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:
Following arthroplasty of the knee, the patient’s
perception of improvement in symptoms is fundamental to the assessment
of outcome. Better clinical outcome may offset the inferior survival
observed for some types of implant. By examining linked National
Joint Registry (NJR) and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs)
data, we aimed to compare PROMs collected at a minimum of six months
post-operatively for total (TKR: n = 23 393) and unicondylar knee
replacements (UKR: n = 505). Improvements in knee-specific (Oxford
knee score, OKS) and generic (EuroQol, EQ-5D) scores were compared
and adjusted for case-mix differences using multiple regression.
Whereas the improvements in the OKS and EQ-5D were significantly
greater for TKR than for UKR, once adjustments were made for case-mix
differences and pre-operative score, the improvements in the two
scores were not significantly different. The adjusted mean differences
in the improvement of OKS and EQ-5D were 0.0 (95% confidence interval (CI)
-0.9 to 0.9; p = 0.96) and 0.009 (95% CI -0.034 to 0.015; p = 0.37),
respectively. We found no difference in the improvement of either knee-specific
or general health outcomes between TKR and UKR in a large cohort
of registry patients. With concerns about significantly higher revision
rates for UKR observed in worldwide registries, we question the
widespread use of an arthroplasty that does not confer a significant
benefit in clinical outcome.
