There are comparatively few randomized studies evaluating knee arthroplasty prostheses, and fewer still that report longer-term functional outcomes. The aim of this study was to evaluate mid-term outcomes of an existing implant trial cohort to document changing patient function over time following total knee arthroplasty using longitudinal analytical techniques and to determine whether implant design chosen at time of surgery influenced these outcomes. A mid-term follow-up of the remaining 125 patients from a randomized cohort of total knee arthroplasty patients (initially comprising 212 recruited patients), comparing modern (Triathlon) and traditional (Kinemax) prostheses was undertaken. Functional outcomes were assessed with the Oxford Knee Score (OKS), knee range of movement, pain numerical rating scales, lower limb power output, timed functional assessment battery, and satisfaction survey. Data were linked to earlier assessment timepoints, and analyzed by repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) mixed models, incorporating longitudinal change over all assessment timepoints.Aims
Methods
Satisfaction with care is important to both patients
and to those who pay for it. The Net Promoter Score (NPS), widely
used in the service industries, has been introduced into the NHS
as the ‘friends and family test’; an overarching measure of patient
satisfaction. It assesses the likelihood of the patient recommending
the healthcare received to another, and is seen as a discriminator
of healthcare performance. We prospectively assessed 6186 individuals
undergoing primary lower limb joint replacement at a single university
hospital to determine the Net Promoter Score for joint replacements
and to evaluate which factors contributed to the response. Achieving pain relief (odds ratio (OR) 2.13, confidence interval
(CI) 1.83 to 2.49), the meeting of pre-operative expectation (OR
2.57, CI 2.24 to 2.97), and the hospital experience (OR 2.33, CI
2.03 to 2.68) are the domains that explain whether a patient would
recommend joint replacement services. These three factors, combined
with the type of surgery undertaken (OR 2.31, CI 1.68 to 3.17),
drove a predictive model that was able to explain 95% of the variation
in the patient’s recommendation response. Though intuitively similar,
this ‘recommendation’ metric was found to be materially different
to satisfaction responses. The difference between THR (NPS 71) and
TKR (NPS 49) suggests that no overarching score for a department
should be used without an adjustment for case mix. However, the
Net Promoter Score does measure a further important dimension to
our existing metrics: the patient experience of healthcare delivery. Cite this article:
