Correlations between Knee Society Function Scores and Functional Force Measures

被引:50
作者
Jacobs, Cale A. [1 ,2 ]
Christensen, Christian P. [3 ]
机构
[1] ERMI Inc, Res & Dev, Atlanta, GA 30024 USA
[2] Univ Kentucky, Div Athlet Training, Lexington, KY USA
[3] Lexington Clin, Dept Orthoped & Sports Med, Lexington, KY USA
关键词
PERFORMANCE-MEASURES; OUTCOME MEASURES; HIP; OSTEOARTHRITIS; PAIN; DETERMINANTS; ARTHROPLASTY; RECOVERY; VALIDITY; PEOPLE;
D O I
10.1007/s11999-009-0811-0
中图分类号
R826.8 [整形外科学]; R782.2 [口腔颌面部整形外科学]; R726.2 [小儿整形外科学]; R62 [整形外科学(修复外科学)];
学科分类号
摘要
Subjective evaluations often are used after knee arthroplasty to quantify function; however, these scores may be influenced by pain and/or function of the nonoperated limb. Multiple influences increase variability of these scores, which in turn may result in a greater change in score required to be considered clinically important. We determined the relationships among the Knee Society pain and function scores, range of motion (ROM), and functional force measures of the surgically treated and nonoperated limbs. Before and 3 months after total or unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, 36 patients answered questions necessary to calculate the Knee Society pain and function scores. A dual-force platform was used to record the lift-up force of each limb during a stepping task. Function scores were correlated to pain scores, lift-up force of the nonoperated limb, and ROM before surgery. After surgery, function scores correlated with pain scores but not with objective functional measures or ROM. As patient-reported function scores and functional force measures of the surgically treated limb seem to provide distinctly different information, both measures may need to be collected after knee arthroplasty to fully understand a patient's functional recovery.
引用
收藏
页码:2414 / 2419
页数:6
相关论文
共 28 条
[1]  
Bellamy N, 1997, J RHEUMATOL, V24, P799
[2]  
Currier D., 1990, Elements of research in physical therapy, V3rd
[3]   Minimal changes in health status questionnaires: distinction between minimally detectable change and minimally important change [J].
de Vet, Henrica C. ;
Terwee, Caroline B. ;
Ostelo, Raymond W. ;
Beckerman, Heleen ;
Knol, Dirk L. ;
Bouter, Lex M. .
HEALTH AND QUALITY OF LIFE OUTCOMES, 2006, 4 (1)
[4]   Osteoarthritis: New insights - Part 2: Treatment approaches [J].
Felson, DT ;
Lawrence, RC ;
Hochberg, MC ;
McAlindon, T ;
Dieppe, PA ;
Minor, MA ;
Blair, SN ;
Berman, BM ;
Fries, JF ;
Weinberger, M ;
Lorig, KR ;
Jacobs, JJ ;
Goldberg, V .
ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2000, 133 (09) :726-737
[5]  
Insall J.N., RATIONALE KNEE SOC C
[6]  
INSALL JN, 1989, CLIN ORTHOP RELAT R, P13
[7]   Determinants of function after total knee arthroplasty [J].
Jones, CA ;
Voaklander, DC ;
Suarez-Almazor, ME .
PHYSICAL THERAPY, 2003, 83 (08) :696-706
[8]  
*KNEE SOC, OUTC TOOLS
[9]   Minimum detectable and minimal clinically important changes for pain in patients with nonspecific neck pain [J].
Kovacs, Francisco M. ;
Abraira, Victor ;
Royuela, Ana ;
Corcoll, Josep ;
Alegre, Luis ;
Tomas, Miquel ;
Antonia Mir, Maria ;
Cano, Alejandra ;
Muriel, Alfonso ;
Zamora, Javier ;
Teresa Gil del Real, Maria ;
Gestoso, Mario ;
Mufraggi, Nicole .
BMC MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS, 2008, 9 (1)
[10]  
Lawrence RC, 1998, ARTHRITIS RHEUM-US, V41, P778, DOI 10.1002/1529-0131(199805)41:5<778::AID-ART4>3.0.CO