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 Oxford knee score (OKS) is a validated and widely accepted disease-specific patient-reported outcome measure, but there is limited evidence regarding any long-term trends in the score. We reviewed 5600 individual OKS questionnaires (1547 patients) from a prospectively-collected knee replacement database, to determine the trends in OKS over a ten-year period following total knee replacement. The mean OKS pre-operatively was 19.5 (95% confidence interval (CI) 18.8 to 20.2). The maximum post-operative OKS was observed at two years (mean score 34.4 (95% CI 33.7 to 35.2)), following which a gradual but significant decline was observed through to the ten-year assessment (mean score 30.1 (95% CI 29.1 to 31.1)) (p < 0.001). A similar trend was observed for most of the individual OKS components (p < 0.001). Kneeling ability initially improved in the first year but was then followed by rapid deterioration (p < 0.001). Pain severity exhibited the greatest improvement, although residual pain was reported in over two-thirds of patients post-operatively, and peak improvement in the night pain component did not occur until year four. Post-operative OKS was lower for women (p < 0.001), those aged < 60 years (p < 0.003) and those with a body mass index > 35 kg/m² (p < 0.014), although similar changes in scores were observed. This information may assist surgeons in advising patients of their expected outcomes, as well as providing a comparative benchmark for evaluating longer-term outcomes following knee replacement.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:45–51.

We evaluated 535 consecutive primary cementless total knee replacements (TKR). The mean follow-up was 9.2 years (0.3 to 12.9) and information on implant survival was available for all patients. Patients were divided into two groups: 153 obese patients (BMI ≥ 30) and 382 non-obese (BMI < 30). A case-matched study was performed on the clinical and radiological outcome, comparing 50 knees in each group. We found significantly lower mean improvements in the clinical score (p = 0.044) and lower post-operative total clinical scores in the obese group (p = 0.041). There was no difference in the rate of radiological osteolysis or lucent lines, and no difference in alignment. Log rank test for survival showed no significant differences between the groups (p = 0.167), with a ten-year survival rate of 96.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 92 to 99) in the obese and 98% (95% CI 96 to 99) in the non-obese.

The mid-term survival of TKR in the obese and the non-obese are comparable, but obesity appears to have a negative effect on the clinical outcome. However, good results and high patient satisfaction are still to be expected, and it would seem unreasonable to deny patients a TKR simply on the basis of a BMI indicating obesity.