Comparison of patients in three different rehabilitation settings after knee or hip arthroplasty: a natural observational, prospective study

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

ML Verra²  E. Kramer³  C. Mueller Mebes²  S. Lehmann¹  R. Hilfiker⁴  P. Oesch⁵  F. Angst¹  T. Benz¹ 

[1] Research Department, RehaClinic, Bad Zurzach, Switzerland;Department of Physiotherapy, Bern University Hospital, Bern, Switzerland;Klinik Adelheid, Unterägeri, Switzerland;School of Health Sciences, HES-SO Valais-Wallis, Leukerbad, Switzerland;Kliniken Valens, Rehabilitationszentrum Valens, Valens, Switzerland

关键词: Ambulatory treatment;    Convalescence center;    Inpatient rehabilitation;    Hip and knee arthroplasty;   

Others  :  1232760
DOI  :  10.1186/s12891-015-0780-2

 received in 2015-04-24, accepted in 2015-10-16,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

Patients after primary hip or knee replacement surgery can benefit from postoperative treatment in terms of improvement of independence in ambulation, transfers, range of motion and muscle strength. After discharge from hospital, patients are referred to different treatment destination and modalities: intensive inpatient rehabilitation (IR), cure (medically prescribed stay at a convalescence center), or ambulatory treatment (AT) at home. The purpose of this study was to 1) measure functional health (primary outcome) and function relevant factors in patients with hip or knee arthroplasty and to compare them in relation to three postoperative management strategies: AT, Cure and IR and 2) compare the post-operative changes in patient’s health status (between preoperative and the 6 month follow-up) for three rehabilitation settings.

Methods

Natural observational, prospective two-center study with follow-up. Sociodemographic data and functional mobility tests, Timed Up and Go (TUG) and Iowa Level of Assistance Scale (ILOAS) of 201 patients were analysed before arthroplasty and at the end of acute hospital stay (mean duration of stay: 9.7 days +/− 3.9). Changes in health state were measured with the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) before and 6 months after arthroplasty.

Results

Compared to patients referred for IR and Cure, patients referred for AT were significantly younger and less comorbid. Patients admitted to IR had the highest functional disability before arthroplasty. Before rehabilitation, mean TUG was 40.0 s in the IR group, 33.9 s in the Cure group, and 27.5 s in the AT group, and corresponding mean ILOAS was 16.0, 13.0 and 12.2 (50.0 = worst). At the 6 months follow-up, the corresponding effect sizes of the WOMAC global score were 1.32, 1.87, and 1.51 (>0 means improvement).

Conclusions

Age, comorbidity and functional disability are associated with referral for intensive inpatient rehabilitation after hip or knee arthroplasty and partly affect health changes after rehabilitation.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Benz et al.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Brady OH, Masri BA, Garbuz DS, Duncan CP. Rheumatology: 10. Joint replacement of the hip and knee--when to refer and what to expect. CMAJ. 2000; 163:1285-91.
• [2]Jordan KM, Arden NK, Doherty M, Bannwarth B, Bijlsma JWJ, Dieppe P et al.. EULAR Recommendations 2003: an evidence based approach to the management of knee osteoarthritis: Report of a Task Force of the Standing Committee for International Clinical Studies Including Therapeutic Trials (ESCISIT). Ann Rheum Dis. 2003; 62:1145-55.
• [3]Zhang W, Doherty M, Arden N, Bannwarth B, Bijlsma J, Gunther K et al.. EULAR evidence based recommendations for the management of hip osteoarthritis: report of a task force of the EULAR Standing Committee for International Clinical Studies Including Therapeutics (ESCISIT). Ann Rheum Dis. 2005; 64:669-81.
• [4]Ethgen O, Bruyère O, Richy F, Dardennes C, Reginster JY. Health-related quality of life in total hip and total knee arthroplasty. A qualitative and systematic review of the literature. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004; 86:963-74.
• [5]Jones CA, Voaklander DC, Johnston DW, Suarez-Almazor ME. Health related quality of life outcomes after total hip and knee arthroplasties in a community based population. J Rheumatol. 2000; 27:1745-52.
• [6]Shan L, Shan B, Graham D, Saxena A. Total hip replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis on mid-term quality of life. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2014; 22:389-406.
• [7]Shan L, Shan B, Suzuki A, Nouh F, Saxena A. Intermediate and long-term quality of life after total knee replacement: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015; 97:156-68.
• [8]Falbrede I, Widmer M, Kurtz S, Schneidmüller D, Dudda M, Röder C. Utilization rates of lower extremity prostheses in Germany and Switzerland: a comparison of the years 2005–2008. Verwendungsraten von Prothesen der unteren Extremität in Deutschland und der Schweiz. Ein Vergleich der Jahre 2005–2008. Orthopade. 2011; 40:793-801.
• [9]OECD. Hip and knee replacement. In: OECD, Health at a Glance 2013: OECD Indicators. OECD Publishing. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/health_glance-2013-38-en]. Access date: 18.04.2014.
• [10]Enloe LJ, Shields RK, Smith K, Leo K, Miller B. Total hip and knee replacement treatment programs: a report using consensus. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1996; 23:3-11.
• [11]Jones DL, Westby MD, Greidanus N, Johanson NA, Krebs DE, Robbins L et al.. Update on hip and knee arthroplasty: current state of evidence. Arthritis Rheum. 2005; 53:772-80.
• [12]Ontario HQ. Physiotherapy rehabilitation after total knee or hip replacement: an evidence-based analysis. Ont Health Technol Assess Ser. 2005; 5:1-91.
• [13]Bellamy N. WOMAC osteoarthritis index. A user’s guide. University of Western Ontario, London; 1995.
• [14]Angst F, Aeschlimann A, Stucki G. Smallest detectable and minimal clinically important differences of rehabilitation intervention with their implications for required sample sizes using WOMAC and SF-36 quality of life measurement instruments in patients with osteoarthritis of the lower extremities. Arthritis Rheum. 2001; 45:384-91.
• [15]Angst F, Aeschlimann A, Steiner W, Stucki G. Responsiveness of the WOMAC osteoarthritis index as compared with the SF-36 in patients with osteoarthritis of the legs undergoing a comprehensive rehabilitation intervention. Ann Rheum Dis. 2001; 60:834-40.
• [16]Sangha O, Stucki G, Liang MH, Fossel AH, Katz JN. The self-administered comorbidity questionnaire: a new method to assess comorbidity for clinical and health services research. Arthritis Rheum. 2003; 49:156-63.
• [17]Stucki G, Meier D, Stucki S, Michel BA, Tyndall AG, Dick W et al.. Evaluation of German version of the WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities) osteoarthritis index. Z Rheumatol. 1996; 55:40-9.
• [18]Shields RK, Enloe LJ, Evans RE, Smith KB, Steckel SD. Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of functional tests in patients with total joint replacement. Phys Ther. 1995; 75:169-76.
• [19]Cantieni M, Leensen T, Knuesel O, Oesch P. Is the ILOAS a suitable assessment tool for functional status evaluation of patients with total knee arthroplasty during inpatient rehabilitation? Reproducibility, validity and responsiveness of the ILOAS. Physioscience. 2009; 5:165-72.
• [20]Mathias S, Nayak USL, Isaacs B. Balance in elderly patients: The “Get-up and Go” test. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1986; 67:387-9.
• [21]Nordin E, Rosendahl E, Lundin-Olsson L. Timed “Up & Go” test: reliability in older people dependent in activities of daily living-focus on cognitive state. Phys Ther. 2006; 86:646-55.
• [22]Podsiadlo D, Richardson S. The timed “Up & Go”: a test of basic functional mobility for frail elderly persons. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1991; 39:142-8.
• [23]Kennedy DM, Stratford PW, Wessel J, Gollish JD, Penney D. Assessing stability and change of four performance measures: a longitudinal study evaluating outcome following total hip and knee arthroplasty. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2005; 6:3. BioMed Central Full Text
• [24]Angst F, Pap G, Mannion AF, Herren DB, Aeschlimann A, Schwyzer HK et al.. Comprehensive assessment of clinical outcome and quality of life after total shoulder arthroplasty. Usefulness and validity of subjective outcome measurement. Arthritis Rheum. 2004; 51:819-28.
• [25]Cohen J. A power primer. Psychol Bull. 1992; 112:155-9.
• [26]Kazis LE, Anderson JJ, Meenan RF. Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care. 1989; 27 Suppl 3:178-89.
• [27]de Pablo P, Losina E, Phillips CB, Fossel AH, Mahomed N, Lingard EA et al.. Determinants of discharge destination following elective total hip replacement. Arthritis Rheum. 2004; 51:1009-17.
• [28]Forrest G, Fuchs M, Gutierrez A, Girardy J. Factors affecting length of stay and need for rehabilitation after hip and knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 1998; 13:186-90.
• [29]Forrest GP, Roque JM, Dawodu ST. Decreasing length of stay after total joint arthroplasty: effect on referrals to rehabilitation units. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1999; 80:192-4.
• [30]Munin MC, Kwoh CK, Glynn N, Crossett L, Rubash HE. Predicting discharge outcome after elective hip and knee arthroplasty. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 1995; 74:294-301.
• [31]Mahomed NN, Davis AM, Hawker G, Badley E, Davey JR, Syed KA et al.. Inpatient compared with home-based rehabilitation following primary unilateral total hip or knee replacement: a randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008; 90:1673-80.
• [32]Mahomed NN, Koo Seen Lin MJ, Levesque J, Lan S, Bogoch ER. Determinants and outcomes of inpatient versus home based rehabilitation following elective hip and knee replacement. J Rheumatol. 2000; 27:1753-8.
• [33]Santaguida PL, Hawker GA, Hudak PL, Glazier R, Mahomed NN, Kreder HJ et al.. Patient characteristics affecting the prognosis of total hip and knee joint arthroplasty: a systematic review. Can J Surg. 2008; 51:428-36.