Download PDF
J Knee Surg
DOI: 10.1055/a-2315-8110
Original Article

Stepping Up Recovery: Integrating Patient-reported Outcome Measures and Wearable Technology for Rehabilitation Following Knee Arthroplasty

Ignacio Pasqualini
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio
,
Nickelas Huffman 
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio
,
Alison Klika
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio
,
Atul F. Kamath
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio
,
Carlos A. Higuera-Rueda
2   Levitetz Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Florida, Weston, Florida
,
Matthew E. Deren
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio
,
Trevor G. Murray
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio
,
Nicolas S. Piuzzi 
1   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio
3   Department of Biomedical Engineering, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Improvement after knee arthroplasty (KA) is often measured using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). However, PROMs are limited due to their subjectivity. Therefore, wearable technology is becoming commonly utilized to objectively assess physical activity and function. We assessed the correlation between PROMs and step/stair flight counts in total (TKA) and partial knee arthroplasty (PKA) patients.

Analysis of a multicenter, prospective, longitudinal cohort study investigating the collection of average daily step and stair flight counts, was performed. Subjects (N = 1,844 TKA patients and N = 489 PKA patients) completed the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement (KOOS JR) and provided numerical rating scale pain scores pre- and postoperatively. Only patients who reported living in a multilevel home environment (N = 896 TKA patients and N = 258 PKA patients) were included in analysis of stair flight counts. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to determine correlations between variables.

Among TKA patients, pain scores demonstrated a negative correlation to mean step counts at preoperative (r = −0.14, p < 0.0001) and 1-month follow-up (r = −0.14, p < 0.0001). Similar negative correlations were true for pain and stair flight counts at preoperative (r = −0.16, p < 0.0001) and 1-month follow-up (r = −0.11, p = 0.006). KOOS JR scores demonstrated weak positive correlations with mean step counts at preoperative (r = 0.19, p < 0.0001) and 1-month postoperative (r = 0.17, p < 0.0001). Similar positive correlations were true for KOOS JR scores and stair flight counts preoperatively (r = 0.13, p = 0.0002) and at 1-month postoperatively (r = 0.10, p = 0.0048). For PKA patients, correlations between pain and KOOS JR with step/stair counts demonstrated similar directionality.

Given the correlation between wearable-generated data and PROMs, wearable technology may be beneficial in evaluating patient outcomes following KA. By combining subjective feedback with the objective data, health care providers can gain a holistic view of patients' progress and tailor treatment plans accordingly.

Keywords

patient-reported outcome measures - total knee arthroplasty - partial knee arthroplasty - wearable devices


Publication History

Received: 12 March 2024

Accepted: 23 April 2024

Accepted Manuscript online:
27 April 2024

Article published online:
13 May 2024

© 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Soares RW, Emara AK, Orr M. et al. When do we perform elective total knee arthroplasty? General and demographic-specific trends of preoperative pain and function among 10,327 patients. J Knee Surg 2023; 36 (14) 1454-1461
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Rullán PJ, Xu JR, Emara AK. et al. Major national shifts to outpatient total knee arthroplasties in the United States: a 10-year trends analysis of procedure volumes, complications, and healthcare utilizations (2010 to 2020). J Arthroplasty 2023; 38 (07) 1209-1216.e5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Rullán PJ, Deren ME, Zhou G. et al. The arthroplasty surgeon growth indicator: a tool for monitoring supply and demand trends in the Orthopaedic Surgeon Workforce from 2020 to 2050. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2023; 105 (13) 1038-1045
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Anis HK, Strnad GJ, Klika AK. et al; Cleveland Clinic OME Arthroplasty Group. Developing a personalized outcome prediction tool for knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint J 2020; 102-B (09) 1183-1193
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Orr MN, Klika AK, Emara AK, Piuzzi NS. Cleveland Clinic Arthroplasty Group. Combinations of preoperative patient-reported outcome measure phenotype (pain, function, and mental health) predict outcome after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2022; 37 (6S): S110 , 120.e5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Orr MN, Klika AK, Emara AK, Piuzzi NS. Cleveland Clinic Arthroplasty Group. Dissatisfaction after total hip arthroplasty associated with preoperative patient-reported outcome phenotypes. J Arthroplasty 2022; 37 (7S): S498-S509
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Piuzzi NS. Cleveland Clinic O.M.E. Arthroplasty Group. Patient-reported outcomes at 1 and 2 years after total hip and knee arthroplasty: what is the minimum required follow-up?. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2022; 142 (09) 2121-2129
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Jayakumar P, Bozic KJ. Advanced decision-making using patient-reported outcome measures in total joint replacement. J Orthop Res 2020; 38 (07) 1414-1422
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Arnold N, Anis H, Barsoum WK. et al; Cleveland Clinic OME Arthroplasty Group. Preoperative cut-off values for body mass index deny patients clinically significant improvements in patient-reported outcomes after total hip arthroplasty. Bone Joint J 2020; 102-B (06) 683-692
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Lavallee DC, Chenok KE, Love RM. et al. Incorporating patient-reported outcomes into health care to engage patients and enhance care. Health Aff (Millwood) 2016; 35 (04) 575-582
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Franklin PD, Lewallen D, Bozic K, Hallstrom B, Jiranek W, Ayers DC. Implementation of patient-reported outcome measures in U.S. Total joint replacement registries: rationale, status, and plans. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2014; 96 (Suppl. 01) 104-109
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Collins NJ, Roos EM. Patient-reported outcomes for total hip and knee arthroplasty: commonly used instruments and attributes of a “good” measure. Clin Geriatr Med 2012; 28 (03) 367-394
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Orr MN, Klika AK, Gagnier JJ, Bhandari M, Piuzzi NS. A call for a standardized approach to reporting patient-reported outcome measures: clinical relevance ratio. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2021; 103 (22) e91
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Crawford DA, Duwelius PJ, Sneller MA. et al. 2021 Mark Coventry Award: Use of a smartphone-based care platform after primary partial and total knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Bone Joint J 2021; 103-B (6, Supple A): 3-12
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Maher C, Szeto K, Arnold J. The use of accelerometer-based wearable activity monitors in clinical settings: current practice, barriers, enablers, and future opportunities. BMC Health Serv Res 2021; 21 (01) 1064
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Braun BJ, Histing T, Menger MM. et al. “Bring your own device”-a new approach to wearable outcome assessment in trauma. Medicina (Kaunas) 2023; 59 (02) 403
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Sašek M, Kozinc Ž, Löfler S, Hofer C, Šarabon N. Objectively measured physical activity, sedentary behavior and functional performance before and after lower limb joint arthroplasty: a systematic review with meta-analysis. J Clin Med 2021; 10 (24) 5885
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Marmor MT, Grimm B, Hanflik AM. et al. Use of wearable technology to measure activity in orthopaedic trauma patients: a systematic review. Indian J Orthop 2022; 56 (07) 1112-1122
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Iovanel G, Ayers D, Zheng H. The role of wearable technology in measuring and supporting patient outcomes following total joint replacement: review of the literature. JMIR Perioper Med 2023; 6: e39396
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Ianculescu M, Andrei B, Alexandru A. A smart assistance solution for remotely monitoring the orthopaedic rehabilitation process using wearable technology: RE.FLEX System. Stud Inform Control 2019; 28: 317-326
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Skou ST, Roos EM, Laursen MB. et al. A randomized, controlled trial of total knee replacement. N Engl J Med 2015; 373 (17) 1597-1606
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Ko V, Naylor JM, Harris IA, Crosbie J, Yeo AE. The six-minute walk test is an excellent predictor of functional ambulation after total knee arthroplasty. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2013; 14: 145
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Bendich I, Chung C, Hwang K. et al. Changes in prospectively collected longitudinal patient-generated health data are associated with short-term patient-reported outcomes after total joint arthroplasty: a pilot study. Arthroplast Today 2019; 5 (01) 61-63
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Crizer MP, Kazarian GS, Fleischman AN, Lonner JH, Maltenfort MG, Chen AF. Stepping toward objective outcomes: a prospective analysis of step count after total joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32 (9S): S162-S165
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Kwasnicki RM, Ali R, Jordan SJ. et al. A wearable mobility assessment device for total knee replacement: A longitudinal feasibility study. Int J Surg 2015; 18: 14-20
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Alexander JS, Redfern RE, Duwelius PJ, Berend KR, Lombardi Jr AV, Crawford DA. Use of a smartphone-based care platform after primary partial and total knee arthroplasty: 1-year follow-up of a prospective randomized controlled trial. J Arthroplasty 2023; 38 (7 Suppl 2): S208-S214
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Bahadori S, Immins T, Wainwright TW. A review of wearable motion tracking systems used in rehabilitation following hip and knee replacement. J Rehabil Assist Technol Eng 2018; 5: 2055668318771816
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Van der Walt N, Salmon LJ, Gooden B. et al. Feedback from activity trackers improves daily step count after knee and hip arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33 (11) 3422-3428
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar