These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: The SF-36 general health status survey documents the burden of osteoarthritis and the benefits of total joint arthroplasty: but why should we use it?
    Author: Kiebzak GM, Campbell M, Mauerhan DR.
    Journal: Am J Manag Care; 2002 May; 8(5):463-74. PubMed ID: 12019598.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVES: To document the disease burden of osteoarthritis and the benefits of total joint replacement by using the Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) general health status survey and evaluate other factors that could affect scores. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All patients scheduled for primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA) (n = 622 preoperatively) in 2 years were surveyed using the SF-36, which assesses health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in patients' physical and social functioning and mental health. Follow-up surveys were administered 12 months after surgery to all patients and 3 and 24 months after surgery to a subset of patients. RESULTS: Preoperatively, patient scores were significantly lower than normative scores in the physical functioning, bodily pain, and social functioning domains. Preoperative scores were not different between THA and TKA patients. Women scored lower than men. Comorbid conditions were weakly associated with low SF-36 scores. Postoperatively, the largest incremental improvement in scores was seen at 3-month follow-up. Scores improved sooner and more substantially in THA vs TKA patients and in men vs women, paralleling improvement in clinical and subjective ratings of postoperative physical function and pain. CONCLUSIONS: The SF-36 has the sensitivity to document improvement in HRQOL after surgery and to reveal differences in THA vs TKA and in men vs women. However, routine use of outcome assessment instruments to monitor this patient population is costly and unjustified in our current healthcare environment.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]