Patient-reported outcome 1 to 4 years after periprosthetic knee fracture: a nationwide cross-sectional matched study

Authors

  • Stefan Kastalag Risager Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, Odense University Hospital, Odense; Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8157-7001
  • Bjarke Viberg Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, Odense University Hospital, Odense; Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5169-4282
  • Charlotte Skov Abrahamsen Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology, Hospital Lillebaelt, University Hospital of Southern Denmark, Kolding; Department of Regional Health Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
  • Kristine Bollerup Arndt Department of Orthopedic Surgery and Traumatology, Hospital Lillebaelt, University Hospital of Southern Denmark, Kolding, Denmark https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8258-7922
  • Anders Odgaard Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen; Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, Copenhagen University, Copenhagen, Denmark https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4841-518X
  • Martin Lindberg-Larsen Department of Orthopaedic Surgery and Traumatology, Odense University Hospital, Odense; Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4483-677X

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2025.43083

Keywords:

Arthroplasty, Fractures, Knee, Osteoarthrosis

Abstract

Background and purpose: Periprosthetic knee fractures (PPKFs) can be a serious complication after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). We aimed to compare patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores reported between 1 and 4 years after PPKF with a matched uncomplicated TKA control group.
Methods: This nationwide cross-sectional matched cohort study included 372 TKA patients with a PPKF occurring from 2019 to 2022 and a control group of 878 uncomplicated TKA patients matched by age, time since TKA, and sex. The study population was derived from the Danish National Patient Register. The patients received questionnaires regarding knee function, quality of life, pain and satisfaction in 2023. The questionnaires included Oxford Knee Score (OKS), the Forgotten Joint Score (FJS), and the EQ-5D-5L Index.
Results: The response rate was 48%. Mean OKS was 7 (confidence interval [CI] 5–9) points lower after a PPKF with a score of 30 (standard deviation [SD] 11) in the PPKF group vs 37 (SD 11) in the control group. The FJS was 13 (CI 7–19) points lower after a PPKF with a score of 50 (SD 30) in the PPKF group vs 63 (SD 30) in the control group. Mean EQ-5D-5L Index scores were 0.17 (CI 0.12–0.22) lower after a PPKF with a score of 0.68 (SD 0.25) in the PPKF group vs 0.85 (SD 0.25) in the control group. Additional analysis of patients who completed PROMs 1–2 years compared with 3–4 years after PPKF showed better PRO scores after 3–4 years with an OKS of 32 (SD 12) vs 27 (SD 12), FJS 55 (SD 32) vs 43 (SD 32), and EQ-5D-5L Index of 0.74 (SD 0.34) vs 0.60 (SD 0.34).
Conclusion: Following PPKF, patients reported worse knee function, more pain, lower satisfaction, and poorer quality of life than those with uncomplicated TKAs.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Lombardo D J, Siljander M P, Sobh A, Moore D D, Karadsheh M S. Periprosthetic fractures about total knee arthroplasty. Musculoskelet Surg 2020; 104(2): 135-43. doi: 10.1007/s12306-019-00628-9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12306-019-00628-9

Risager S K, Arndt K B, Abrahamsen C, Viberg B, Odgaard A, Lindberg-Larsen M, Reoperations after operatively and non-operatively treated periprosthetic knee fractures: a nationwide study on 1,931 fractures after primary total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2024: S0883-5403(24)01203-8. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2024.11.010. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2024.11.010

Girgis E, McAllen C, Keenan J. Revision knee arthroplasty using a distal femoral replacement prosthesis for periprosthetic fractures in elderly patients. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 2018; 28(1): 95-102. doi: 10.1007/s00590-017-2009-6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-017-2009-6

Tandon T, Tadros B J, Avasthi A, Hill R, Rao M. Management of periprosthetic distal femur fractures using distal femoral arthroplasty and fixation: comparative study of outcomes and costs. J Clin Orthop Trauma 2020; 11(1): 160-4. doi: 10.1016/j.jcot.2019.05.015. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcot.2019.05.015

Verma N, Jain A, Pal C, Thomas S, Agarwal S, Garg P. Management of periprosthetic fracture following total knee arthroplasty: a retrospective study to decide when to fix or when to revise? J Clin Orthop Trauma 2020; 11(Suppl 2): S246-S254. doi: 10.1016/j.jcot.2019.10.005. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcot.2019.10.005

Cuschieri S. The STROBE guidelines. Saudi J Anaesth 2019; 13(Suppl 1): S31-4. doi: 10.4103/sja.SJA_543_18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/sja.SJA_543_18

Risager S K, Arndt K B, Abrahamsen C, Viberg B, Odgaard A, Lindberg-Larsen M. Risk and epidemiology of periprosthetic knee fractures after primary total knee arthroplasty: a nationwide cohort study. J Arthroplasty 2024; 39(10): 2615-20. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2024.05.033. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2024.05.033

WHO. International statistical classification of diseases and related health problems (11th ed.). Available from: https://icd.who.int/en (accessed 2023).

NOMESCO classification of surgical procedures version 1.16. Available from: https://norden.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:968721/FULLTEXT01.pdf (accessed 11/21, 2023).

Mare I A, Kramer B, Hazelhurst S, Nhlapho M D, Zent R, Harris P A, et al. Electronic Data Capture System (REDCap) for health care research and training in a resource-constrained environment: technology adoption case study. JMIR Med Inform 2022; 10(8): e33402. doi: 10.2196/33402. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/33402

Schmidt M, Pedersen L, Sorensen H T. The Danish Civil Registration System as a tool in epidemiology. Eur J Epidemiol 2014; 29(8): 541-9. doi: 10.1007/s10654-014-9930-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-014-9930-3

Schmidt M, Schmidt S A, Sandegaard J L, Ehrenstein V, Pedersen L, Sorensen H T. The Danish National Patient Registry: a review of content, data quality, and research potential. Clin Epidemiol 2015; 7: 449-90. doi: 10.2147/CLEP.S91125. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2147/CLEP.S91125

Quan H, Li B, Couris C M, Fushimi K, Graham P, Hider P, et al. Updating and validating the Charlson comorbidity index and score for risk adjustment in hospital discharge abstracts using data from 6 countries. Am J Epidemiol 2011; 173(6): 676-82. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwq433. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwq433

Morup-Petersen A K M, Nielsen R, Paulsen A, Odgaard A. Translation and classical test theory validation of the Danish version of the Oxford Knee Score. http://abstract.ortopaedi.dk/k19/session16.html.

Murray D W, Fitzpatrick R, Rogers K, Pandit H, Beard D J, Carr A J, et al. The use of the Oxford hip and knee scores. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2007; 89(8): 1010-14. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.89B8.19424. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.89B8.19424

Clement N D, MacDonald D, Simpson A H. The minimal clinically important difference in the Oxford knee score and Short Form 12 score after total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2014; 22(8): 1933-9. doi: 10.1007/s00167-013-2776-5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-013-2776-5

Ingelsrud L H, Roos E M, Terluin B, Gromov K, Husted H, Troelsen A. Minimal important change values for the Oxford Knee Score and the Forgotten Joint Score at 1 year after total knee replacement. Acta Orthop 2018; 89(5): 541-7. doi: 10.1080/17453674.2018.1480739. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2018.1480739

Behrend H, Giesinger K, Giesinger J M, Kuster M S. The “forgotten joint” as the ultimate goal in joint arthroplasty: validation of a new patient-reported outcome measure. J Arthroplasty 2012; 27(3): 430-6 e1. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2011.06.035. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2011.06.035

Holtz N, Hamilton D F, Giesinger J M, Jost B, Giesinger K. Minimal important differences for the WOMAC osteoarthritis index and the Forgotten Joint Score-12 in total knee arthroplasty patients. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2020; 21(1): 401. doi: 10.1186/s12891-020-03415-x. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-020-03415-x

Jensen M B, Jensen C E, Gudex C, Pedersen K M, Sorensen S S, Ehlers L H. Danish population health measured by the EQ-5D-5L. Scand J Public Health 2023; 51(2): 241-9. doi: 10.1177/14034948211058060. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/14034948211058060

Jensen C E, Sorensen S S, Gudex C, Jensen M B, Pedersen K M, Ehlers L H. The Danish EQ-5D-5L Value Set: a hybrid model using cTTO and DCE data. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2021; 19(4): 579-91. doi: 10.1007/s40258-021-00639-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-021-00639-3

Cheng L J, Chen L A, Cheng J Y, Herdman M, Luo N. Systematic review reveals that EQ-5D minimally important differences vary with treatment type and may decrease with increasing baseline score. J Clin Epidemiol 2024; 174: 111487. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111487. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111487

Morup-Petersen A, Holm P M, Holm C E, Klausen T W, Skou S T, Krogsgaard M R, et al. Knee osteoarthritis patients can provide useful estimates of passive knee range of motion: development and validation of the Copenhagen Knee ROM scale. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33(9): 2875-83 e3. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2018.05.011. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2018.05.011

Christensen R, Ranstam J, Overgaard S, Wagner P. Guidelines for a structured manuscript: Statistical methods and reporting in biomedical research journals. Acta Orthop 2023; 94: 243-9. doi: 10.2340/17453674.2023.11656. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2023.11656

Kwak S G, Kim J H. Central limit theorem: the cornerstone of modern statistics. Korean J Anesthesiol 2017; 70(2): 144-56. doi: 10.4097/kjae.2017.70.2.144. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4097/kjae.2017.70.2.144

Arndt K B, Schroder H M, Troelsen A, Lindberg-Larsen M. Patient-reported outcomes and satisfaction 1 to 3 years after revisions of total knee arthroplasties for unexplained pain versus aseptic loosening. J Arthroplasty 2023; 38(3): 535-40 e3. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2022.10.019. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2022.10.019

Downloads

Additional Files

Published

2025-02-27

How to Cite

Risager, S. K., Viberg, B., Abrahamsen, C. S., Arndt, K. B., Odgaard, A., & Lindberg-Larsen, M. (2025). Patient-reported outcome 1 to 4 years after periprosthetic knee fracture: a nationwide cross-sectional matched study. Acta Orthopaedica, 96, 209–216. https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2025.43083

Issue

Vol. 96 (2025): Acta Orthopaedica

Section

Publications

Categories

License

Copyright (c) 2025 Stefan Kastalag Risager, Bjarke Viberg, Charlotte Skov Abrahamsen, Kristine Bollerup Arndt, Anders Odgaard, Martin Lindberg-Larsen

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Acta Orthopaedica (Scandinavica) content is available freely online as from volume 1, 1930. The journal owner owns the copyright for all material published until volume 80, 2009. As of June 2009, the journal has however been published fully Open Access, meaning the authors retain copyright to their work. As of June 2009, articles have been published under CC-BY-NC or CC-BY licenses, unless otherwise specified.
 
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC