header advert
You currently have no access to view or download this content. Please log in with your institutional or personal account if you should have access to through either of these
The Bone & Joint Journal Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from The Bone & Joint Journal

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Get Access locked padlock

Arthroplasty

An analysis of Oxford hip and knee scores following primary hip and knee replacement performed at a specialist centre



Download PDF

Abstract

The Oxford hip and knee scores (OHS and OKS) are validated patient-reported outcome measures used in patients undergoing total hip replacement (THR), hip resurfacing (HR), total knee replacement (TKR) and unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR). We analysed the absolute OHS and OKS and change in scores following THR, HR, TKR, and UKR performed at one specialist centre. All patients undergoing and completing at least one Oxford score were eligible for inclusion in the study which included 27 950 OHS and 19 750 OKS in 13 682 patients. Data were analysed using non-linear quantile regression. The median absolute Oxford scores for THR, HR, TKR and UKR were pre-operative 68.8% (15.0/48), 58.3% (20.0/48), 66.7% (16.0/48), 60.4% (19.0/48) respectively: and post-operative asymptote was 14.6% (41.0/48), 5.8% (45.2/48), 31.2% (33.0/48), 29.2% (34.0/48). The median asymptotic change from the pre-operative score for THR, HR, TKR and UKR were 47.9% (23.0/48), 47.9% (23.0/48), 33.3% (16.0/48) and 32.4% (15.5/48), respectively. The median time at which no further appreciable change in score was achieved post-operatively was 0.7 years for THR, 1.1 years for HR, 0.9 years for TKR and 1.1 years for UKR.

The curves produced from this analysis could be used to educate patients, and to audit the performance of a surgeon and an institution. The time to achieve a stable improvement in outcome varied between different types of joint replacement, which may have implications for the timing of post-operative review.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014; 96-B:928–35.


Correspondence should be sent to Mr G. S. Matharu; e-mail:

For access options please click here