No correlation between symmetry-based performance measures and patient-related outcome prior to and after total knee arthroplasty.

PURPOSE Standardized outcome measures are crucial for the evaluation of different treatment and rehabilitation regimes in patients after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Performance-based measures are necessary to capture different aspects of physical function. High reliability and agreement of five performance-based measures were hypothesized to differentiate between measurement error and change in test performance. Secondary outcomes are the correlation of performance-based measurements to KSS and WOMAC prior to surgery (baseline) and 10 weeks thereafter (t3). METHODS The test-retest reliabilities and agreements of the 1-m walk test, the stair-climbing test, the timed-up-and-go test, the weight-balanced-chair-rising test and the isometric maximum knee extension force in patients undergoing total knee replacements were studied. The intraclass correlation coefficient was calculated and a Bland-Altman analysis performed. RESULTS The weight-balanced-chair-rising test showed a symmetry at baseline = 0.77, 5 ± 1 days after surgery (t1) = 0.50, 9 ± 1 days (t2) = 0.59 and (t3) = 0.80. All performance tests showed high intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC = 0.81-0.99). The 10-m walk test, stair climbing test, and the timed-up-and-go test showed high agreement in the Bland-Altman analysis. The Bland-Altman analysis for the weight-balanced-chair-rising test and isometric knee extension force indicated high agreement at 5 and 9 days postoperatively, but the relative measurement error increased pre- and 10 weeks postoperatively. CONCLUSION In conclusion, symmetry, as an important outcome after TKA, is a reliable and rather unique item that should unquestionably be added to established measurements like walking tests or survey-based function assessment. The implementation of standardized performance-based measures to assess physical function in rehabilitation procedures will help to improve the more objectively based assessment of different rehabilitation protocols. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE II.