Research
Print page Print page
Switch language
The Capital Region of Denmark - a part of Copenhagen University Hospital
Published

Patient-reported outcomes of 7133 distal femoral, patellar, and proximal tibial fracture patients: A national cross-sectional study with one-, three-, and five-year follow-up

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  1. Reliability of stress radiography in the assessment of coronal laxity following total knee arthroplasty

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  2. Assessment of objective dynamic knee joint control in anterior cruciate ligament deficient and reconstructed individuals

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  3. Knee extensor strength and hop test performance following anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

View graph of relations

BACKGROUND: Few studies have described patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in knee fracture patients. We reported knee-specific and generic median PROM scores after knee fracture and identified risk factors for poor outcome defined by low median PROM scores.

METHODS: In a Danish cross-sectional study of 7133 distal femoral, patellar, and proximal tibial fracture patients during 2011-2017, OKS, FJS-12, EQ5D-5L Index, and EQ5D-5L Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), were collected electronically (response rate 53%; median age 60; 63% female). Poor outcome was defined as score lower than median PROM score. Poor outcome risk factors were estimated as odds ratios from binary logistic regression models.

RESULTS: At 0 to one year after knee fracture, median PROM scores were 31 (OKS), 27 (FJS-12), 0.50 (EQ5D-5L Index), and 74 (EQ5D-5L VAS). At >5 years after knee fracture, median OKS score was 40, median FJS-12 score was 54, median EQ5D-5L Index was 0.76, and median EQ5D-5L VAS score was 80. Age > 40 years had higher odds for poor OKS and FJS-12 scores at short- and long-term follow-up after knee fracture. Comorbidity burden, distal femoral fracture, and treatment with external fixation and knee arthroplasty were risk factors for poor outcome at long-term follow-up, for all four PROMs.

CONCLUSIONS: Although knee fracture patients have relatively high knee function and quality of life, their ability to forget about the knee joint after knee fracture is compromised. We identified several important risk factors for poor outcome measured by PROMs at different follow-up periods following knee fracture, which will help direct future quality-improvement initiatives.

Original languageEnglish
JournalThe Knee
Volume27
Issue number5
Pages (from-to)1310-1324
Number of pages15
ISSN0968-0160
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Oct 2020

    Research areas

  • Distal femoral fracture, EQ5D-5L, Forgotten Joint Score-12, Oxford Knee Score, Patellar fracture, Proximal tibial fracture

ID: 60979009