KNEE OUTCOME SCORES – DO WE GET PEOPLE BACK TO NORMAL?

T Yarashi; J Rutherford; A Kapoor; S Anand; DS Johnson

doi:10.1302/0301-620X.91BSUPP_III.0910427d

Article alerts Social media

Current issue

KNEE OUTCOME SCORES – DO WE GET PEOPLE BACK TO NORMAL?

T Yarashi
J Rutherford
A Kapoor
S Anand
DS Johnson

KNEE OUTCOME SCORES – DO WE GET PEOPLE BACK TO NORMAL?

Yarashi T, Rutherford J, Kapoor A, Anand S, Johnson D. KNEE OUTCOME SCORES – DO WE GET PEOPLE BACK TO NORMAL?. Orthop Procs. 2009;91-B(SUPP_III):427-427. doi:10.1302/0301-620X.91BSUPP_III.0910427d

Yarashi, T, et al. “KNEE OUTCOME SCORES – DO WE GET PEOPLE BACK TO NORMAL?.” Orthopaedic Proceedings, vol. 91-B, no. SUPP_III, 2009, pp. 427-427., https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.91BSUPP_III.0910427d

Yarashi, T., Rutherford, J., Kapoor, A., Anand, S., & Johnson, D. (2009). KNEE OUTCOME SCORES – DO WE GET PEOPLE BACK TO NORMAL?. Orthopaedic Proceedings, 91-B(SUPP_III), 427-427. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.91BSUPP_III.0910427d

Yarashi, T., Rutherford, J., Kapoor, A., Anand, S. and Johnson, D. (2009) “KNEE OUTCOME SCORES – DO WE GET PEOPLE BACK TO NORMAL?.” Orthopaedic Proceedings, 91-B(SUPP_III), pp. 427-427. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.91BSUPP_III.0910427d

Yarashi, T, J Rutherford, A Kapoor, S Anand, and DS Johnson. “KNEE OUTCOME SCORES – DO WE GET PEOPLE BACK TO NORMAL?.” Orthopaedic Proceedings 91-B, no. SUPP_III (2009): 427-427. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.91BSUPP_III.0910427d

Yarashi T, Rutherford J, Kapoor A, Anand S, Johnson D. KNEE OUTCOME SCORES – DO WE GET PEOPLE BACK TO NORMAL?. Orthop Procs. 2009 Sep 1;91-B(SUPP_III):427-427. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.91BSUPP_III.0910427d

Copy to clipboard

BibTeX

EndNote

RIS

Abstract

AIM: To create a set of reference data of commonly used scoring systems in the normal population, and to compare these results with published postoperative scores for commonly performed knee operations.

METHODS: This was a questionnaire-based study and a total of 657 questionnaires were sent out, of which 407 replies were received. A further 159 were excluded due to ongoing knee problems or previous knee surgery. Six scoring systems were addressed: Lysholm and Oxford Knee Scores, Tegner and UCLA activity scales and Visual Analogue Scales (VAS) for both pain and function. Data was collected into groups based on age (20–29, 30–39, 40–49, 50–59, 60–69, 70–79, 80–89 years). The reference data obtained was then compared to published postoperative scores for knee arthroplasty and ACL reconstruction, to assess whether these patients did indeed return to “normal”.

RESULTS: The mean scores for sequential age groups (described above) were as follows: Oxford Knee Score – 13, 14, 14, 14, 17, 15, 19; Lysholm Knee Score – 95, 92, 92, 90, 88, 90, 79; Tegener Activity Scale – 5, 5, 5, 4, 4, 3, 3; UCLA Activity Scale – 9, 7, 7, 7, 6, 6, 5; VAS pain – 2, 9, 9, 9, 14, 12, 20; VAS function 97, 94, 92, 90, 86, 86, 83. Symptom based scoring systems (Oxford Knee Score, Lysholm) were independent of age. Activity scores (Tegner, UCLA) showed a statistically significant decrease with age. There was no significant difference detected between scores in different sexes in the same age group. Compared to published scores in an age-matched population following TKR, the data obtained showed that patients do not return to normal scores following arthroplasty. Following ACL reconstructive surgery, activity scores were higher than compared to the data obtained from our population.

CONCLUSIONS: Data generated from this study can be used as reference data and can play an important role in interpreting post-intervention scores following knee surgery.

Correspondence should be addressed to Mr T Wilton, c/o BOA, BASK at the Royal College of Surgeons, 35–43 Lincoln’s Inn Fields, London WC2A 3PE, England.