Development of an outcome prediction tool for patients considering a total knee replacement – the Knee Outcome Prediction Study (KOPS)

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

Damian Griffin¹  Nick Parsons¹  Andrew Sprowson¹  Mark Dunbar¹  Tim Barlow¹ 

[1] Warwick Medical School, Clinical Sciences Research Laboratories, University Hospitals of Coventry and Warwickshire, Clifford Bridge Road, Coventry CV2 2DX, UK

关键词: Outcome prediction tool;    Patient factors;    Total knee replacement;   

Others  :  1090190
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2474-15-451

 received in 2014-10-02, accepted in 2014-11-26,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Knee osteoarthritis affects 10% of the UK population over 55 years, resulting in pain and decreased quality of life. Knee replacement surgery has a proven benefit, with over 85,000 performed each year in the UK; however, approximately 17% of people are dissatisfied after surgery. Consequently, some Primary Care Trusts have reduced the funding available for knee replacements.

Most previous work has focused on the effect of different prostheses and treatment protocols on patient’s outcome. However, this has been unable to account for all the variability and there is growing evidence that patient factors may significantly affect outcome. How to identify these at risk patients has been identified as a research priority by the National Institute of Clinical Excellence, the British Orthopedic Association, and the National Joint Registry.

The aim of this study is to develop a clinically appropriate outcome prediction tool based on measurable predictors affecting outcome.

Methods/design

We propose a prospective cohort study, designed to develop and validate an outcome prediction tool based on patient factors.

Six hundred patients who are scheduled for total knee replacement secondary to primary osteoarthritis will be recruited before surgery from all six hospitals (NHS and private) that provide total knee replacements to the population of Coventry and Warwickshire (UK). Patients will complete a baseline assessment of patient factors before their operation and will be followed up at 6 and 12 months post surgery.

Discussion

A clinically appropriate outcome prediction tool will allow patients to make a more informed decision regarding surgery. Aligning patient expectations with a realistic prediction of outcome should improve satisfaction. Ultimately, this project is likely to inform national policy making and regional service provision.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Barlow et al.; licensee BioMed Central.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Smith BW, Zautra AJ: The effects of anxiety and depression on weekly pain in women with arthritis. Pain 2008, 138(2):354-361.
• [2]Peat G, Thomas E, Duncan R, Wood L, Hay E, Croft P: Clinical classification criteria for knee osteoarthritis :performance in the general population and primary care. Ann Rheum Dis 2006, 65(10):1363-1367.
• [3]Juni P, Reichenbach S, Dieppe P: Osteoarthritis: Rational approach to treating the individual. Best Pract Res clin Rheumatiol 2006, 20(4):721-740.
• [4]National Joint Registry for England and Wales. 2014. http://www.njrcentre.org.uk/njrcentre/Reports,PublicationsandMinutes/Annualreports/tabid/86/Default.aspx webcite
• [5]Hawker G, Wright J, Coyte P, Paul J, Dittus R, Croxford R, Katz B, Bombardier C, Heck D, Freund D: Health-related quality of life after knee replacement. J Bone and Joint Surg Am 1998, 80(2):163.
• [6]Santaguida PL, Hawker GA, Hudak PL, Glazier R, Mahomed NN, Kreder HJ, Coyte PC, Wright JG: Patient characteristics affecting the prognosis of total hip and knee joint arthroplasty: a systematic review. Can J Surg 2008, 51(6):428-436.
• [7]Heck DA, Robinson RL, Partridge CM, Lubitz RM, Freund DA: Patient outcomes after knee replacement. Clin Orthop 1998, 356:95-110.
• [8]Fortin PR, Clarke AE, Joseph L, Liang MH, Tanzer M, Ferland D, Phillips C, Partridge AJ, Bélisle P, Fossel AH, Mahomed N, Sledge CB, Katz JN: Outcomes of total hip and knee replacement: preoperative functional status predicts outcomes at six months after surgery. Arthritis Rheum 1999, 42(8):1723-1728.
• [9]Lingard EA, Katz JN, Wright EA, Sledge CB, Kinemax Outcomes Group: Predicting the outcome of total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2004, 86-A(10):2179-2186.
• [10]Sharma L, Sinacore J, Daugherty C, Kuesis DT, Stulberg SD, Lewis M, Baumann G, Chang RW: Prognostic factors for functional outcome of total knee replacement: a prospective study. J Gerontol A Biol Schi Med Sci 1996, 54(4):M152-M157.
• [11]König A, Scheidler M, Rader C, Eulert J: The need for a dual rating system in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1997, 345:161-167.
• [12]Wasielewski RC, Weed H, Prezioso C, Nicholson C, Puri RD: Patient comorbidity relationship to outcomes of total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 1998, 356:85-92.
• [13]National Institute for Health and Care Excellence: Osteoarthritis: care and management in adults. Available at http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg177 webcite
• [14]Spicer DD, Pomeroy DL, Badenhausen WE, Schaper LA Jr, Curry JI, Suthers KE, Smith MW: Body mass index as a predictor of outcome in total knee replacement. Int Orthop 2001, 25(4):246-249.
• [15]Murray DW, Fitzpatrick R, Rogers K, Pandit H, Carr AJ, Dawson J: The use of the Oxford hip and knee scores. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2007, 89-B(8):1010-1014.
• [16]Garratt AM, Ruta DA, Abdalla MI, Buckingham JK, Russell IT: The SF36 health survey questionnaire: an outcome measure suitable for routine use within the NHS? BMJ 1993, 306:1440.
• [17]Cohen J: Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd edition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1988.
• [18]Stone M: Cross-validatory choice and assessment of statistical predictions. J R Stat Soc B 1974, 36:111-147.
• [19]R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2014. http://www.R-project.org/ webcite