Abstract
In a postal survey of all orthopaedic surgery departments performing total hip or knee replacements in Norway, we inquired about the use of hip or knee scoring systems and their impact. All 63 eligible hospitals responded to the questionnaire. Thirteen (21%) reported routine use of hip clinical scoring systems, and five (9%) used knee clinical scoring systems. The Harris hip score and The Knee Society clinical rating system were the most prevalent. We received five different versions of the Harris hip score. The regional/university hospitals most commonly used clinical scoring systems. The adoption of clinical scoring systems did not differ with the annual procedure volumes of the hospitals.
Résumé
Dans une étude postale auprès de tous les départements de chirurgie orthopédiques qui font des remplacements de la hanche ou du genou en Norvège, nous nous sommes renseignés sur l’usage des échelles d’évaluation de la hanche et du genou et leur impact. Les 63 hôpitaux éligibles ont répondu au questionnaire. Treize (21%) ont rapporté l’usage régulier de systèmes d’évaluation clinique par points de la hanche, et cinq (9%) l’usage de tels systèmes au niveau du genou. Le score de hanche de Harris et le système d’estimation clinique de la Knee Society étaient les plus employés. Nous avons reçu cinq versions différentes du score de Harris. Les hôpitaux régionaux ou universitaires ont utilisé plus volontiers des systèmes d’évaluation par points. L’adoption de systèmes avec évaluation par points n’est pas en relation avec les volumes d’interventions annuels des hôpitaux.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Davies AP (2002) Rating systems for total knee replacement. Knee 9:261–266
Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Murray D, Carr A (1998) Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 80:63–69
Drake BG, Callahan CM, Dittus RS, Wright JG (1994) Global rating systems used in assessing knee arthroplasty outcomes. J Arthroplast 9:409–417
Harris WH (1969) Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. An end-result study using a new method of result evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 51:737–755
Havelin LI, Engesaeter LB, Espehaug B, Furnes O, Lie SA, Vollset SE (2000) The Norwegian arthroplasty register: 11 years and 73,000 arthroplasties. Acta Orthop Scand 71:337–353
Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN (1989) Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop 13–14
Insall JN, Ranawat CS, Aglietti P, Shine J (1976) A comparison of four models of total knee-replacement prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg Am 58:754–765
Mahomed NN, Arndt DC, McGrory BJ, Harris WH (2001) The Harris hip score: comparison of patient self-report with surgeon assessment. J Arthroplast 16:575–580
Merle d’Aubigné R, Postel M (1954) Functional results of hip arthroplasty with acrylic prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am 36-A:451–475
Roos EM, Roos HP, Lohmander LS, Ekdahl C, Beynnon BD (1998) Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)—development of a self-administered outcome measure. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 28:88–96
Sun Y, Sturmer T, Gunther KP, Brenner H (1997) Reliability and validity of clinical outcome measurements of osteoarthritis of the hip and knee—a review of the literature. Clin Rheumatol 16:185–198
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Stavem, K., Arnesen, Ø. Use of hip and knee clinical scoring systems in prosthesis surgery in Norwegian hospitals. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 29, 301–304 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-005-0663-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-005-0663-5