Skip Navigation


Rheumatology Advance Access originally published online on December 23, 2008
Rheumatology 2009 48(2):160-164; doi:10.1093/rheumatology/ken439
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Supplementary Data
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
48/2/160    most recent
ken439v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Gioe, T. J.
Right arrow Articles by Singh, J. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Gioe, T. J.
Right arrow Articles by Singh, J. A.
Related Collections
Right arrow Rehabilitation
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Can patients help with long-term total knee arthroplasty surveillance? Comparison of the American Knee Society Score self-report and surgeon assessment

T. J. Gioe1,2, D. Pomeroy3, K. Suthers4 and J. A. Singh2,5,6

1Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Minnesota, 2Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Minneapolis, MN, 3Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Louisville Medical College, Louisville, KY, 4Clinical Research Department, Depuy®, Inc., Warsaw, IN, 5Department of Medicine (Rheumatology), University of Minnesota, Minneapolis and 6Mayo Medical School, Rochester, MN, USA.

Correspondence to: T. J. Gioe, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Minnesota Medical School, Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Section 112E, 1 Veterans Drive, Minneapolis, MN 55417, USA. E-mail: tjgioe{at}gmail.com


   Abstract

Objectives. To compare patient self-report of knee flexion, extension, range of motion (ROM) and American Knee Society (AKS) Pain, Knee and Functional scores with a clinician assessment.

Methods. A total of 239 consecutive total knee arthroplasty (TKA) patients (290 knees) were mailed surveys with an AKS questionnaire and lateral knee photographs that showed knee ROM in 10° increments to compare their operated knee(s) ROM. Patients were subsequently seen in clinic and their ROM, AKS Pain, Knee and Functional scores were measured. Patient- and physician-reported measures were compared using independent sample t-test and correlated using Spearman's correlation coefficient. A priori rules for comparisons were based on previously published reports.

Results. A total of 286 knees had both survey and clinic data available and constituted the analytic set. Patient-reported and physician-assessed extension, flexion and ROM were: 3 ± 4.8° vs 1.4 ± 4.3° (P < 0.001), 111.4 ± 14.6° vs 110 ± 12.8° (P = 0.04) and 108.6 ± 16.8 vs 108.6 ± 14.3° (P = 0.98). There was a moderate correlation between patient and physician assessments (extension = 0.31; flexion = 0.44; ROM = 0.42; P ≤ 0.001 for all). Patient-reported and physician-assessed AKS Pain, Knee and Functional scores were: 35.8 ± 15.6 vs 43.9 ± 11.1 (P < 0.001), 79.8 ± 20 vs 88.9 ± 13.3 (P < 0.001) and 57.7 ± 23.1 vs 65.7 ± 26.4 (P < 0.001), respectively. Patient- and physician-assessed AKS Pain, Knee and Functional scores had moderate–high correlation (r = 0.49, 0.49 and 0.70; P ≤ 0.001 for all).

Conclusion. Long-term surveillance of TKA patients may be possible using a self-report AKS, but the average 8- to 10-point difference between patient- and physician-reported AKS scores (patients reporting poorer scores) represents a substantial impact on this outcome instrument. Since patient-reported responses have clear value in global assessment, further evaluation with other validated outcome instruments is warranted.

KEY WORDS: Long-term surveillance, Total knee arthroplasty, Knee society score, Self-report, Surgeon assessment, Total knee replacement, Pain, Function

Submitted 23 July 2008; revised version accepted 20 October 2008.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.