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.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Apley AG (1990) An assessment of assessment [editorial]. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 72 (6): 957–958
Bellamy N, Buchanan WW (1984) Outcome measurement in osteoarthritis clinical trials: the case for standardisation. Clin Rheumatol 3 (3): 293–303
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
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
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
Brown L (1993) The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. New York, Oxford University Press
Callahan CM, Drake BG, Heck DA, Dittus RS (1994) Patient outcomes following tricompartmental total knee replacement. A meta-analysis. Jama 271 (17): 1349–1357
Charnley J (1979) Low friction arthroplasty of the hip. Berlin, Springer
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
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
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
Dunbar MJ (2001) Subjective outcomes after knee arthroplasty. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl 72 (301): 1–63
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
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
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
Guyatt GH (1993) The philosophy of health-related quality of life translation. Qual Life Res 2 (6): 461–465
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
Hawker G et al. (1998) Health-related quality of life after knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 80 (2): 163–173
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
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
Hill A, Roberts J, Ewings P, Gunnell D (1997) Non-response bias in a lifestyle survey. J Public Health Med 19 (2): 203–207
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
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
Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN (1989) Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop (248): 13–14
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
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
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
Kirshner B, Guyatt G (1985) A methodological framework for assessing health Indices. J Chronic Dis 38 (1): 27–36
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
Konig A, Scheidler M, Rader C, Eulert J (1997) The need for a dual rating system total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop (345): 161–167
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
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
Lequesne M (1989) Informational indices. Validation of criteria and tests. Scand J Rheumatol Suppl 80: 17–28
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
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
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
Murray DW, Carr AJ, Bulstrode C (1993) Survival analysis of joint replacements. J Bone Joint Surg Br 75 (5): 697–704
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
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
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
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
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
Ritter MA, Albohm MJ, Keating EM, Faris PM, Meding JB (1995) Comparative outcomes of total joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 10 (6): 737–741
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
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
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
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
Ryd L (1986) Micromotion in knee arthroplasty. A roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis of tibial component fixation. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl 220: 1–80
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
Soderman P, Malchau H, Herberts P (2001) Outcome of total hip replacement: a comparison of different measurement methods. Clin Orthop (390): 163–172
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
Wright JG, Young NL (1997) The patient-specific index: asking patients what they want. J Bone Joint Surg Am 79 (7): 974–983
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights 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