title: Measuring tools for functional outcomes in total knee arthroplasty.
abstract: Total knee arthroplasty has come under increasing scrutiny attributable to the fact that it is a high-volume, high-cost medical intervention in an era of increasingly scarce medical resources. Health-related quality-of-life outcomes have been developed such that healthcare providers might determine how good an intervention is and whether it is cost-effective. Total knee arthroplasty has been subjected to disease-specific, patient-specific, global health, functional capacity, and cost-to-utility outcome measures. Patient satisfaction is high (90%) after total knee arthroplasty and 93% of patients would have this operative procedure again. Large improvements in preoperative to postoperative WOMAC scores occurred (over 39 of 100 points in 82% of patients). Cost-to-quality outcomes demonstrated total knee arthroplasties are extremely cost-effective. This analysis documents total knee arthroplasty is a highly efficacious procedure that competes favorably with all medical and surgical interventions.
authors.affiliation: London Health Sciences Centre, University of Western Ontario, University Campus, London, ON, Canada. robert.bourne@lhsc.on.ca
authors.forename: Robert B
authors.initials: RB
authors.lastname: Bourne
mesh_terms: D019645:Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D017063:Outcome Assessment, Health Care / Q000379:methods*; D017060:Patient Satisfaction; D011788:Quality of Life; D016059:Range of Motion, Articular / Q000502:physiology*; D012737:Sex Factors; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires; D016138:Walking / Q000502:physiology*
references.citation: Am J Sports Med. 2001 Sep-Oct;29(5):600-13
references.pmid: 11573919
references.citation: Med Care. 1996 Mar;34(3):220-33
references.pmid: 8628042
references.citation: J Clin Epidemiol. 2008 Sep;61(9):907-18
references.pmid: 18687289
references.citation: BMJ. 1996 Jan 13;312(7023):71-2
references.pmid: 8555924
references.citation: J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2001 Apr;83(3):339-44
references.pmid: 11341416
references.citation: Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001 Sep;(390):163-72
references.pmid: 11550862
references.citation: Control Clin Trials. 1989 Dec;10(4):407-15
references.pmid: 2691207
references.citation: J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1998 Jan;80(1):63-9
references.pmid: 9460955
references.citation: J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1998 Aug;28(2):88-96
references.pmid: 9699158
references.citation: J Arthroplasty. 1998 Dec;13(8):890-5
references.pmid: 9880181
references.citation: Med Care. 1992 Jun;30(6):473-83
references.pmid: 1593914
references.citation: Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004 Nov;(428):12-25
references.pmid: 15534514
references.citation: Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007 Nov;464:27-31
references.pmid: 17891041
references.citation: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1989 Apr;71(4):535-43
references.pmid: 2703513
references.citation: N Engl J Med. 1988 Jun 9;318(23):1549-56
references.pmid: 3367968
references.citation: Phys Ther. 1999 Apr;79(4):371-83
references.pmid: 10201543
references.citation: Can Med Assoc J. 1985 Apr 15;132(8):919-23
references.pmid: 3978515
references.citation: J Rheumatol. 1988 Dec;15(12):1833-40
references.pmid: 3068365
references.citation: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1998 Feb;80(2):163-73
references.pmid: 9486722
references.citation: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004 Mar;86(3):633-40
references.pmid: 14996894
references.citation: Qual Life Res. 1993 Jun;2(3):169-80
references.pmid: 8401453
references.citation: J Health Econ. 1986 Mar;5(1):1-30
references.pmid: 10311607
references.citation: J Rheumatol. 1987 Jun;14(3):446-51
references.pmid: 3305931
references.citation: J Chronic Dis. 1985;38(1):27-36
references.pmid: 3972947
references.citation: J Arthroplasty. 1994 Oct;9(5):481-7
references.pmid: 7807104
references.citation: Iowa Orthop J. 1994;14:108-14
references.pmid: 7719764