Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 4 of 4
Results per page:
The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 97-B, Issue 1 | Pages 3 - 9
1 Jan 2015
Hossain FS Konan S Patel S Rodriguez-Merchan EC Haddad FS

The routine use of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in evaluating the outcome after arthroplasty by healthcare organisations reflects a growing recognition of the importance of patients’ perspectives in improving treatment. Although widely embraced in the NHS, there are concerns that PROMs are being used beyond their means due to a poor understanding of their limitations.

This paper reviews some of the current challenges in using PROMs to evaluate total knee arthroplasty. It highlights alternative methods that have been used to improve the assessment of outcome.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:3–9.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 96-B, Issue 11 | Pages 1431 - 1435
1 Nov 2014
Konan S Hossain F Patel S Haddad FS

Accurate, reproducible outcome measures are essential for the evaluation of any orthopaedic procedure, in both clinical practice and research.

Commonly used patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have drawbacks such as ‘floor’ and ‘ceiling’ effects, limitations of worldwide adaptability and an inability to distinguish pain from function. They are also unable to measure the true outcome of an intervention rather than a patient’s perception of that outcome.

Performance-based functional outcome tools may address these problems. It is important that both clinicians and researchers are aware of these measures when dealing with high-demand patients, using a new intervention or implant, or testing a new rehabilitation protocol.

This article provides an overview of some of the clinically-validated performance-based functional outcome tools used in the assessment of patients undergoing hip and knee surgery.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1431–5.


The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery British Volume
Vol. 94-B, Issue 10 | Pages 1321 - 1329
1 Oct 2012
Sarmah SS Patel S Hossain FS Haddad FS

Radiological assessment of total and unicompartmental knee replacement remains an essential part of routine care and follow-up. Appreciation of the various measurements that can be identified radiologically is important. It is likely that routine plain radiographs will continue to be used, although there has been a trend towards using newer technologies such as CT, especially in a failing knee, where it provides more detailed information, albeit with a higher radiation exposure.

The purpose of this paper is to outline the radiological parameters used to evaluate knee replacements, describe how these are measured or classified, and review the current literature to determine their efficacy where possible.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 94-B, Issue SUPP_IX | Pages 70 - 70
1 Mar 2012
Hossain FS Patel S Tahmassebi J Haddad FS
Full Access

Introduction

Unicondylar knee replacements (UKR) may be more effective compared to Total knee replacements (TKR) in unicompartmental arthritis. We report patient outcomes & satisfaction data in an age matched cohort of patients with either a UKR or TKR.

Method

A single unit and single surgeon series of patients were recruited. Data was retrospectively collated for 68 patients with more than 24 months follow-up. UKR was undertaken in patients with isolated medial compartment osteoarthritis; stable ACL and less than grade 3 lateral patellar changes of the Outerbridge classification. TKR was undertaken for the rest. The patients were assessed with validated knee scores including the Total Knee Function Questionnaire (TKFQ) which focuses on recreational & sporting outcomes as well as activities of daily living (ADL). Patient satisfaction and perception of knee normality was measured on a visual analogue scale.