Aims

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.

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is an established and successful procedure. However, the design of prostheses continues to be modified in an attempt to optimise the functional outcome of the patient.

The aim of this study was to determine if patient outcome after TKA was influenced by the design of the prosthesis used.

A total of 212 patients (mean age 69; 43 to 92; 131 female (62%), 81 male (32%)) were enrolled in a single centre double-blind trial and randomised to receive either a Kinemax (group 1) or a Triathlon (group 2) TKA.

Patients were assessed pre-operatively, at six weeks, six months, one year and three years after surgery. The outcome assessments used were the Oxford Knee Score; range of movement; pain numerical rating scales; lower limb power output; timed functional assessment battery and a satisfaction survey. Data were assessed incorporating change over all assessment time points, using repeated measures analysis of variance longitudinal mixed models. Implant group 2 showed a significantly greater range of movement (p = 0.009), greater lower limb power output (p = 0.026) and reduced report of ‘worst daily pain’ (p = 0.003) over the three years of follow-up. Differences in Oxford Knee Score (p = 0.09), report of ‘average daily pain’ (p = 0.57) and timed functional performance tasks (p = 0.23) did not reach statistical significance. Satisfaction with outcome was significantly better in group 2 (p = 0.001).

These results suggest that patient outcome after TKA can be influenced by the prosthesis used.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:64–70.

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: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:622–8.