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:
We performed a systematic review of the literature
to evaluate the use and interpretation of generic and disease-specific
functional outcome instruments in the reporting of outcome after
the surgical treatment of disruptions of the pelvic ring. A total
of 28 papers met our inclusion criteria, with eight reporting only
generic outcome instruments, 13 reporting only pelvis-specific outcome
instruments, and six reporting both. The Short-Form 36 (SF-36) was
by far the most commonly used generic outcome instrument, used in
12 papers, with widely variable reporting of scores. The pelvis-specific
outcome instruments were used in 19 studies; the Majeed score in
ten, Iowa pelvic score in six, Hannover pelvic score in two and
the Orlando pelvic score in one. Four sets of authors, all testing construct
validity based on correlation with the SF-36, performed psychometric
testing of three pelvis-specific instruments (Majeed, IPS and Orlando
scores). No testing of responsiveness, content validity, criterion
validity, internal consistency or reproducibility was performed. The existing literature in this area is inadequate to inform
surgeons or patients in a meaningful way about the functional outcomes
of these fractures after fixation.
