The Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Registry (SKAR) has recorded knee arthroplasties prospectively in Sweden since 1975. The only outcome measure available to date has been revision status. While questionnaires on health outcome may function as more comprehensive endpoints, it is unclear which are the most appropriate. We tested various outcome questionnaires in order to determine which is the best for patients who have had knee arthroplasty as applied in a cross-sectional, discriminative, postal survey.

Four general health questionnaires (NHP, SF-12, SF-36 and SIP) and three disease/site-specific questionnaires (Lequesne, Oxford-12, and WOMAC) were tested on 3600 patients randomly selected from the SKAR. Differences were found between questionnaires in response rate, time required for completion, the need for assistance, the efficiency of completion, the validity of the content and the reliability. The mean overall ranks for each questionnaire were generated. The SF-12 ranked the best for the general health, and the Oxford-12 for the disease/site-specific questionnaires. These two questionnaires could therefore be recommended as the most appropriate for use with a large knee arthroplasty database in a cross-sectional population.

To assess migration of the tibial component we used roentgen stereophotogrammetric analysis in 40 patients who had had a total knee arthroplasty after failure of a closing wedge osteotomy and compared them with 40 matched patients after primary total knee arthroplasty.

We found no difference in migration over time or in the tendency for continuous migration between the two groups. There were no differences in alignment or position of the knee prosthesis or in the clinical outcome.

Our findings show that revision of a failed high tibial osteotomy to a total knee arthroplasty is effective.