Meeting patient expectations and ensuring satisfaction in total knee arthroplasty

Introduction

Osteoarthritis (OA) of the hips and knees is estimated to be the fourth leading cause of functional disability globally. OA is strongly associated with ageing and the Asian region is indeed aging rapidly. The morbidity burden of OA in Asia is significantly increasing (1). In Asia, there is a greater demand for a pain-free knee joint of good range of motion due to cultural, religious or simply lifestyle reasons. Asians are more likely to squat and kneel for prolonged periods of time. Prolonged squatting has been suggested to account for a significant variation in prevalence of knee OA between Chinese subjects from Beijing, China and White subjects participating in the Framingham OA study (2). Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has been thought to be the definitive solution for chronic mechanical knee pain secondary to OA. the definitive solution for chronic mechanical knee pain secondary to OA. The number of TKAs performed has been increasing steadily over the years according to the national registry in Seoul, Korea (3), as with the rest of the Asia-Pacific region. However, patients’ expectations of TKA outcomes seem to differ from the measured outcomes of the surgery (4). Most expected patient-reported outcomes were improvement in pain, restoration of function and resolution of need for assistive devices. There is a significant difference between actual and expected activities after TKA for OA. While TKA relieves pain and restores function beyond doubt, several studies have showed that only 82-89% of patients expressed satisfaction after their primary total knee replacement (5-12). Patient satisfaction is fast becoming an important tool for assessing outcome of TKA (13). However, patient satisfaction is a complex phenomenon that is affected by many elements that determine health-related quality of life (14). This is influenced by the patient’s cultural, social and psychological make as well. It is well known that many cultural practices in Asia requires the patient to kneel and/or squat and the ability to achieve this post-TKA will undoubtedly have some impact of patient satisfaction scores. Good clinical and functional outcome as determined by clinicians does not always equate to patient satisfaction as the difference between patients’ and clinicians’ perception of good outcomes is well known (15). This has led to the development and validation of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) or otherwise known as patient satisfaction scores in orthopaedic surgery. While there are numerous tools to measure patient satisfaction after these procedures, it is the long-term satisfaction that is the most important goal of surgery in patients with OA (11). This editorial will evaluate patient satisfaction following TKA as well as the factors that have a profound influence on satisfaction.

What is patient satisfaction?

The concept of patient satisfaction has been around for at least three decades. In 1983, Ware et al. (16) wrote on the theory of patient satisfaction. In their paper, they explained the difference between objective and subjective outcomes. They further described patient satisfaction as being composed of satisfaction determinants and satisfaction components. Satisfaction determinants are patient-dependent variables that affect the degree of satisfaction the patient experiences. Satisfaction components refer to a measure of care that is actually received. In a more recent review by Chow et al. (17), it is explained that patient satisfaction provides the ultimate end point of the patient’s perspective. Satisfaction can also be thought of as giving an end point to the assessment of the quality of health care. Patient satisfaction is affected jointly by current health state as well as quality of life and gives us an important balance against the normally dominant perspective of the health care provider. Thus, measurement of satisfaction is an essential part of quality assessment after TKA.

How is patient satisfaction measured?

Surveys and questionnaires are tools that measure patient satisfaction. Of the numerous surveys and questionnaires that are available, only a few are specific to TKA. Tools that measure patient satisfaction must be tested and validated through psychometric analysis (18). This implies application of scientific methodology to the measurement of patient satisfaction. Validation generally consists of three components—validity, reliability and responsiveness. In the past, patient satisfaction questionnaires and surveys have been off the mark when validated using psychometric analysis. Sitzia and Wood (19) evaluated patient satisfaction studies and found that only 6% of the 181 studies reviewed utilized principles of psychometric analysis to validate the tools utilized to measure patient satisfaction. Of these studies, none were specific to arthroplasty. To date, we are only aware of two patient satisfaction scales specific to arthroplasty that have been demonstrated to have validity and reliability. One is the patient satisfaction scale developed by Mahomed et al. (20) and the other by Dunbar et al. (18). Most institutions today measure patient satisfaction via the use of WOMAC, SF-36, SF-12, the Oxford Knee Score and the Knee Society Score (21-25).

Patient satisfaction in total knee arthroplasty (TKA)

Most studies to date have reported that satisfaction following TKA is high. However, there is always that population of patients that are dissatisfied after surgery. Mahomed et al. (20) evaluated 857 patients 1 year following TKA and reported an overall satisfaction score of 88%. A study on 25,275 patients from the Swedish Joint Arthroplasty Registry showed a satisfaction score of 81% (18). As mentioned previously, both these studies utilized a validated scale. These results are comparable to those studies that have utilized non-validated questionnaires. Bourne et al. (13) reported an overall satisfaction rate of 81% in his study that evaluated 1,375 patients 1 year following TKA. Similarly Scott et al. (26) reported a satisfaction rate of 81.4% in his study of 1,290 TKAs. While we have these figures to quote from studies performed on a predominantly Western population, there are no large-scale studies that have evaluated satisfaction rates on Asian patients undergoing TKA. With a different set of expectations, one might expect a slightly different satisfaction rate.

Determinants of satisfaction in total knee arthroplasty (TKA)

Age

Age of the patient undergoing TKA has always been implicated in patient satisfaction. Bourne et al. (13) suggested that increasing age was associated with a greater degree of dissatisfaction. This was also reported by Noble et al. (10), who concluded that patient satisfaction correlated significantly with age less than 60. However, Merle-Vincent et al. (14) found that an age of more than 70 correlated positively with patient satisfaction. To make the literature even more dubious, Scott et al. (26) and Gandhi et al. (27) found that there was no meaningful relationship between patient age and satisfaction. To date, the effect of age on patient satisfaction is still not clearly understood. Suffice to say, a fitter older person may tend to be more satisfied than a younger person with lesser reserves.

Gender

In a study by Kennedy et al. (28), it is reported that women showed greater disability than men in the physical performance and self-report measures. However, they utilized a non-validated measurement tool, the Lower Extremity Activity Profile. By and large, there are no other studies that have proven that the gender of the patient has an influence on patient satisfaction. In fact, it has been shown that gender does not seem to have an impact on patient satisfaction (10,27).

Expectations

Patients’ expectations are fast emerging as an important parameter of assessment when studying patient satisfaction. The fulfillment of patients’ expectations has been found to be highly correlated with patient satisfaction, as reported by Scott et al. (29). In his study, 323 post-TKA patients completed an expectation questionnaire, Oxford score and SF-12 score pre-operatively. At 1 year post-operatively, the Oxford score, SF-12, patient satisfaction and expectation fulfillment were assessed. High fulfillment of expectation was significantly predicted by young age, greater improvements in Oxford score and high pre-operative mental health scores. Bourne et al. (13) reported that the most important contributing factor to dissatisfaction following TKA was not meeting patients’ expectations. From these studies, it is apparent that patients’ expectations of the outcomes of TKA have a significant bearing on patient satisfaction. The importance of managing patients’ ideas, concerns and expectations pre-operatively at the clinic setting by the surgeon cannot be over-emphasized. The arthroplasty surgeon must be well versed with the cultural and social aspects of the patient care so that the expectations of the patients are better dealt with. Vissers et al. (30) conducted a systematic review of 35 studies which examined the impact of psychopathology and found that lower preoperative mental health was associated with lower self-reported patient outcomes.

Comorbidities

Comorbidities can be dichotomized further into psychological and medical comorbidities. The mental health of the patient undergoing TKA has been found to have an impact on patient satisfaction. In a recent study by Clement et al. (31), it is reported that poor mental health was associated with a diminished improvement in the Oxford knee score and increased the rate of dissatisfaction following TKA. This is also echoed by Ellis et al. (32) who conducted a study within an indigent population. He reported that psychopathology may result in lower satisfaction scores at 1 year following TKA. While it is very clear that mental comorbidities have a deleterious effect on patient satisfaction, the same cannot be said for the impact of medical comorbidities. Gandhi et al. (33) reported that there was medical comorbidities had no significant impact on patient satisfaction. Only Scott et al. (26) found that there as a minimal but statistically significant increase in dissatisfaction in patients with a higher mean number of medical comorbidities.

Primary diagnosis

Interestingly, Robertsson et al. (11) found that patients with a primary diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis had a higher satisfaction rate as compared to patients with OA. He postulated this may be due to the fact that patients with rheumatoid arthritis may experience a greater amount of pain relief as compared to those with OA. This was also found by Bullens et al. (4) who cited the lower preoperative expectations of rheumatoid patients as the main reason for the higher satisfaction rate.

Range of motion

As mentioned previously, one would expect the Asian patient to be concerned with the amount of post operative range of motion and thereby affecting patient satisfaction. A study by Miner et al. (34) on Western patients found that post operative range of motion after 1 year was not associated with patient satisfaction. However, Seng et al. (35) reported improved patient satisfaction scores 5 years following high-flexion TKA on Asian patients. Indeed, this may be unique to the Asian TKA given the higher demands for flexion.

Symptoms

Unresolved pain following TKA has been consistently found to be a significant factor leading to patient dissatisfaction. Scott et al. (26) cited unresolved pain as the most important predictor of patient dissatisfaction following TKA. Similarly, Franklin et al. (36) also concluded that unresolved pain up to 1 year following TKA was associated with a higher dissatisfaction rate.

Components of satisfaction in total knee arthroplasty (TKA)

Type of anaesthesia

There is a lack of evidence with respect to anaesthetic techniques and their impact on patient satisfaction, mainly because most of these studies did not assess satisfaction scores. However, Thorsell et al. (37) did report that there were higher rates of satisfaction when comparing local infiltration with continuous epidural anaesthesia.

Minimally-invasive surgery (MIS)

A meta-analysis by Smith et al. (38) suggests that whilst incision length was significantly smaller in MIS and range of motion was significantly greater following MIS, there were no statistically significant differences in all other clinical or radiological outcomes between MIS or conventional TKA. In another study, Hernandez-Vaquero et al. (39) found no statistically significant differences between MIS and conventional TKA with regards to the radiological alignment of the implant, range of motion, KSS scores, the SF-12 scores, patient’s pain perception, satisfaction or subjective improvement. However, in an Asian study, Seon et al. (40) reported better WOMAC scores in patients who received a MIS TKA up to 9 months following surgery. In his study, he compared the clinical and radiological results achieved using MIS and conventional techniques in 42 bilateral TKA patients. This again adds strength to the argument that the Asian TKA may have to be approached differently.

Use of navigation

To date, the use of navigation does not seem to affect clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction. Burnett et al. (41) concluded that longer-term studies demonstrating improved function, lower revision rates, and acceptable costs are required before navigated TKA may be widely adopted as current literature is largely inconclusive. Even in the Asian literature, Venkatesan et al. (42) concluded that computer-assisted navigated knee arthroplasty provides some advantages over conventional surgery, but its clinical benefits to date are unclear and remain to be defined on a larger scale. In light of the current literature, we would think that the use of navigation does not affect patient satisfaction scores.

The way forward

Patient satisfaction without a doubt is an important outcome measure of TKA that has to be taken into consideration by all arthroplasty surgeons. TKA in the Asian population involves a few unique challenges especially with higher demands of post-operative flexion. Improving patient satisfaction following TKA is certainly a challenge, given the already high satisfaction rates. However, there is still that small population that remains dissatisfied. We need to channel our efforts to improve the satisfaction rates in these patients. The factors that we have discussed above all play very important roles in determining patient satisfaction. However, it is of utmost importance that the surgeon fully understands the patient’s ideas, concerns and expectations pre-operatively. Proper per-operative education is essential in achieving good results post-TKA.

Summary

Patient satisfaction should be approached from two prongs—determinants of satisfaction and components of satisfaction. Patient satisfaction can be improved by modifying the elements from these two categories. Patient satisfaction is one of the PROMs used widely in orthopaedic surgery and is fast becoming an important tool to measure surgical outcomes. It is an essential modality of the patient-centred care that we all aim to provide.

Acknowledgements

None.

Footnote

Provenance: This is a Guest Editorial commissioned by the Associate Editor-in-Chief Dongquan Shi, MD, PhD (Department of Sports Medicine and Adult Reconstruction, Drum Tower Hospital, Medical School, Nanjing University, Nanjing, China).

Conflicts of Interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

References

1. Fransen M, Bridgett L, March L, et al. The epidemiology of osteoarthritis in Asia. Int J Rheum Dis 2011;14:113-21. [PubMed]
2. Felson DT. The epidemiology of knee osteoarthritis: results from the Framingham Osteoarthritis Study. Semin Arthritis Rheum 1990;20:42-50. [PubMed]
3. Kim HA, Kim S, Seo YI, et al. The epidemiology of total knee replacement in South Korea: national registry data. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2008;47:88-91. [PubMed]
4. Bullens PH, van Loon CJ, de Waal Malefijt MC, et al. Patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty: a comparison between subjective and objective outcome assessments. J Arthroplasty 2001;16:740-7. [PubMed]
5. Anderson JG, Wixson RL, Tsai D, et al. Functional outcome and patient satisfaction in total knee patients over the age of 75. J Arthroplasty 1996;11:831-40. [PubMed]
6. Chesworth BM, Mahomed NN, Bourne RB, et al. Willingness to go through surgery again validated the WOMAC clinically important difference from THR/TKR surgery. J Clin Epidemiol 2008;61:907-18. [PubMed]
7. Dunbar MJ, Robertsson O, Ryd L, et al. Appropriate questionnaires for knee arthroplasty. Results of a survey of 3600 patients from The Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Registry. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2001;83:339-44. [PubMed]
8. Hawker G, Wright J, Coyte P, et al. Health-related quality of life after knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1998;80:163-73. [PubMed]
9. Heck DA, Robinson RL, Partridge CM, et al. Patient outcomes after knee replacement. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1998.93-110. [PubMed]
10. Noble PC, Conditt MA, Cook KF, et al. The John Insall Award: Patient expectations affect satisfaction with total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006.35-43. [PubMed]
11. Robertsson O, Dunbar M, Pehrsson T, et al. Patient satisfaction after knee arthroplasty: a report on 27,372 knees operated on between 1981 and 1995 in Sweden. Acta Orthop Scand 2000;71:262-7. [PubMed]
12. Wylde V, Learmonth I, Potter A, et al. Patient-reported outcomes after fixed- versus mobile-bearing total knee replacement: a multi-centre randomised controlled trial using the Kinemax total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2008;90:1172-9. [PubMed]
13. Bourne RB, Chesworth BM, Davis AM, et al. Patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty: who is satisfied and who is not? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010;468:57-63. [PubMed]
14. Merle-Vincent F, Couris CM, Schott AM, et al. Factors predicting patient satisfaction 2 years after total knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis. Joint Bone Spine 2011;78:383-6. [PubMed]
15. Janse AJ, Gemke RJ, Uiterwaal CS, et al. Quality of life: patients and doctors don't always agree: a meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 2004;57:653-61. [PubMed]
16. Ware JE Jr, Snyder MK, Wright WR, et al. Defining and measuring patient satisfaction with medical care. Eval Program Plann 1983;6:247-63. [PubMed]
17. Chow A, Mayer EK, Darzi AW, et al. Patient-reported outcome measures: the importance of patient satisfaction in surgery. Surgery 2009;146:435-43. [PubMed]
18. Dunbar MJ. Subjective outcomes after knee arthroplasty. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl 2001;72:1-63. [PubMed]
19. Sitzia J, Wood N. Patient satisfaction: a review of issues and concepts. Soc Sci Med 1997;45:1829-43. [PubMed]
20. Mahomed N, Gandhi R, Daltroy L, et al. The self-administered patient satisfaction scale for primary hip and knee arthroplasty. Arthritis 2011;2011:591253.
21. Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Murray D, et al. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1998;80:63-9. [PubMed]
22. Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, et al. Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol 1988;15:1833-40. [PubMed]
23. McHorney CA, Ware JE Jr, Raczek AE. The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Med Care 1993;31:247-63. [PubMed]
24. Ware J Jr, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care 1996;34:220-33. [PubMed]
25. Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, et al. Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1989.13-4. [PubMed]
26. Scott CE, Howie CR, MacDonald D, et al. Predicting dissatisfaction following total knee replacement: a prospective study of 1217 patients. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2010;92:1253-8. [PubMed]
27. Gandhi R, Davey JR, Mahomed NN. Predicting patient dissatisfaction following joint replacement surgery. J Rheumatol 2008;35:2415-8. [PubMed]
28. Kennedy D, Stratford PW, Pagura SM, et al. Comparison of gender and group differences in self-report and physical performance measures in total hip and knee arthroplasty candidates. J Arthroplasty 2002;17:70-7. [PubMed]
29. Scott CE, Burgler KE, Clement ND, et al. Patient expectations of arthroplasty of the hip and knee. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2012;94:974-81. [PubMed]
30. Vissers MM, Bussmann JB, Verhaar JA, et al. Psychological factors affecting the outcome of total hip and knee arthroplasty: a systematic review. Semin Arthritis Rheum 2012;41:576-88. [PubMed]
31. Clement ND, Jenkins PJ, MacDonald D, et al. Socioeconomic status affects the Oxford knee score and short-form 12 score following total knee replacement. Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:52-8. [PubMed]
32. Ellis HB, Howard KJ, Khaleel MA, et al. Effect of psychopathology on patient-perceived outcomes of total knee arthroplasty within an indigent population. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2012;94:e84. [PubMed]
33. Gandhi R, Davey JR, Mahomed N. Patient expectations predict greater pain relief with joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2009;24:716-21. [PubMed]
34. Miner AL, Lingard EA, Wright EA, et al. Knee range of motion after total knee arthroplasty: how important is this as an outcome measure? J Arthroplasty 2003;18:286-94. [PubMed]
35. Seng C, Yeo SJ, Wee JL, et al. Improved clinical outcomes after high-flexion total knee arthroplasty: a 5-year follow-up study. J Arthroplasty 2011;26:1025-30. [PubMed]
36. Franklin PD, Karbassi JA, Li W, et al. Reduction in narcotic use after primary total knee arthroplasty and association with patient pain relief and satisfaction. J Arthroplasty 2010;25:12-6. [PubMed]
37. Thorsell M, Holst P, Hyldahl HC, et al. Pain control after total knee arthroplasty: a prospective study comparing local infiltration anesthesia and epidural anesthesia. Orthopedics 2010;33:75-80. [PubMed]
38. Smith TO, King JJ, Hing CB. A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials comparing the clinical and radiological outcomes following minimally invasive to conventional exposure for total knee arthroplasty. Knee 2012;19:1-7. [PubMed]
39. Hernandez-Vaquero D, Noriega-Fernandez A, Suarez-Vazquez A. Total knee arthroplasties performed with a mini-incision or a standard incision. Similar results at six months follow-up. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2010;11:27. [PubMed]
40. Seon JK, Song EK, Yoon TR, et al. Comparison of functional results with navigation-assisted minimally invasive and conventional techniques in bilateral total knee arthroplasty. Comput Aided Surg 2007;12:189-93. [PubMed]
41. Burnett RS, Barrack RL. Computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty is currently of no proven clinical benefit: a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2013;471:264-76. [PubMed]
42. Venkatesan M, Mahadevan D, Ashford RU. Computer-assisted navigation in knee arthroplasty: a critical appraisal. J Knee Surg 2013;26:357-61. [PubMed]