knee. Validation value In comparison with other assessment tests. Scand J Rheumatol Suppl 65: 85–89

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Lieberman JR,Dorey F,Shekelle P,Schumacher L,Kilgus DJ,Thomas BJ, Finerman GA (1997) Outcome after total hip arthroplasty. Comparison of a traditional disease-specific and a quality-of-life measurement of outcome. J Arthroplasty 12 (6): 639–645

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Meenan RF,Kazis LE, Anthony JM,Wallin BA (199l)The clinical and health status of patients with recent-onset rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 34(6): 761–765

    Google Scholar 

  37. Murray DW, Carr AJ, Bulstrode C (1993) Survival analysis of joint replacements. J Bone Joint Surg Br 75 (5): 697–704

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Palmer RH (1997) Process-based measures of quality: the need for detailed clinical data in large health care databases. Ann Intern Med 127: 733–738

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Patrick DL, Deyo RA (1989) Generic and disease-specific measures in assessing health status and quality of life. Med Care 27 [3 Suppl]: S217–232

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Pollard WE, Bobbitt RA, Bergner M, Martin DP, Gilson BS (1976) The Sickness Impact Profile: reliability of a health status measure. Med Care 14 (2): 146–155

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Puolakka TJ, Pajamaki KJ, Halonen PJ, Pulkkinen PO, Paavolainen P, Nevalalnen JK (2001) The Finnish Arthroplasty Register: report of the hip register. Acta Orthop Scand 72 (5): 433–441

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Rissanen P, Aro S, Slatis P, Sintonen H, Paavolainen P (1995) Health and quality of life before and after hip or knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 10 (2): 169–175

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Ritter MA, Albohm MJ, Keating EM, Faris PM, Meding JB (1995) Comparative outcomes of total joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 10 (6): 737–741

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Robertsson O, Dunbar M, Pehrsson T, Knutson K, Lidgren L (2000) Patient satisfaction after knee arthroplasty: a report on 27,372 knees operated on between 1981 and 1995 in Sweden. Acta Orthop Scand 71 (3): 262–267

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Robertsson O, Dunbar MJ (2001) Patient satisfaction compared with general health and disease-specific questionnaires In knee arthroplasty patients. J Arthroplasty 16 (4): 476–482

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Robertsson O, Dunbar MJ, Knutson K, Lewold S, Lidgren L (1999) The Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register. 25 years experience. Bull Hosp Jt Dis 58 (3): 133–138

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Robertsson O, Knutson K, Lewold S, Lidgren L (1999) Knee Arthroplasty for Osteoarthrosis and Rheumatoid Arthritis 1986–1996. Scientific Exhibit SE028.AAOS, Annual Meeting 1999

    Google Scholar 

  48. Ryd L (1986) Micromotion in knee arthroplasty. A roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis of tibial component fixation. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl 220: 1–80

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Ryd L, Karrholm J, Ahlvin P (1997) Knee scoring systems in gonarthrosis. Evaluation of interobserver variability and the envelope of bias. Score Assessment Group. Acta Orthop Scand 68 (1): 41–45

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Soderman P, Malchau H, Herberts P (2001) Outcome of total hip replacement: a comparison of different measurement methods. Clin Orthop (390): 163–172

    Google Scholar 

  51. Ware J Jr, Kosinski M, Keller SD (1996) A 12-ltem Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care 34 (3): 220–233

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Wright JG, Young NL (1997) The patient-specific index: asking patients what they want. J Bone Joint Surg Am 79 (7): 974–983

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. M. J. Dunbar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Jefferson Medical School, Rothman Institute Orthopedics, 925 Chestnut Street, 19107, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    William J. Hozack M.D. (Professor of Orthopedic Surgery) (Professor of Orthopedic Surgery)

  2. Department for Orthopaedics, Medical University Innsbruck, Anichstrasse 35, A-6020, Innsbruck, Austria

    Martin Krismer M.D. (Full Professor), Michael Nogler M.D., M.A., M.A.S., M.Sc. (Associate Professor) & Franz Rachbauer M.D., M.A.S., M.Sc. (Associate Professor) (Full Professor),  (Associate Professor) &  (Associate Professor)

  3. Bonutti Clinic, 1303 West Evergreen Avenue, 62401, Effingham, Illinois, USA

    Peter M. Bonutti MD, FACS (Associate Clinical Professor) (Associate Clinical Professor)

  4. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Arkansas, USA

    Peter M. Bonutti MD, FACS (Associate Clinical Professor) (Associate Clinical Professor)

  5. Information Technology Division, e-Cleveland Clinic The Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Desk A-41, 44195, Cleveland, Ohio, USA

    Jonathan L. Schaffer M.D., MBA (Managing Director) (Managing Director)

  6. Brisbane Orthopaedic Specialist Services, Holy Spirit Hospital, Level 7, Suite 1, Wickham Terrace, 4000, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

    William J. Donnelly Dr. (Orthopedic Surgeon) (Orthopedic Surgeon)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2004 Springer Medizin Verlag Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Dunbar, M.J. (2004). Scoring Systems for the Comparison of International Data — Hips and Knees. In: Hozack, W.J., et al. Minimally Invasive Total Joint Arthroplasty. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-59298-0_42

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-59298-0_42

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-63926-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-59298-0

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation