The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Are pain and function better measures of outcome than revision rates after TKR in the younger patient?

Are pain and function better measures of outcome than revision rates after TKR in the younger patient?
Are pain and function better measures of outcome than revision rates after TKR in the younger patient?
Revision is the gold standard outcome measurement for survival analyses of orthopaedic implants but reliance on revision as an endpoint has been recently questioned. This study, that assesses long-term outcome in a specific group of patients who had undergone total knee replacement (TKR) for osteoarthritis, highlights the main problems facing modern survival analyses. Minimum 12-year survival and outcome data were reviewed for a series of sixty patients under the age of 60 years (mean age 55.4 years) who underwent total knee replacement (TKR) for osteoarthritis. The patients are a subgroup from a larger consecutive series of 1429 patients who underwent TKR between 1987 and 1993 at a single institution. Whilst the main study aim was to compare outcome of TKR using different endpoints, the outcome of TKR in this younger subpopulation could also be investigated.

With revision as the primary endpoint the survival for TKR was 82.2% (95% CI 17.3). The mean OKS at follow-up (mean 15.7 years) was 30.9. However, many of the 82% of patients who did not undergo revision had a less than satisfactory outcome. 41% of these patients reported modest or severe pain (using the OKS) at final follow-up. A combined endpoint including revision, poor function and significant pain drastically reduced the survival rate for the operation. Survival based on revision alone provides an acceptable but inaccurate impression of outcome in younger TKR patients (under 60 years). A true representation of the success of TKR should include pain and function as endpoints.
knee, arthroplasty, survival, outcome, young age
0968-0160
196-199
Price, A.J.
d38e827f-588c-47f8-9590-ce8790423e2c
Longino, D.
2db7a281-fe8b-4eb5-abff-96f208562738
Rees, J.
5a7c4538-6dc6-440d-8f3f-a2e83a04b1d5
Rout, R.
ec773927-c635-45ac-88b8-9d882a579fc5
Pandit, H.
474e06b2-103f-428d-98b3-b942273dc3c3
Javaid, K.
8bf26a7a-1432-4bbf-a01f-9fd0f9b8c7ac
Arden, N.
23af958d-835c-4d79-be54-4bbe4c68077f
Cooper, C.
e05f5612-b493-4273-9b71-9e0ce32bdad6
Carr, A.J.
8989b4b9-e986-4599-8595-f17ab2f0c960
Dodd, C.A.F.
90b9779f-1d6f-426c-9ae8-112647009713
Murray, D.W.
f581b8f8-3f6d-46c4-8c90-0642ae6048b9
Beard, D.J.
c3165e64-3146-49bf-9ce6-8166f3b7f1c1
Price, A.J.
d38e827f-588c-47f8-9590-ce8790423e2c
Longino, D.
2db7a281-fe8b-4eb5-abff-96f208562738
Rees, J.
5a7c4538-6dc6-440d-8f3f-a2e83a04b1d5
Rout, R.
ec773927-c635-45ac-88b8-9d882a579fc5
Pandit, H.
474e06b2-103f-428d-98b3-b942273dc3c3
Javaid, K.
8bf26a7a-1432-4bbf-a01f-9fd0f9b8c7ac
Arden, N.
23af958d-835c-4d79-be54-4bbe4c68077f
Cooper, C.
e05f5612-b493-4273-9b71-9e0ce32bdad6
Carr, A.J.
8989b4b9-e986-4599-8595-f17ab2f0c960
Dodd, C.A.F.
90b9779f-1d6f-426c-9ae8-112647009713
Murray, D.W.
f581b8f8-3f6d-46c4-8c90-0642ae6048b9
Beard, D.J.
c3165e64-3146-49bf-9ce6-8166f3b7f1c1

Price, A.J., Longino, D., Rees, J., Rout, R., Pandit, H., Javaid, K., Arden, N., Cooper, C., Carr, A.J., Dodd, C.A.F., Murray, D.W. and Beard, D.J. (2010) Are pain and function better measures of outcome than revision rates after TKR in the younger patient? The Knee, 17 (3), 196-199. (doi:10.1016/j.knee.2009.09.003).

Record type: Article

Abstract

Revision is the gold standard outcome measurement for survival analyses of orthopaedic implants but reliance on revision as an endpoint has been recently questioned. This study, that assesses long-term outcome in a specific group of patients who had undergone total knee replacement (TKR) for osteoarthritis, highlights the main problems facing modern survival analyses. Minimum 12-year survival and outcome data were reviewed for a series of sixty patients under the age of 60 years (mean age 55.4 years) who underwent total knee replacement (TKR) for osteoarthritis. The patients are a subgroup from a larger consecutive series of 1429 patients who underwent TKR between 1987 and 1993 at a single institution. Whilst the main study aim was to compare outcome of TKR using different endpoints, the outcome of TKR in this younger subpopulation could also be investigated.

With revision as the primary endpoint the survival for TKR was 82.2% (95% CI 17.3). The mean OKS at follow-up (mean 15.7 years) was 30.9. However, many of the 82% of patients who did not undergo revision had a less than satisfactory outcome. 41% of these patients reported modest or severe pain (using the OKS) at final follow-up. A combined endpoint including revision, poor function and significant pain drastically reduced the survival rate for the operation. Survival based on revision alone provides an acceptable but inaccurate impression of outcome in younger TKR patients (under 60 years). A true representation of the success of TKR should include pain and function as endpoints.

This record has no associated files available for download.

More information

Published date: 4 February 2010
Keywords: knee, arthroplasty, survival, outcome, young age

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 150767
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/150767
ISSN: 0968-0160
PURE UUID: 380fe6c3-e930-4488-b7a9-079b50a35e56
ORCID for C. Cooper: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0003-3510-0709

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 06 May 2010 11:10
Last modified: 18 Mar 2024 02:44

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: A.J. Price
Author: D. Longino
Author: J. Rees
Author: R. Rout
Author: H. Pandit
Author: K. Javaid
Author: N. Arden
Author: C. Cooper ORCID iD
Author: A.J. Carr
Author: C.A.F. Dodd
Author: D.W. Murray
Author: D.J. Beard

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×