Assessing function in patients undergoing joint replacement: a study protocol for a cohort study

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

Erik Lenguerrand¹  Cindy Mann³  Bernd Grimm²  Rachael Gooberman-Hill¹  Paul Dieppe⁴  Luke Brunton¹  Stijn Bolink²  Ashley W Blom¹  Vikki Wylde¹ 

[1] Musculoskeletal Research Unit, School of Clinical Sciences, University of Bristol, Avon Orthopaedic Centre, Southmead Hospital, Bristol BS10 5NB, UK;AHORSE Foundation, Department Orthopaedics, Atrium Medical Center Heerlen, Heerlen, the Netherlands;Musculoskeletal Research Unit, North Bristol NHS Trust, Avon Orthopaedic Centre, Southmead Hospital, Bristol, BS10 5NB, UK;Peninsula Medical School, Universities of Exeter and Plymouth, Plymouth, PL6 8BU, UK

关键词: Motion analysis;    Performance tests;    Self-report;    Outcome;    Function;    Pain;    Disability;    Knee;    Hip;    Joint replacement;   

Others  :  1134447
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2474-13-220

 received in 2012-10-19, accepted in 2012-11-08,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

Joint replacement is an effective intervention for people with advanced arthritis, although there is an important minority of patients who do not improve post-operatively. There is a need for robust evidence on outcomes after surgery, but there are a number of measures that assess function after joint replacement, many of which lack any clear theoretical basis. The World Health Organisation has introduced the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF), which divides function into three separate domains: Impairment,activity limitations and participation restrictions. The aim of this study is to compare the properties and responsiveness of a selection of commonly used outcome tools that assess function, examine how well they relate to the ICF concepts, and to explore the changes in the measures over time.

Methods/design

Two hundred and sixty three patients listed for lower limb joint replacement at an elective orthopaedic centre have been recruited into this study. Participants attend the hospital for a research appointment prior to surgery and then at 3-months and 1-year after surgery. At each assessment time, function is assessed using a range of measures. Self-report function is assessed using the WOMAC, Aberdeen Impairment, Activity Limitation and Participation Restriction Measure, SF-12 and Measure Yourself Medical Outcome Profile 2. Clinician-administered measures of function include the American Knee Society Score for knee patients and the Harris Hip Score for hip patients. Performance tests include the timed 20-metre walk, timed get up and go, sit-to-stand-to-sit, step tests and single stance balance test. During the performance tests, participants wear an inertial sensor and data from motion analysis are collected. Statistical analysis will include exploring the relationship between measures describing the same ICF concepts, assessing responsiveness, and studying changes in measures over time.

Discussion

There are a range of tools that can be used to assess function before and after joint replacement, with little information about how these various measures compare in their properties and responsiveness. This study aims to provide this data on a selection of commonly used assessments of function, and explore how they relate to the ICF domains.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Wylde et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]National Joint Registry: 8th Annual Report. NJR Centre, Hemel Hempstead; 2011.
• [2]Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M: Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2007, 89(4):780-785.
• [3]Carr AJ, Robertsson O, Graves S, Price AJ, Arden NK, Judge A, Beard DJ: Knee replacement. Lancet 2012, 379(9823):1331-1340.
• [4]Learmonth ID, Young C, Rorabeck C: The operation of the century: total hip replacement. Lancet 2007, 370(9597):1508-1519.
• [5]Beswick AD, Wylde V, Gooberman-Hill R, Blom A, Dieppe P: What proportion of patients report long-term pain after total hip or knee replacement for osteoarthritis? A systematic review of prospective studies in unselected patients. BMJ open 2012, 2(1):e000435.
• [6]Judge A, Welton NJ, Sandhu J, Ben-Shlomo Y: Equity in access to total joint replacement of the hip and knee in England: cross sectional study. BMJ 2010, 341:c4092.
• [7]Dieppe P, Lim K, Lohmander S: Who should have knee joint replacement surgery for osteoarthritis? Int J Rheum Dis 2011, 14(2):175-180.
• [8]Wylde V, Blom AW: The failure of survivorship. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2011, 93(5):569-570.
• [9]Harris WH: Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. An end-result study using a new method of result evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1969, 51(4):737-755.
• [10]Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN: Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1989, 248:13-14.
• [11]Darzi : High quality care for all: NHS Next Stage Review final report. Department of Health, London; 2008.
• [12]Ethgen O, Bruyere 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-A(5):963-974.
• [13]Gooberman-Hill R, Woolhead G, MacKichan F, Ayis S, Williams S, Dieppe P: Assessing chronic joint pain: Lessons from a focus group study. Arthritis Care Res 2007, 57(4):666-671.
• [14]Wolfe F: Determinants of WOMAC function, pain and stiffness scores: evidence for the role of low back pain, symptom counts, fatigue and depression in osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis and fibromyalgia. Rheumatology (Oxford) 1999, 38(4):355-361.
• [15]Pollard B, Johnston M, Dieppe P: What Do Osteoarthritis Health Outcome Instruments Measure? Impairment, Activity Limitation, or Participation Restriction? J Rheumatol 2005, 33(4):757-763.
• [16]World Health Organisation: International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. World Health Organisation, Geneva; 2001.
• [17]Pollard B, Johnston M, Dieppe P: Exploring the relationships between International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) constructs of impairment, activity limitation and participation restriction in people with osteoarthritis prior to joint replacement. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2011, 12:97.
• [18]Riddle DL, Stratford PW, Bowman DH: Findings of extensive variation in the types of outcome measures used in hip and knee replacement clinical trials: a systematic review. Arthritis Rheum 2008, 59(6):876-883.
• [19]Kennedy D, Stratford PW, Pagura SM, Walsh M, Woodhouse LJ: Comparison of gender and group differences in self-report and physical performance measures in total hip and knee arthroplasty candidates. J Arthroplasty 2002, 17(1):70-77.
• [20]Stratford P, Kennedy D, Pagura S, Gollish J: The relationship between self-report and performance-related measures: questioning the content validity of timed tests. Arthritis Care Res 2003, 49(4):535-540.
• [21]Unnanuntana A, Mait JE, Shaffer AD, Lane JM, Mancuso CA: Performance-Based Tests and Self-Reported Questionnaires Provide Distinct Information for the Preoperative Evaluation of Total Hip Arthroplasty Patients. J Arthroplasty 2011.
• [22]van den Akker-Scheek I, Zijlstra W, Groothoff JW, Bulstra SK, Stevens M: Physical functioning before and after total hip arthroplasty: perception and performance. Phys Ther 2008, 88(6):712-719.
• [23]Wright AA, Cook CE, Baxter GD, Garcia J, Abbott JH: Relationship between the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index Physical Function Subscale and physical performance measures in patients with hip osteoarthritis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2010, 91(10):1558-1564.
• [24]National Joint Registry. http://www.njrcentre.org.uk/njrcentre/Healthcareproviders/Accessingthedata/StatsOnline/NJRStatsOnline/tabid/179/Default.aspx webcite. Accessed 25/07/2012
• [25]Department of Health: Mental Capacity Act. The Stationary Office limited, UK; 2005.
• [26]Bachmeier CJ, March LM, Cross MJ, Lapsley HM, Tribe KL, Courtenay BG, Brooks PM: A comparison of outcomes in osteoarthritis patients undergoing total hip and knee replacement surgery. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2001, 9(2):137-146.
• [27]Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Carr A, Murray D: Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1996, 78(2):185-190.
• [28]Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Murray D, Carr A: Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1998, 80(1):63-69.
• [29]Insall JN, Ranawat CS, Aglietti P, Shine J: A comparison of four models of total knee-replacement prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1976, 58(6):754-765.
• [30]Roos EM, Roos HP, Lohmander LS, Ekdahl C, Beynnon BD: Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)–development of a self-administered outcome measure. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 1998, 28(2):88-96.
• [31]Hunt SM, McEwen J: The development of a subjective health indicator. Sociol Health Illn 1980, 2(3):231-246.
• [32]Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW: Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol 1988, 15(12):1833-1840.
• [33]Pollard B, Dixon D, Dieppe P, Johnston M: Measuring the ICF components of impairment, activity limitation and participation restriction: an item analysis using classical test theory and item response theory. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2009, 7:41.
• [34]Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD: The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992, 30(6):473-483.
• [35]Paterson C: Measuring outcomes in primary care: a patient generated measure, MYMOP, compared with the SF-36 health survey. BMJ 1996, 312(7037):1016-1020.
• [36]Zigmond AS, Snaith RP: The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1983, 67(6):361-370.
• [37]Groll DL, To T, Bombardier C, Wright JG: The development of a comorbidity index with physical function as the outcome. J Clin Epidemiol 2005, 58(6):595-602.
• [38]Mahomed N, Gandhi R, Daltroy L, Katz JN: The self-administered patient satisfaction scale for primary hip and knee arthroplasty. Arthritis 2011, 591253.
• [39]Senden R, Grimm B, Heyligers IC, Savelberg HH, Meijer K: Acceleration-based gait test for healthy subjects: reliability and reference data. Gait Posture 2009, 30(2):192-196.
• [40]Podsiadlo D, Richardson S: The timed "Up & Go": a test of basic functional mobility for frail elderly persons. J Am Geriatr Soc 1991, 39(2):142-148.
• [41]Janssen WG, Bussmann HB, Stam HJ: Determinants of the sit-to-stand movement: a review. Phys Ther 2002, 82(9):866-879.
• [42]van den Dikkenberg N, Meijer OG, van der Slikke RM, van Lummel RC, van Dieen JH, Pijls B, Benink RJ, Wuisman PI: Measuring functional abilities of patients with knee problems: rationale and construction of the DynaPort knee test. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2002, 10(4):204-212.
• [43]Hardcastle P, Nade S: The significance of the Trendelenburg test. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1985, 67(5):741-746.
• [44]Senden R, Grimm B, Meijer K, Savelberg H, Heyligers IC: The importance to including objective functional outcomes in the clinical follow up of total knee arthroplasty patients. Knee 2011, 18(5):306-311.
• [45]Ornetti P, Maillefert JF, Laroche D, Morisset C, Dougados M, Gossec L: Gait analysis as a quantifiable outcome measure in hip or knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review. Joint Bone Spine 2010, 77(5):421-425.
• [46]Reininga IH, Stevens M, Wagenmakers R, Boerboom AL, Groothoff JW, Bulstra SK, Zijlstra W: Compensatory trunk movements in patients with hip osteoarthritis: accuracy and reproducibility of a body-fixed sensor-based assessment. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2011, 90(8):681-687.
• [47]Stratford PW, Kennedy DM: Performance measures were necessary to obtain a complete picture of osteoarthritic patients. J Clin Epidemiol 2006, 59(2):160-167.
• [48]Gandhi R, Tsvetkov D, Davey JR, Syed KA, Mahomed NN: Relationship between self-reported and performance-based tests in a hip and knee joint replacement population. Clin Rheumatol 2009, 28(3):253-257.
• [49]Boardman DL, Dorey F, Thomas BJ, Lieberman JR: The accuracy of assessing total hip arthroplasty outcomes: a prospective correlation study of walking ability and 2 validated measurement devices. J Arthroplasty 2000, 15(2):200-204.
• [50]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.
• [51]Stevens-Lapsley JE, Schenkman ML, Dayton MR: Comparison of self-reported knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score to performance measures in patients after total knee arthroplasty. PM R 2011, 3(6):541-549. quiz 549
• [52]Stratford PW, Kennedy DM, Riddle DL: New study design evaluated the validity of measures to assess change after hip or knee arthroplasty. J Clin Epidemiol 2009, 62(3):347-352.
• [53]Mizner RL, Petterson SC, Clements KE, Zeni JA Jr, Irrgang JJ, Snyder-Mackler L: Measuring functional improvement after total knee arthroplasty requires both performance-based and patient-report assessments: a longitudinal analysis of outcomes. J Arthroplasty 2011, 26(5):728-737.
• [54]Terwee CB, van der Slikke RM, van Lummel RC, Benink RJ, Meijers WG, de Vet HC: Self-reported physical functioning was more influenced by pain than performance-based physical functioning in knee-osteoarthritis patients. J Clin Epidemiol 2006, 59(7):724-731.
• [55]Zou G: A modified poisson regression approach to prospective studies with binary data. Am J Epidemiol 2004, 159(7):702-706.
• [56]McCullagh P, Nelder J: Generalized Linear Models. Second Edition edition. Chapman and Hall/CRC, Boca Raton; 1989. ISBN 0-412-31760-5
• [57]Judge A, Cooper C, Williams S, Dreinhoefer K, Dieppe P: Patient-reported outcomes one year after primary hip replacement in a European Collaborative Cohort. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2010, 62(4):480-488.
• [58]Husted JA, Cook RJ, Farewell VT, Gladman DD: Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol 2000, 53(5):459-468.
• [59]McCulloch G, Searle S, Neuhaus J: Generalized, Linear, and Mixed Models. 2nd edition. Wiley, Hoboken, New Jersey; 2008.
• [60]Zijlstra W, Hof AL: Assessment of spatio-temporal gait parameters from trunk accelerations during human walking. Gait Posture 2003, 18(2):1-10.
• [61]Gonzalez RC, Lopez AM, Rodriguez-Uria J, Alvarez D, Alvarez JC: Real-time gait event detection for normal subjects from lower trunk accelerations. Gait Posture 2010, 31(3):322-325.