Abstract
The concept under discussion is curious and central to our work: is patient dissatisfaction with modern TKA really a “growing problem”? Could it be, that as our technique and technology have improved function and durability, that surgical results have become worse????
A disappointing percentage of patients polled from a distance are less than fully satisfied with the results of their surgery. Why does this surprise us as surgeons?
This problem needs to be untangled. First, these studies ask patients blankly if they are satisfied with their surgery, generally and with respect to specific criteria (e.g. activities of daily living). Neither the patients nor their radiographs have been evaluated. Undoubtedly, some dissatisfied patients will have arthroplasties that would be assessed as less than perfect by a comprehensive evaluation that might include stability testing, range of motion and radiographs of patellar tracking, including CT examination for rotational positioning of components. Some will have suffered the recognised complications of surgery such as chronic regional pain syndrome and infections which, while treated, often yield poor results. Surgeons all too often abandon a systematic and comprehensive evaluation, almost dismissing patients who complain.
A second group will be disabled due to physical factors extrinsic to the arthroplasty: polyarthritis, deconditioning and medical comorbidities. Others suffer depression and are disappointed that life never improved after the arthroplasty.
Thirdly, another group will have knees that could not technically have been any better, but who are still dissatisfied with the result. Some had expectations that exceeded the capability of current technology to reproduce knee function. Their surgeons failed to convey the potential of arthroplasty to make things “normal” in a way that the patient could incorporate. Other patients may have submitted to surgery prematurely, before arthritis and knee dysfunction, had reached the point where arthroplasty represents an improvement.
The concept of a “growing problem”, has more to do with the disjunction between rapidly accelerating public expectations (fueled by modern medicine) and the more modest rate of progress in technology, technique and education. Happy patients tend to be satisfied and there are a great many factors that determine happiness.
Assessment depends on tools for measurement. Surgeons have struggled honestly to develop tools that could help assess which prostheses and techniques were superior, to make wise choices in developing techniques and implants. Many of the original clinical assessment tools have been challenged as invalid. Newer more comprehensive tools have been developed. The “evidence based” movement, and rejection of some clinical tools, represents a shift in power in clinical medicine that has “enabled payers, purchasers, and governmental authorities to use their financial clout to alter the practice of medicine.” (http://www.ahrq.gov/research/findings/evidence-based-reports/jhppl/rodwin.html)
This information is a call for practitioners to evaluate dissatisfied individuals compassionately and objectively and for investigators to evaluate the entire problem exhaustively. Skepticism is appropriate when this message is a glib pretext for commercialisation and/or for denigration of the role of arthroplasty in the lives of our patients. It is a call to improve, not abandon our craft.
