Total joint arthroplasty is performed to decreased pain, restore function and productivity and improve quality of life. One-year implant survivorship following surgery is nearly 100%; however, self-reported satisfaction is 80% after total knee arthroplasty and 90% after total hip arthroplasty. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are produced by patients reporting on their own health status directly without interpretation from a surgeon or other medical professional; a PRO measure (PROM) is a tool, often a questionnaire, that measures different aspects of patient-related outcomes. Generic PROs are related to a patient’s general health and quality of life, whereas a specific PRO is focused on a particular disease, symptom or anatomical region. While revision surgery is the traditional endpoint of registries, it is blunt and likely insufficient as a measure of success; PROMs address this shortcoming by expanding beyond survival and measuring outcomes that are relevant to patients – relief of pain, restoration of function and improvement in quality of life. PROMs are increasing in use in many national and regional orthopaedic arthroplasty registries. PROMs data can provide important information on value-based care, support quality assurance and improvement initiatives, help refine surgical indications and may improve shared decision-making and surgical timing. There are several practical considerations that need to be considered when implementing PROMs collection, as the undertaking itself may be expensive, a burden to the patient, as well as being time and labour intensive. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2019;4 DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.4.180080
We are entering a new era with governmental bodies taking an increasingly guiding role, gaining control of registries, demanding direct access with release of open public information for quality comparisons between hospitals. This review is written by physicians and scientists who have worked with the Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register (SKAR) periodically since it began. It reviews the history of the register and describes the methods used and lessons learned.Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2014;3:217–22.
Background and purpose In Sweden, surgery for knee osteoarthritis (OA) in patients younger than 55 years of age has doubled during the last 10 years. We evaluated the use of 3 surgical alternatives: high tibial osteotomy (HTO), unicompartmental arthroplasty (UKA), and total knee arthroplasty (TKA). We also examined the outcome, expressed by rate of revision.Methods The numbers of all procedures during 1998–2007 were obtained from the Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register (SKAR) (UKA < 55 years: n = 1,050; UKA ≥ 55 years: n = 7,743; TKA < 55 years: n = 2,832; TKA ≥ 55 years: n = 62,829) and the National Board of Health and Welfare (NHW) (HTO 25–55 years: n = 2,266). The revision rate (presented as life tables) was based on the SKAR material for arthroplasties. For HTOs, a single institutional series of 450 patients aged 30–64 years was used to calculate the revision rate and to compare it to that for UKAs (n = 4,799; age 30–64 years).Results During the 10 years, the use of TKA in patients younger than 55 years increased fivefold. While UKA increased threefold, its use diminished in the last 2 years. Although the use of HTO halved during the period, it is still used more often than UKA. The risk of revision increased in patients younger than 55 years and was lower for TKA (9%) than for UKA (24%). The revision rate was similar for HTO (17%) and for UKA (17%) in patients aged 30–64 years.Interpretation TKA is the preferred method for young OA patients in Sweden today. The use of HTO and UKA has diminished, and as the few operations are spread over many hospitals, there is a risk of gradual loss of experience with respect to patient selection and surgical routine—with a negative effect on outcome. Thus, there is a risk that these treatment alternatives for younger patients will eventually be abandoned.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.