Abstract
Abstract
Background
Whilst the literature abounds with patient reported outcomes following total knee replacement (TKR) there is a paucity of literature covering objective functional outcomes. Awareness of objective functional outcomes following TKR is key to the consent process and relating it to pre-operative function enables a tailored approach to consent.
Objectives
Identify trends in a range of functional outcomes prior to and following TKR up to one year post-operatively.
Methods
We prospectively gathered data from 82 patients undergoing TKR, examining over 20 functional measures preoperatively and postoperatively at 6 weeks, 3, 6 and 12 months. Our functional lab incorporated validated assessments and assessments selected by surgeons & physiotherapists seen to be critical to outcomes following TKR, such as: kneeling ability, 6 minute walking distance, time to ascend/descend stairs, quadricep moment strength, single stance difficulty, ability to walk on an uneven surface, “Time to get up and go”, upslope/downslope speed.
Results
Our results demonstrated that if a patient was able to kneel preoperatively they had an 82.5% chance of being able to kneel postoperatively; if they could not kneel preoperatively this dropped to only 50% but overall over two-thirds of patients were able to kneel at 1 year postoperatively. Other selected results include: 49% increase in 6-minute walking distance, 45% reduction in time to ascend then descend stairs, over 50% increase in quadriceps moment strength, over 40% increase in both upslope/downslope speed and over 70% reduction in difficulty walking on an uneven surface.
Conclusions
With these results we can not only discuss specific functional outcomes following TKR but also relate these to preoperative functional level, enabling a more tailored, detailed and robust consent process.
Declaration of Interest
(b) declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research reported:I declare that there is no conflict of interest that could be perceived as prejudicing the impartiality of the research project.
