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

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

• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 10 Judge A, Arden NK, Cooper C. et al. Predictors of outcomes of total knee replacement surgery. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2012; 51 (10) 1804-1813
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 14 Clement N. Patient factors that influence the outcome of total knee replacement: A critical review of the literature. OA Orthop 2013;1(02):
• 15 Brander V, Gondek S, Martin E, Stulberg SD. The John Insall award. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2007; PAP: 21-26
• 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
• 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
• 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 [phone]
• 19 English indices of deprivation 2015: postcode lookup. Accessed April 16, 2019 at: http://imd-by-postcode.opendatacommunities.org/
• 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
• 21 Valuation of EQ-5D – EQ-5D. Accessed May 1, 2019 at: https://euroqol.org/eq-5d-instruments/valuation-of-eq-5d/
• 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
• 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;
• 24 Dowsey MM, Choong PFM. The utility of outcome measures in total knee replacement surgery. Int J Rheumatol 2013; 2013: 506518
• 25 Version SPSS. 25, (IBM Corp). Released 2017. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 25.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.;
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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 [phone]
• 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 [phone]
• 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 [phone]
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 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
• 49 Sedgwick P. Understanding the ecological fallacy. BMJ 2015; 351: h4773