Download PDF
Z Orthop Unfall 2020; 158(01): 26-31
DOI: 10.1055/a-1038-0232
Berichte aus den Sektionen
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Ergebnismessung in der Hüft- und Knieendoprothetik – Empfehlung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Endoprothetik (AE)

Contributor(s):
Jörg Lützner
1   UniversitätsCentrum für Orthopädie & Unfallchirurgie, Universitätsklinikum Carl Gustav Carus Dresden
,
Andreas Niemeier
2   Klinik für Orthopädie & Unfallchirurgie, Krankenhaus Reinbek St. Adolf-Stift
3   Klinik und Poliklink für Orhopädie, Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg
,
Tilmann Calliess
4   Articon Spezialpraxis für Gelenkchirurgie, Bern
,
Philipp von Roth
5   Sporthopaedicum Regensburg
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
13 February 2020 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abkürzungsverzeichnis

AE: Adverse Event
COS: Core Outcome Set
EPRD: Endoprothesenregister Deutschland
EPZ: Zertifiziertes EndoProthetikZentrum
EQ-5D: EuroQoL (European Quality of Life) – 5 Dimensions
GCP: Good clinical Practice
HOOS: Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score
ICHOM: International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement
IQTIG: Institut für Qualitätssicherung und Transparenz im Gesundheitswesen
KOOS: Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score
OHS: Oxford Hip Score
OKS: Oxford Knee Score
OMERACT: Outcome Measures in Rheumatology
OP: Operation
PROM: Patient-reported Outcome Measures
SAE: Serious adverse Event
SF-12: Short Form 12 Health Survey
SF-36: Short Form 36 Health Survey
VAS: visuelle Analogskala
WOMAC: Western Ontario and McMasters Universities Osteoarthritis Index
 

 

  • Literatur

  • 1 IQTIG. Qualitätsreport 2017. Im Internet: https://iqtig.org/downloads/berichte/2017/IQTIG_Qualitaetsreport-2017_2018_09_21.pdf Stand: 14.11.2019
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Augurzky B, Hentschker C, Pilny A, Wübker A. Krankenhausreport 2017. Schriftenreihe zur Gesundheitsanalyse. Band 4. Im Internet: https://www.barmer.de/blob/124290/ff9429ae5b958c69aef00cfbd0049033/data/dl-report.pdf Stand: 14.11.2019
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Techniker Krankenkasse. TK-Klinikführer. Im Internet: https://www.tk.de/tk/klinikfuehrer/114928 Stand: 14.11.2019
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Weiße Liste gemeinnützige GmbH. AOK-Krankenhausnavigator. Im Internet: https://weisse-liste.krankenhaus.aok.de/ Stand: 14.11.2019
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Lange T, Rataj E, Kopkow C. et al. Outcome Assessment in Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32: 653-665.e1
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs). 2017. Im Internet: https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/patient-reported-outcome-measures-proms Stand: 14.11.2019
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Chan AW, Tetzlaff JM, Gøtzsche PC. et al. SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials. BMJ 2013; 346: e7586
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Bellamy N, Kirwan J, Boers M. et al. Recommendations for a core set of outcome measures for future phase III clinical trials in knee, hip, and hand osteoarthritis. Consensus development at OMERACT III. J Rheumatol 1997; 24: 799-802
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Singh JA, Dohm M, Choong PF. Consensus on draft OMERACT core domains for clinical trials of Total Joint Replacement outcome by orthopaedic surgeons: a report from the International consensus on outcome measures in TJR trials (I-COMiTT) group. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2017; 18: 45
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Williams K, Sansoni J, Morris D, Grootemaat P, Thompson C. Patient-reported outcome measures: Literature review. 2016. Im Internet: https://www.safetyandquality.gov.au/sites/default/files/migrated/PROMs-Literature-Review-December-2016.pdf Stand: 14.11.2019
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 ICHOM. International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement. 2017. Im Internet: https://www.ichom.org/ Stand: 14.11.2019
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Naal FD, Impellizzeri FM, Sieverding M. et al. The 12-item Oxford Knee Score: cross-cultural adaptation into German and assessment of its psychometric properties in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. Osteoarth Cartil 2009; 17: 49-52
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Naal FD, Sieverding M, Impellizzeri FM. et al. Reliability and validity of the cross-culturally adapted German Oxford hip score. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009; 467: 952-957
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Murray DW, Fitzpatrick R, Rogers K. et al. The use of the Oxford hip and knee scores. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2007; 89: 1010-1014
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Harris K, Dawson J, Doll H. et al. Can pain and function be distinguished in the Oxford Knee Score in a meaningful way? An exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Qual Life Res 2013; 22: 2561-2568
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Harris KK, Price AJ, Beard DJ. et al. Can pain and function be distinguished in the Oxford Hip Score in a meaningful way?: an exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Bone Joint Res 2014; 3: 305-309
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Carr A. et al. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1996; 78: 185-190
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 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: 63-69
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Blasimann A, Dauphinee SW, Staal JB. Translation, cross-cultural adaptation, and psychometric properties of the German version of the hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2014; 44: 989-997
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Klassbo M, Larsson E, Mannevik E. Hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score. An extension of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index. Scand J Rheumatol 2003; 32: 46-51
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Kessler S, Lang S, Puhl W. et al. [The Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score–a multifunctional questionnaire to measure outcome in knee arthroplasty]. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 2003; 141: 277-282
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Roos EM, Roos HP, Lohmander LS. et al. Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)–development of a self-administered outcome measure. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 1998; 28: 88-96
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 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: 1833-1840
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Stucki G, Meier D, Stucki S. et al. [Evaluation of a German version of WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities) Arthrosis Index]. Z Rheumatol 1996; 55: 40-49
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Noble PC, Scuderi GR, Brekke AC. et al. Development of a new Knee Society scoring system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2012; 470: 20-32
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Behrend H, Giesinger K, Giesinger JM. et al. The “forgotten joint” as the ultimate goal in joint arthroplasty: validation of a new patient-reported outcome measure. J Arthroplasty 2012; 27: 430-436
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Dawson J, Beard DJ, McKibbin H. et al. Development of a patient-reported outcome measure of activity and participation (the OKS-APQ) to supplement the Oxford knee score. Bone Joint J 2014; 96-B: 332-338
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Kantz ME, Harris WJ, Levitsky K. et al. Methods for assessing condition-specific and generic functional status outcomes after total knee replacement. Med Care 1992; 30 (5 Suppl.): MS240-MS252
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 EuroQol Group. 2017. European Quality of Life (EuroQol). Im Internet: https://euroqol.org/euroqol/ Stand: 14.11.2019
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Mahomed N, Gandhi R, Daltroy L. et al. The self-administered patient satisfaction scale for primary hip and knee arthroplasty. Arthritis 2011; 2011: 591253
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Brokelman RB, Haverkamp D, van Loon C. et al. The validation of the visual analogue scale for patient satisfaction after total hip arthroplasty. Eur Orthop Traumatol 2012; 3: 101-105
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 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: 740-747
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Sharkey PF, Lichstein PM, Shen C. et al. Why are total knee arthroplasties failing today–has anything changed after 10 years?. J Arthroplasty 2014; 29: 1774-1778
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Thiele K, Perka C, Matziolis G. et al. Current failure mechanisms after knee arthroplasty have changed: polyethylene wear is less common in revision surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2015; 97: 715-720
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Bozic KJ, Kurtz SM, Lau E. et al. The epidemiology of revision total hip arthroplasty in the United States. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009; 91: 128-133
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 ICH. Integrated Addendum to ICH E6(R1): Guideline for good clinical practice E6(R2). 2016. Im Internet: https://www.fda.gov/media/93884/download Stand: 14.11.2019
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Kirschner S, Lützner J, Günther KP. et al. Adverse events in total knee arthroplasty: Results of a physician independent survey in 260 patients. Patient Saf Surg 2010; 4: 12
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 ISO. ISO 14155 : 2011. Clinical Investigation of medical Devices for human Subjects – Good clinical Practice. Geneva, Switzerland: ISO; 2011
    Google Scholar
  • 39 Australian Orthopaedic Association, Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. Hip, Knee & Shoulder Arthroplasty. Annual Report 2016. Adelaide: AOA; 2016
    Google Scholar
  • 40 The Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register. Annual Report 2016. Im Internet: http://www.myknee.se/pdf/SVK_2016_Eng_1.0.pdf Stand: 14.11.2019
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 The Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Annual Report 2015. Im Internet: https://registercentrum.blob.core.windows.net/shpr/r/Annual-Report-2015-H19dFINOW.pdf Stand: 14.11.2019
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 National Joint Registry. 14th Annual Report 2017. National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man. Im Internet: https://www.hqip.org.uk/resource/national-joint-registry-14th-annual-report-2017/%23.Xc2AjebsZaQ Stand: 14.11.2019
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Von Roth P, Lützner J, Günther KP. et al. Die radiologische Verlaufskontrolle von primären Hüft- und Knieendoprothesen – Empfehlung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Endoprothetik (AE). Im Internet: https://www.ae-germany.com/die-ae/ae-publikationen/ae-handlungsempfehlungen
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Beard DJ, Harris K, Dawson J. et al. Meaningful changes for the Oxford hip and knee scores after joint replacement surgery. J Clin Epidemiol 2015; 68: 73-79
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Berliner JL, Brodke DJ, Chan V. et al. John Charnley Award: Preoperative Patient-reported Outcome Measures Predict Clinically Meaningful Improvement in Function After THA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2016; 474: 321-329
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Clement ND, MacDonald D, Simpson AH. 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: 1933-1939
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Berliner JL, Brodke DJ, Chan V. et al. Can Preoperative Patient-reported Outcome Measures Be Used to Predict Meaningful Improvement in Function After TKA?. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2017; 475: 149-157
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Singh JA, Luo R, Landon GC. et al. Reliability and clinically important improvement thresholds for osteoarthritis pain and function scales: a multicenter study. J Rheumatol 2014; 41: 509-515
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Pham T, van der Heijde D, Altman RD. et al. OMERACT-OARSI initiative: Osteoarthritis Research Society International set of responder criteria for osteoarthritis clinical trials revisited. Osteoarthr Cartil 2004; 12: 389-399
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Escobar A, García Pérez L, Herrera-Espiñeira C. et al. Total knee replacement; minimal clinically important differences and responders. Osteoarthr Cartil 2013; 21: 2006-2012
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Quintana JM, Aguirre U, Barrio I. et al. Outcomes after total hip replacement based on patientsʼ baseline status: what results can be expected?. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2012; 64: 563-572
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 König HH, Bernert S, Angermeyer MC. et al. Comparison of population health status in six european countries: results of a representative survey using the EQ-5D questionnaire. Med Care 2009; 47: 255-261
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Bullinger M, Kirchberger I. SF-36 Fragebogen zum Gesundheitszustand. Göttingen: Hofgrefe; 1998
    Google Scholar
  • 54 Rolfson O, Eresian Chenok K, Bohm E. et al. Patient-reported outcome measures in arthroplasty registries. Acta Orthop 2016; 87 (Suppl. 01) 3-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Rolfson O, Bohm E, Franklin P. et al. Patient-reported outcome measures in arthroplasty registries Report of the Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Working Group of the International Society of Arthroplasty Registries Part II. Recommendations for selection, administration, and analysis. Acta Orthop 2016; 87 (Suppl. 01) 9-23
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar