PREVALENCE OF POOR PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES AFTER LOWER LIMB JOINT REPLACEMENT

Abstract

Introduction: Joint replacement has a low mortality rate, few adverse occurrences, excellent survivorship and is considered a cost-effective intervention to reduce disability in the community. However, the assessment of complications and survivorship fail to measure the success of joint replacement in achieving pain relief and restoration of functional ability. The aim of this large cross-sectional postal survey was to provide information on the prevalence of pain, disability, poor quality of life and patient dissatisfaction at 1–3 years after a range of lower limb orthopaedic surgeries in the UK.

Patient and Methods: A questionnaire was posted to all 3,125 consecutive alive patients who underwent a primary THR, hip resurfacing, TKR, UKR or patellar resurfacing at the Avon Orthopaedic Centre between January 2004 – April 2006. The questionnaire included the WOMAC, HOOS/KOOS quality of life scale and a validated satisfaction scale. All questionnaires are scored on a 0–100 scale (worst-best) and a poor outcome was defined as a score of ≤ 50 on the outcome measure.

Results: Completed questionnaires were received from 2,085 patients (response rate of 67%). Patients had a mean age of 67 years and 42% were male. The mean length of follow-up was 28 months (range 14–44 months). 911 patients had a THR, 157 patients had a hip resurfacing, 866 patients had a TKR, 100 patients had a UKR and 51 patients had a patellar resurfacing.

• Pain: the prevalence of poor outcomes were 6% of patients with a THR, 4% with a hip resurfacing, 12% with a TKR, 9% with a UKR and 31% with a patellar resurfacing.

• Function: the prevalence of poor outcomes were 12% of patients with a THR, 4% with a hip resurfacing, 16% with a TKR, 9% with a UKR and 35% with a patellar resurfacing.

• Hip-related quality of life: the prevalence of poor outcomes were 26% of patients with a THR, 12% with a hip resurfacing, 33% with a TKR, 32% with a UKR and 67% with a patellar resurfacing.

• Satisfaction: the prevalence of poor outcomes were 13% of patients with a THR, 8% with a hip resurfacing, 17% with a TKR, 11% with a UKR and 45% with a patellar resurfacing.

Conclusion: This survey has provided descriptive data on the prevalence of patient-reported levels of pain, disability, poor joint-related quality of life and dissatisfaction after lower limb arthroplasty. It is important that patient-reported outcomes after joint replacement are rigorously assessed in order to provide information on which patients do poorly after surgery, with the aim of targeting these patients with an intervention to improve their outcome.

North Bristol Trust Small Grants Scheme provided funding for the consumables for this study.