Download PDF
J Knee Surg 2022; 35(09): 940-948
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1721089
Original Article

Preoperative Factors Affecting the Patient-Reported Outcome Measures following Total Knee Replacement: Socioeconomic Factors and Preoperative OKS Have a Clinically Meaningful Effect

Charis Demetriou
1   Academic Surgical Unit, South West London Elective Orthopaedic Centre, Epsom, United Kingdom
,
Jeremy Webb
1   Academic Surgical Unit, South West London Elective Orthopaedic Centre, Epsom, United Kingdom
,
Philip Sedgwick
1   Academic Surgical Unit, South West London Elective Orthopaedic Centre, Epsom, United Kingdom
2   Institute for Medical and Biomedical Education, St. George's, University of London, London, United Kingdom
,
Irrum Afzal
1   Academic Surgical Unit, South West London Elective Orthopaedic Centre, Epsom, United Kingdom
,
Richard Field
1   Academic Surgical Unit, South West London Elective Orthopaedic Centre, Epsom, United Kingdom
,
Deiary Kader
1   Academic Surgical Unit, South West London Elective Orthopaedic Centre, Epsom, United Kingdom
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

The Oxford Knee Score (OKS) is a patient-reported outcome questionnaire typically used to assess function and pain in patients undergoing total knee replacement (TKR). However, research is inconclusive as to which preoperative factors are important in explaining variation in outcome following TKR. The operative records of 12,709 patients who underwent primary TKR over a 9-year period were analyzed. The following variables were collected for each patient: age, sex, body mass index (BMI), Index of Multiple Deprivation decile rank, side of operation, diagnosis, the American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) grade, preoperative OKS, EQ-5D index score, EuroQol visual analog scale (EQ-VAS) score, the postoperative OKS at 1 and 2 years. Generalized linear regression models were performed at 1 and 2 years to investigate the effect of the preoperative variables on the postoperative OKS. The effect of age, sex, BMI, Index of Multiple Deprivation decile rank, diagnosis, ASA grade, preoperative OKS, EuroQoL five-dimensional (EQ-5D) index score, and EQ-VAS score were all statistically significant in explaining the variation in OKS at 1 and 2 years postoperatively, with critical level of significance of 0.05 (5%). Being male aged 60 to 69 years of normal BMI, ASA grade I (fit and healthy), living in an affluent area, not reporting preoperative anxiety/depression, were associated with an enhanced mean postoperative OKS at both 1 and 2 years. When adjusted for potential confounding, age of 60–69 years, male sex, normal BMI, lower ASA grade, higher Index of Multiple Deprivation and higher pre-operative EQ-5D, EQ-VAS and OKS were identified as factors that resulted in higher post-operative OKS after primary TKR.

Keywords

Oxford Knee Score - total knee replacement - patient demographics - patient reported outcomes - arthroplasty - preoperative factors


Publication History

Received: 27 May 2020

Accepted: 05 October 2020

Article published online:
15 January 2021

© 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Culliford DJ, Maskell J, Beard DJ, Murray DW, Price AJ, Arden NK. Temporal trends in hip and knee replacement in the United Kingdom: 1991 to 2006. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2010; 92 (01) 130-135
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Inacio MCS, Paxton EW, Graves SE, Namba RS, Nemes S. Projected increase in total knee arthroplasty in the United States - an alternative projection model. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2017; 25 (11) 1797-1803
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Culliford D, Maskell J, Judge A, Cooper C, Prieto-Alhambra D, Arden NK. COASt Study Group. Future projections of total hip and knee arthroplasty in the UK: results from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2015; 23 (04) 594-600
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Murray DW, Fitzpatrick R, Rogers K. et al. The use of the Oxford hip and knee scores. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2007; 89 (08) 1010-1014
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Dunbar MJ, Robertsson O, Ryd L, Lidgren L. Appropriate questionnaires for knee arthroplasty. Results of a survey of 3600 patients from The Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Registry. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2001; 83 (03) 339-344
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Conaghan PG, Emerton M, Tennant A. Internal construct validity of the Oxford Knee Scale: evidence from Rasch measurement. Arthritis Rheum 2007; 57 (08) 1363-1367
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Darzi AW. High quality care for all NHS next stage review final report. Published 2008. Accessed May 13, 2019 at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/228836/7432.pdf
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Van Der Meulen J, Lewsey J, Hardoon S. et al. National Joint Registry for England and Wales 2nd Annual Report | The Royal College of Surgeons Clinical Effectiveness Unit The NJR Editorial Board for the 2nd Annual Report. Published 2005. Accessed November 5, 2018 at: www.njrcentre.org.uk
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Baker PN, van der Meulen JH, Lewsey J, Gregg PJ. National Joint Registry for England and Wales, Data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. The role of pain and function in determining patient satisfaction after total knee replacement. J B1 Joint Surg Br 2007; 89 (07) 893-900
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Judge A, Arden NK, Cooper C. et al. Predictors of outcomes of total knee replacement surgery. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2012; 51 (10) 1804-1813
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Scott CEH, Howie CR, MacDonald D, Biant LC. Predicting dissatisfaction following total knee replacement: a prospective study of 1217 patients. J B1 Joint Surg Br 2010; 92 (09) 1253-1258
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Gandhi R, Dhotar H, Razak F, Tso P, Davey JR, Mahomed NN. Predicting the longer term outcomes of total knee arthroplasty. Knee 2010; 17 (01) 15-18
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Ethgen O, Bruyère O, Richy F, Dardennes C, Reginster J-Y. Health-related quality of life in total hip and total knee arthroplasty. A qualitative and systematic review of the literature. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004; 86 (05) 963-974
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Clement N. Patient factors that influence the outcome of total knee replacement: A critical review of the literature. OA Orthop 2013;1(02):
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Brander V, Gondek S, Martin E, Stulberg SD. The John Insall award. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2007; PAP: 21-26
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Deakin AH, Iyayi-Igbinovia A, Love GJ. A comparison of outcomes in morbidly obese, obese and non-obese patients undergoing primary total knee and total hip arthroplasty. Surgeon 2018; 16 (01) 40-45
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Lungu E, Vendittoli P-A, Desmeules F. Preoperative determinants of patient-reported pain and physical function levels following total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review. Open Orthop J 2016; 10 (01) 213-231
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Jenkins PJ, Clement ND, Hamilton DF, Gaston P, Patton JT, Howie CR. Predicting the cost-effectiveness of total hip and knee replacement: a health economic analysis. Bone Joint J 2013; 95-B (01) 115-121
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 English indices of deprivation 2015: postcode lookup. Accessed April 16, 2019 at: http://imd-by-postcode.opendatacommunities.org/
    PubMed
  • 20 Smith T, Noble M, Noble S, Wright G, Mclennan D, Plunkett E. The English Indices of Deprivation 2015. 2015 Available at: http://forms.communities.gov.uk/orwritetousat: Accessed December 21, 2018
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Valuation of EQ-5D – EQ-5D. Accessed May 1, 2019 at: https://euroqol.org/eq-5d-instruments/valuation-of-eq-5d/
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Van Reenen M, Oppe M, Boye KS. et al. EQ-5D–3L user guide: basic information on how to use the EQ-5D–3L instrument. Accessed April 17, 2019 at: https://euroqol.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/EQ-5D-3L-User-Guide_version-6.0.pdf
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Kwon S, Park J-H, Kim W-S, Han K, Lee Y, Paik N-J. Health-related quality of life and related factors in stroke survivors: data from Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANES) 2008 to 2014. 2018; DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0195713.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Dowsey MM, Choong PFM. The utility of outcome measures in total knee replacement surgery. Int J Rheumatol 2013; 2013: 506518
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Version SPSS. 25, (IBM Corp). Released 2017. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 25.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.;
    Google Scholar
  • 26 Beard DJ, Harris K, Dawson J. et al. Meaningful changes for the Oxford hip and knee scores after joint replacement surgery. J Clin Epidemiol 2015; 68 (01) 73-79
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Edwards HB, Smith M, Herrett E, MacGregor A, Blom A, Ben-Shlomo Y. The effect of age, sex, area deprivation, and living arrangements on total knee replacement outcomes: a study involving the United Kingdom national joint registry dataset. JBJS Open Access 2018; 3 (02) e0042
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Williams DP, Price AJ, Beard DJ. et al. The effects of age on patient-reported outcome measures in total knee replacements. Bone Joint J 2013; 95-B (01) 38-44
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Jiang Y, Sanchez-Santos MT, Judge AD, Murray DW, Arden NK. Predictors of patient-reported pain and functional outcomes over 10 years after primary total knee arthroplasty: a prospective cohort study. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32 (01) 92-100.e2
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Sanchez-Santos MT, Garriga C, Judge A. et al. Development and validation of a clinical prediction model for patient-reported pain and function after primary total knee replacement surgery. Sci Rep 2018; 8 (01) 3381
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Brown MJC, Vella-Baldacchino M, O'Flaherty E, Jenkins PJ. Predicting patient reported outcome in total knee arthroplasty using body mass index and limb measurements. Knee 2018; 25 (05) 915-922
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Xu S, Chen JY, Lo NN. et al. The influence of obesity on functional outcome and quality of life after total knee arthroplasty: a ten-year follow-up study. Bone Joint J 2018; 100-B (05) 579-583
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Chen JY, Lo NN, Chong HC. et al. The influence of body mass index on functional outcome and quality of life after total knee arthroplasty. B1 Joint J 2016; 98-B (06) 780-785
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Scott CEH, Davidson E, MacDonald DJ, White TO, Keating JF. Total knee arthroplasty following tibial plateau fracture: a matched cohort study. Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B (04) 532-538
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Saleh H, Yu S, Vigdorchik J, Schwarzkopf R. Total knee arthroplasty for treatment of post-traumatic arthritis: systematic review. World J Orthop 2016; 7 (09) 584-591
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Lizaur-Utrilla A, Collados-Maestre I, Miralles-Muñoz FA, Lopez-Prats FA. Total knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis secondary to fracture of the tibial plateau. A prospective matched cohort study. J Arthroplasty 2015; 30 (08) 1328-1332
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Baker PN, Deehan DJ, Lees D. et al. The effect of surgical factors on early patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS) following total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2012; 94 (08) 1058-1066
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Neuburger J, Hutchings A, Black N, van der Meulen JH. Socioeconomic differences in patient-reported outcomes after a hip or knee replacement in the English National Health Service. J Public Health (Oxf) 2013; 35 (01) 115-124
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Clement ND, Jenkins PJ, MacDonald D. et al. Socioeconomic status affects the Oxford knee score and short-form 12 score following total knee replacement. Bone Joint J 2013; 95-B (01) 52-58
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Judge A, Welton NJ, Sandhu J, Ben-Shlomo Y. Equity in access to total joint replacement of the hip and knee in England: cross sectional study. BMJ 2010; 341: c4092
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Yong PFK, Milner PC, Payne JN, Lewis PA, Jennison C. Inequalities in access to knee joint replacements for people in need. Ann Rheum Dis 2004; 63 (11) 1483-1489
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 James Banks G, David Batty, James Nazroo. AO and AS. The dynamics of ageing: evidence from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing 2002–2016 (Wave 8). Published 2018. Accessed March 20, 2019 at: https://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/ELSA_Wave_8_report.pdf
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Lopez-Olivo MA, Landon GC, Siff SJ. et al. Psychosocial determinants of outcomes in knee replacement. Ann Rheum Dis 2011; 70 (10) 1775-1781
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Cookson R, Propper C, Asaria M, Raine R. Socio-economic inequalities in health care in England. Fisc Stud 2016; 37 (3–4): 371-403
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Marques E, Noble S, Blom AW, Hollingworth W. Disclosing total waiting times for joint replacement: evidence from the English NHS using linked HES data. Health Econ 2014; 23 (07) 806-820
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Shim J, Mclernon DJ, Hamilton D, Simpson HA, Beasley M, Macfarlane GJ. Development of a clinical risk score for pain and function following total knee arthroplasty: results from the TRIO study. Rheumatol Adv Pract 2018; 2 (02) rky021
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Clement ND, Afzal I, Demetriou C, Deehan DJ, Field RE, Kader D. There is no clinically important difference in the Oxford knee scores between one and two years after total knee arthroplasty: the one-year score could be used as the benchmark timepoint to assess outcome. Knee 2020; 27 (04) 1212-1218
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Hutchings A, Neuburger J, Grosse Frie K, Black N, van der Meulen J. Factors associated with non-response in routine use of patient reported outcome measures after elective surgery in England. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2012; 10 (01) 34
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Sedgwick P. Understanding the ecological fallacy. BMJ 2015; 351: h4773
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar