3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Factors Correlated With Physical Function 1 Year After Total Knee Arthroplasty in Patients With Knee Osteoarthritis : A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

      research-article
      , RN, MSC 1 , 2 , , , RN, PhD 1 , 2 , , CStat, PhD 3 , , PT, PhD 3 , , Psych, PhD 4 , 5 , , MD, PhD 2 , , MD, PhD 6 , 7 , , PI, PhD 2 , , MD, PhD 8 , 9 , , RN, PhD 4 , , RN, PhD 5 , 10
      JAMA Network Open
      American Medical Association

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          This systematic review and meta-analysis investigates the correlation of preoperative and intraoperative factors with physical function 1 year after total knee arthroplasty in patients with knee osteoarthritis.

          Key Points

          Question

          What preoperative and intraoperative factors are correlated with physical function after total knee arthroplasty (TKA)?

          Findings

          In this systematic review and meta-analysis of 20 studies that included 11 317 patients with osteoarthritis, higher preoperative body mass index (BMI) was correlated with worse physical function, while better preoperative physical function and more severe osteoarthritis were correlated with better physical function 1 year after TKA.

          Meaning

          These findings suggest that presurgical BMI, physical function, and osteoarthritis severity may be important factors to include and test in models predicting TKA outcomes.

          Abstract

          Importance

          More than 1 in 5 patients do not experience improved physical function after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Identification of factors associated with physical function may be warranted to improve outcomes in these patients.

          Objective

          To identify preoperative and intraoperative factors associated with physical function at 12 months after TKA in a systematic review and meta-analysis.

          Data Sources

          Data from January 2000 to October 2021 were searched in Medline, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Library, and Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro). No language restrictions were applied.

          Study Selection

          Prospective observational studies or randomized clinical trials on factors associated with physical function after TKA in adult patients with osteoarthritis were selected. A prespecified peer-reviewed protocol was followed.

          Data Extraction and Synthesis

          Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guideline, 2 reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts and judged risk of bias using Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS). Multivariate random-effects meta-analyses were performed to estimate mean correlations between factors and physical function with 95% CIs. Sensitivity analyses were conducted for each QUIPS domain. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE). This study was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO).

          Main Outcomes and Measures

          The primary outcome was physical function 12 months after TKA. Secondary outcomes were physical function 3 and 6 months after TKA. All estimates are mean correlations between factors and postoperative function. Positive correlations correspond to better function.

          Results

          Among 12 052 articles, 20 studies (including 11 317 patients and 37 factors) were analyzed. Mean correlation with higher BMI was estimated to be −0.15 (95% CI, −0.24 to −0.05; P = .33; moderate-certainty evidence), while mean correlation with better physical function was estimated to be 0.14 (95% CI, 0.02 to 0.26; P = .03; low-certainty evidence) and mean correlation with more severe osteoarthritis was estimated to be 0.10 (95% CI, 0.01 to 0.19; P = .17; high-certainty evidence). In sensitivity analyses, mean correlation with better physical function was estimated to be 0.20 (95% CI, 0.04 to 0.36; P = .02), and so perhaps a larger coefficient than in the main analysis, while mean correlations were estimated to be similar for other factors (BMI: –0.17; 95% CI, –0.28 to –0.06; P < .001; osteoarthritis severity: 0.10; 95% CI, −0.01 to 0.20; P = .05).

          Conclusions and Relevance

          This study found that higher presurgical BMI was correlated with worse physical function (with moderate certainty) and that better physical function (low certainty) and osteoarthritis severity (high certainty) were correlated with better physical function after TKA. These findings suggest that these factors should be included when testing predictive models of TKA outcomes.

          Related collections

          Most cited references54

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Book: not found

          Introduction to Meta-Analysis

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Assessing bias in studies of prognostic factors.

            Previous work has identified 6 important areas to consider when evaluating validity and bias in studies of prognostic factors: participation, attrition, prognostic factor measurement, confounding measurement and account, outcome measurement, and analysis and reporting. This article describes the Quality In Prognosis Studies tool, which includes questions related to these areas that can inform judgments of risk of bias in prognostic research.A working group comprising epidemiologists, statisticians, and clinicians developed the tool as they considered prognosis studies of low back pain. Forty-three groups reviewing studies addressing prognosis in other topic areas used the tool and provided feedback. Most reviewers (74%) reported that reaching consensus on judgments was easy. Median completion time per study was 20 minutes; interrater agreement (κ statistic) reported by 9 review teams varied from 0.56 to 0.82 (median, 0.75). Some reviewers reported challenges making judgments across prompting items, which were addressed by providing comprehensive guidance and examples. The refined Quality In Prognosis Studies tool may be useful to assess the risk of bias in studies of prognostic factors.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Projected Volume of Primary Total Joint Arthroplasty in the U.S., 2014 to 2030

              The volume of primary total joint arthroplasty (TJA) procedures has risen in recent decades. However, recent procedure growth has not been at previously projected exponential rates. To anticipate the future expense of TJA, updated models are necessary to predict TJA volume in the U.S.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Network Open
                American Medical Association
                2574-3805
                11 July 2022
                July 2022
                11 July 2022
                : 5
                : 7
                : e2219636
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Nursing Science, Institute of Health and Society, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
                [2 ]Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Lovisenberg Diaconal Hospital, Oslo, Norway
                [3 ]Division for Health Services, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway
                [4 ]Department of Family Health Care Nursing, University of California, San Francisco
                [5 ]Department of Patient Safety and Research, Lovisenberg Diaconal Hospital, Oslo, Norway
                [6 ]Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
                [7 ]Institute of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
                [8 ]Norwegian Arthroplasty Register, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Haukeland University Hospital, Bergen, Norway
                [9 ]Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
                [10 ]Department of Interdisciplinary Health Sciences, Institute of Health and Society, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Accepted for Publication: May 11, 2022.
                Published: July 11, 2022. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.19636
                Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2022 Olsen U et al. JAMA Network Open.
                Corresponding Author: Unni Olsen, RN, MSC, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Lovisenberg Diaconal Hospital, PB 4970 Nydalen, 0440 Oslo, Norway. (u.s.j.olsen@studmed.uio).
                Author Contributions: Mrs Olsen and Dr Lindberg had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
                Concept and design: Olsen, Lindberg, Denison, Aamodt, Brox, Skare, Lerdal.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Olsen, Lindberg, Rose, Gay, Skare, Furnes, Lee, Lerdal.
                Drafting of the manuscript: Olsen, Rose, Denison, Lee, Lerdal.
                Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Olsen, Lindberg, Rose, Denison, Gay, Aamodt, Brox, Skare, Furnes, Lee, Lerdal.
                Statistical analysis: Rose, Lee.
                Obtained funding: Lindberg, Lerdal.
                Administrative, technical, or material support: Lerdal.
                Supervision: Lindberg, Denison, Aamodt, Brox, Skare, Furnes, Lerdal.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Lindberg reported receiving a grant from South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported.
                Funding/Support: This work was supported by grants 287816 from the Norwegian Research Council of Norway and 2018060 from the South-Eastern Regional Health Authority.
                Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funders had no role in the design, conduct of the study, collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data, preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript nor the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
                Additional Contributions: The authors thank the members from the user board, Richard Madsen, MA, and Jan Otto Veiseth, BS (Lovisenberg Diaconal Hospital), for their contributions. They were compensated for the time used for meetings. We would also like to thank the medical librarians, Gunn Kleven, BS, and Hilde Flaaten, BS (University of Oslo), for their work in the development of the search strategy and the systematic search for articles. The medical librarians were not compensated for their work.
                Article
                zoi220563
                10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.19636
                9274324
                35816307
                9f1e398e-a1e0-4665-b2dc-aeecf257e824
                Copyright 2022 Olsen U et al. JAMA Network Open.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License.

                History
                : 27 September 2021
                : 11 May 2022
                Categories
                Research
                Original Investigation
                Online Only
                Orthopedics

                Comments

                Comment on this article