Download PDF
J Knee Surg 2020; 33(10): 1041-1046
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1692629
Original Article

Satisfaction Rates Are Low following Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty in Asians Despite Improvements in Patient-Reported Outcome Measures

Hamid Rahmatullah Bin Abd Razak
1   SingHealth Duke-NUS Musculoskeletal Sciences Academic Clinical Programme, Singapore, Singapore
,
Jian Hui Merrill Lee
1   SingHealth Duke-NUS Musculoskeletal Sciences Academic Clinical Programme, Singapore, Singapore
,
Shi Ming Tan
1   SingHealth Duke-NUS Musculoskeletal Sciences Academic Clinical Programme, Singapore, Singapore
,
Hwei Chi Chong
2   Orthopaedic Diagnostic Centre, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore
,
Ngai Nung Lo
1   SingHealth Duke-NUS Musculoskeletal Sciences Academic Clinical Programme, Singapore, Singapore
,
Seng Jin Yeo
1   SingHealth Duke-NUS Musculoskeletal Sciences Academic Clinical Programme, Singapore, Singapore
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

With the aging population in Asia and increase in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) utilization rates, the number of patients requiring revision TKA (rTKA) are expected to increase as well. The purpose of this study was to evaluate outcomes and satisfaction rates following rTKA in an Asian population that has unique cultural demands. Registry data of patients who underwent rTKA from 2006 to 2010 and had completed 5 years of follow-up were analyzed. Flexion range, Oxford Knee score (OKS), Knee Society score (KSS), the Short-Form 36 (SF-36), and satisfaction rates were assessed for improvement from preoperative values, as well as by the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) criterion. rTKA was performed in 163 patients. There were significant improvements seen at 2 years postoperatively and these were sustained up to 5 years. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) criterion for KSS, OKS, and SF-36 physical component score (PCS) was met at 2 and 5 years postoperatively. The overall complication rate was 3.7% at a mean follow-up of 8.4 years. A total of 121 patients (74.2%) were satisfied at 5 years postoperatively. Within our cohort, rTKA results in significantly improved patient-reported outcome measures with a low complication rate of 3.7% at a minimum of 5-year follow-up. Despite these encouraging results, satisfaction rates remain low.

Keywords

total knee arthroplasty - Asian - revision - outcomes - MCID


Publication History

Received: 04 September 2018

Accepted: 05 May 2019

Article published online:
04 July 2019

© 2020. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers
333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

 

  • References

  • 1 Bourne RB, Chesworth BM, Davis AM, Mahomed NN, Charron KD. Patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty: who is satisfied and who is not?. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010; 468 (01) 57-63
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Ritter MA, Berend ME, Meding JB, Keating EM, Faris PM, Crites BM. Long-term followup of anatomic graduated components posterior cruciate-retaining total knee replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2001; (388) 51-57
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Bin Abd Razak HR, Yeo SJ. Meeting patient expectations and ensuring satisfaction in total knee arthroplasty. Ann Transl Med 2015; 3 (20) 315
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Gwam CU, Chughtai M, Khlopas A. , et al. Short-to-midterm outcomes of revision total knee arthroplasty patients with a total stabilizer knee system. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32 (08) 2480-2483
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Cottino U, Abdel MP, Perry KI, Mara KC, Lewallen DG, Hanssen AD. Long-term results after total knee arthroplasty with contemporary rotating-hinge prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2017; 99 (04) 324-330
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 GW H. World Distribution of Certain Postural Habits. Am Anthropol 1953; 57 (02) 231-244
    PubMed
  • 7 Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Murray D, Carr A. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1998; 80 (01) 63-69
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN. Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1989; (248) 13-14
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Ware Jr JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992; 30 (06) 473-483
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Bin Abd Razak HR, Tan CS, Chen YJ. , et al. Age and preoperative Knee Society score are significant predictors of outcomes among Asians following total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2016; 98 (09) 735-741
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Lee WC, Kwan YH, Chong HC, Yeo SJ. The minimal clinically important difference for Knee Society Clinical Rating System after total knee arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2017; 25 (11) 3354-3359
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Tseng HM, Lu JF, Gandek B. Cultural issues in using the SF-36 health survey in Asia: results from Taiwan. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2003; 1: 72
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Daltroy LH, Cats-Baril WL, Katz JN, Fossel AH, Liang MH. The North American spine society lumbar spine outcome assessment Instrument: reliability and validity tests. Spine 1996; 21 (06) 741-749
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Kim YH, Park JW, Kim JS, Oh HK. Long-term clinical outcomes and survivorship of revision total knee arthroplasty with use of a constrained condylar knee prosthesis. J Arthroplasty 2015; 30 (10) 1804-1809
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Lee DH, Lee SH, Song EK, Seon JK, Lim HA, Yang HY. Causes and clinical outcomes of revision total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Relat Res 2017; 29 (02) 104-109
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Sow WT, Wee HL, Wu Y. , et al. Normative data for the Singapore English and Chinese SF-36 version 2 health survey. Ann Acad Med Singapore 2014; 43 (01) 15-23
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Wells G, Beaton D, Shea B. , et al. Minimal clinically important differences: review of methods. J Rheumatol 2001; 28 (02) 406-412
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Barrack RL, Engh G, Rorabeck C, Sawhney J, Woolfrey M. Patient satisfaction and outcome after septic versus aseptic revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2000; 15 (08) 990-993
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Wang CJ, Hsieh MC, Huang TW, Wang JW, Chen HS, Liu CY. Clinical outcome and patient satisfaction in aseptic and septic revision total knee arthroplasty. Knee 2004; 11 (01) 45-49
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Dunbar MJ, Richardson G, Robertsson O. I can't get no satisfaction after my total knee replacement: rhymes and reasons. Bone Joint J 2013; 95-B (11, Suppl. A): 148-152
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Rajgopal A, Panjwani TR, Rao A, Dahiya V. Are the outcomes of revision knee arthroplasty for flexion instability the same as for other major failure mechanisms?. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32 (10) 3093-3097
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Rajgopal A, Vasdev A, Gupta H, Dahiya V. Revision total knee arthroplasty for septic versus aseptic failure. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 2013; 21 (03) 285-289
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Lee M, Huang Y, Chong HC, Ning Y, Lo NN, Yeo SJ. Predicting satisfaction for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty patients in an Asian population. J Arthroplasty 2016; 31 (08) 1706-1710
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 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 Bone Joint Surg Br 2007; 89 (07) 893-900
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Hamilton DF, Lane JV, Gaston P. , et al. What determines patient satisfaction with surgery? A prospective cohort study of 4709 patients following total joint replacement. BMJ Open 2013; 3 (04) e002525
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar