Dataset Information

What influences patient satisfaction after total knee replacement? A qualitative long-term follow-up study.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To explore whether a conceptual model of patient satisfaction previously developed 1-2 years post-total knee replacement (TKR) is still relevant 3-4 years post-TKR. Specifically, (i) what is the stability in satisfaction levels 3-4 years post-TKR? and (ii) does the existing conceptual model of patient satisfaction after TKR apply at this later follow-up?

Design

A constructivist grounded theory qualitative follow-up study. The present study was theoretically governed by the findings of the initial qualitative inquiry. One-on-one semi-structured interviews were used to test the assumptions of the model developed from the findings of the previous study.

Setting

An urban Australian public hospital PARTICIPANTS: From 40 people who participated in the original study, 11 participants were purposively sampled based on their level of satisfaction and factors driving satisfaction as reported in their first interview. There were six women and five men, the average time since TKR was 3 years and 5 months, and the average age at time of interview was 77 years.

Results

Satisfaction levels were mostly stable with the exception of three participants; two transitioned in a positive direction; one in a negative direction. The meaning of satisfaction and the factors that influenced satisfaction were consistent with the original findings. However, beliefs relating to the influence of ageing on persistent knee symptoms and functional limitations were more dominant in the present study.

Conclusions

The findings provide support for patient satisfaction being a multifactorial construct that is potentially modifiable over time. Clinicians may apply the conceptual model we have described to optimise satisfaction in patients up to 3-4 years post-TKR.

SUBMITTER: Klem NR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8609943 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Introduction:The aim of this work is to compare in a retrospective study, the radiological results of three series of different total knee replacements performed using Orthopilot computer-based alignment system (Group A, 31 patients), a totally intramedullary alignment system (Group B, 34 patients) and a totally extramedullary alignment system (Group C, 32 patients). Materials and methods:At a medium follow-up of 15 years, all patients underwent call interview for clinical update. Of the 115 patients initially enrolled in the study, only 97 were available for radiological assessment. Both standing long-leg antero-posterior radiographs and lateral radiographs of the knee had been taken for every patient at 1 year-follow-up and at the last follow-up. Results:At the last follow-up, the mean hip-knee-ankle angle (HKA) was 179.1° (range: 176°-184°) for group A, 178.6° (range: 173°-186°) for group B and 177.8° (range: 172°-186°) for group C with no statistically significant difference among the 3 groups. The mean frontal femoral component angle (FFC) was 90.5° (range: 87°-94°) for group A, 91.05° (range: 85°-95°) for group B and 91.19° (range: 85°-96°) for group C and there was no statistically significant difference among the three groups. The mean frontal tibial component angle (FTC) was 89.9° (range: 83°-97°) for group A, 90.6° (range: 87°-95°) for group B and 90.8° (range: 86°-95°) for group C and there was no statistically significant difference among the three groups. The mean tibial component inclination in the sagittal plane was 1° (range: 3°-0°) for group A, 3.6° (range: 7°-0°) for group B and 3.1° (range: 6°-0°) for group C. Discussion and conclusion:Our results demonstrated statistically significant differences between computer-assisted and extramedullary group, in favour of navigated group in terms of implant position and mechanical alignment. Computer-assisted group showed superior but not statistically significant differences compared to intramedullary alignment system in terms of implant position and mechanical alignment. We advocate the use of computer-assisted system routinely in total knee replacement. As an alternative, we suggest the use of intramedullary system.

Project description:BACKGROUND:More personalized implant designs for total knee arthroplasty might optimize the clinical outcome after surgery. One of these personalized implant designs is the Persona knee implant system (Zimmer Biomet, Warsaw, Indiana, USA). The primary objective of this study was to determine patient reported outcomes and implant survivorship of the Persona Knee system used in primary total knee arthroplasty, up to two years after surgery. METHODS:From November 2013 to July 2016 consecutive patients undergoing primary total knee arthroplasty were enrolled in a prospective observational cohort study at three centers. Preoperatively, at 6?weeks, 6?months, 1 and 2?years after surgery, patients completed the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), the Oxford Knee Score (OKS), the Knee Society Score (KSS, 2011, modified version) and the EQ-5D. Adverse Events were captured, assessed for relationship to device, and recorded in the study database. Furthermore, physical functioning was assessed by the orthopedic surgeon. Repeated measures analyses were performed on PROM scores. Kaplan Meier was used to calculate survivorship of the Persona Knee Implant System. RESULTS:A total of 146 total knee arthroplasties were performed. 61% (89/146) of the patients were female and mean age was 64.7 (± 6.9) years. Two years after surgery, one patient had a revision of the polyethylene insert because of a periprosthetic joint infection. Therefore, the Kaplan-Meier survival estimate at 2?years was 0.99 (0.95-1.00 95% CI). OKS increased from 22.1 (95% CI 20.9-23.3) to 41.8 (95% CI 40.6-43.1) two years after surgery. Furthermore, all other PROMs also increased from before surgery to 2?year postoperatively. CONCLUSION:The Persona Knee implant is safe and effective and the clinical results up to two years after surgery are promising. PROMs results are very good; pain, function and quality of life all improved greatly after TKA. Further studies are needed to determine the long term clinical performance of the Persona prosthesis. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT02337244 ). Registered June 1st, 2015. Retrospectively registered.