Skip to content


  • Research
  • Open Access

Evaluation of health outcomes in osteoarthritis patients after total knee replacement: a two-year follow-up

  • 1, 2Email author,
  • 3,
  • 2, 4,
  • 1, 2,
  • 1, 2,
  • 1, 2 and
  • 5, 6
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes20108:87

  • Received: 5 March 2010
  • Accepted: 19 August 2010
  • Published:



To quantify the improvement in health outcomes in patients after total knee replacement (TKR).


This was a two-year non-randomized prospective observational study in knee osteoarthritis (OA) patients undergone TKR. Patients were interviewed one week before, six months after, and two years after surgery using a standardized questionnaire including the SF-36, the Oxford Knee Score (OKS), and the Knee Society Clinical Rating Scale (KSS). A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model was used to estimate the magnitudes of the changes with and without the adjustment of age, ethnicity, BMI, and years with OA.


A total of 298 (at baseline), 176 (at six-months), and 111 (at two-years) eligible patients were included in the analyses. All the scores changed significantly over time, with the exception of SF-36 social functioning, vitality, and mental health. With the adjustment of covariates, the magnitude of changes in these scores was similar to those without the adjustment.


Both general and knee-specific physical functioning had been significantly improved after TKR, while other health domains have not been substantially improved after the surgery.


  • Physical Functioning
  • Total Knee Replacement
  • Generalize Estimate Equation
  • Oxford Knee Score
  • Physical Functioning Score


Osteoarthritis (OA), a chronic degenerative disease, is characterized by pain and physical disability, with knee being the most frequently affected joint[1]. OA is among the most prevalent diseases affecting adults and a major contributor to physical disability, morbidity, and utilization of health care resources worldwide[25]. In patients with severe knee OA who have failed conservative treatments (e.g. medications, exercises, and weight loss), total knee replacement (TKR), a surgical option involving replacement of knee joint with artificial components, has been shown to be a highly effective treatment that could result in substantial improvement in physical functioning[6].

It is known that pain, physical functioning, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) are important outcome measures in OA. Recently there is growing literature that has contributed to the understanding on what could be achieved by TKR[710]. Both disease-specific functional measures such as the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC)[1114], the Oxford Knee Score (OKS)[15], and the Knee Society Clinical Rating Scale (KSS)[11, 16], and generic HRQoL instrument such as the SF-36[11, 13, 14, 1620] have been used to evaluate the improvement in functioning and quality of life in patients undergone TKR. However, such data are particularly lacking for Asian patients. As prevalence of OA is increasing, TKR is expected to play an important role in reducing pain and improving physical functioning and HRQoL of patients[21]. Thus, there is a pressing need to obtain more empirical evidence on health outcome improvement after TKR in Asian populations.

Therefore, the objective of the present study was to quantify the improvement in health outcomes in Asian patients after TKR.

Patients and Methods

This was a two-year non-randomized prospective observational study. The institutional review board at the Singapore General Hospital (SGH) had approved this study and patient informed consent forms were collected.


A total of 242 patients would be required to detect an effect size of 0.18 using the SF-36[22] with a significance level of 0.05 and the power of 0.8[23]. The inclusion criteria were: (1) patients diagnosed with knee OA based on clinical and radiographic features and received TKR in the SGH between January 1, 2003 and December 31, 2003 (index dates); (2) patients who had not undergone either TKR or other knee surgeries at least six months before the index dates, and (3) patients who had consented to participate in this study. Each patient was interviewed in English by a trained interviewer one week before, six months after, and two years after surgery using a standardized questionnaire including a generic HRQoL instrument (i.e. the SF-36) and two functioning instruments (i.e. the OKS and the KSS). Demographic information for each participating patient was also collected before the surgery.


The SF-36, one of the most widely used generic HRQoL instruments worldwide, contains 36 items which measure perceived health in 8 domains, namely, physical functioning, role physical, bodily pain, general health, vitality, social functioning, role emotional, and mental health, with higher scores (range, 0-100) reflecting better perceived health[24].

The KSS consists of two scores, a knee score and a functioning score, both ranging from 0 (worst health or functioning) to 100 (best health or functioning)[25]. The knee score reflects an objective measurement as well as patient-reported pain severity. Fifty of 100 points in the knee score are allocated to pain assessment with 50 representing no pain, while the other 50 points are allocated for a clinical assessment of range of motion, stability, alignment, and muscle power of knee with 50 representing at least 0°-125°of knee flexion with no active lag, no instability, and normal alignment. The function score reflects patient-reported walking distance and stair-climbing and makes deductions for use of a walking aid, with 100 representing unlimited walking distance and normal stair-climbing without use of an aid.

The OKS, a procedure- and joint-specific functioning measure, consists of 12 questions assessing pain and physical disability using a 5-point Likert-type scale, which generates a single score ranging from the worst functional outcome of 0 to the best functional outcome of 100[26].

Statistical analyses

In order to determine the difference in demographic characteristics of the patients participating in baseline interviews compared to those in post-surgery follow-up interviews, chi-square test and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used for categorical and continuous variables, respectively. A generalized estimating equation (GEE) model was used to estimate the magnitude of changes in these outcomes over time with and without the adjustment of age, ethnicity, BMI, and the number of years with OA.

The unadjusted marginal model was:
y = α + β 1 T 1 + β 2 T 2
and the adjusted marginal model was:
y = α + β 1 T 1 + β 2 T 2 + β 3 age + β 4 ethnicity + β 5 gender + β 6 BMI + β 7 years with OA

Where T1 = 1 if the measurement was taken at six-months and 0 otherwise; T2 = 1 if the measurement was taken at two-years and 0 otherwise; ethnicity = 1 for Chinese and 0 otherwise, and y is the response in question.

The mechanism by which data was missing was investigated by examining which baseline covariates and previous measurements predicted missingness of a given outcome. The only significant predictor was general health at baseline for the missingness at two-years (p = 0.04), and given the number of statistical tests done (40 in all), this is fewer than would be expected by chance alone. It is thus reasonable to conclude that missingness was completely at random and hence does not bias our results. All descriptive analyses were conducted using SAS 9.1 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, North Carolina, USA), and the remaining analyses were done using R version 2.4.1 (procedures from GEE library). All statistical tests were two-tailed and conducted at 5% significance level.


The patients' characteristics are shown in Table 1. At baseline, 298 eligible patients participated in the present study with the mean age of 66.8 years. The majority were female (80.4%) with the mean OA duration of 7.8 years and the mean body mass index (BMI, kg/m2) of 27.9. A total of 176 (follow-up rate: 59.0%) and 111 (follow-up rate: 37%) were followed at six-months and two-years after the surgery, respectively. The reasons for the patients lost to follow up were not known. Nevertheless, the demographic characteristics of the patients at six-months and two-years follow-up were comparable to those of the patients at baseline (Table 1).
Table 1

Characteristics of the patients



Six-months follow-up

Two-years follow-up





Age*, years


   Mean (SD)




Female, n (%)




Ethnicity, n (%)†










Right knee, n (%)




Years with OA, mean(SD)




BMI (kg/m2), mean(SD)




   < 25, n (%)




   25-29.9, n (%)




   > 30, n (%)




TKR=total knee replacement; SD=standard deviation; OA=osteoarthritis;

BMI=body mass index; OKS=Oxford Knee Score.

*Ages were based on pre-surgery values.

†Other ethnicity included Malay, Indian and others.

The observed mean scores of SF-36 physical functioning, role physical, bodily pain, general health, and role emotional, the OKS, the KSS knee and functioning scores changed significantly over time, while the mean scores of SF-36 social functioning, vitality, and mental health did not change significantly (Table 2).
Table 2

Mean (standard deviation) health outcome scores of patients before and after surgery*



Six-months follow-up

Two-years follow-up



   Physical functioning




   Role physical




   Bodily pain




   General health




   Role emotional




   Social functioning








   Mental health




Oxford Knee Score




Knee Society Clinical Rating Scale

   Knee score




   Functioning score




*The GEE does not provide a global p-value to test whether the means were the same across all three time periods, however the p-values comparing 6 months and 12 months vs. pre-op were both < 0.0001.

Table 3 shows the mean changes from the pre-surgery scores predicted by the GEE models. Without the adjustment of demographic characteristics, SF-36 physical functioning score increased by 22.5 at six-months (p < 0.0001) and by 26.7 at two-years (p < 0.0001). Role physical score increased by 32.9 at six-months (p < 0.0001) and 28.7 at two-years (p < 0.0001). Bodily pain score increased by 6.0 at six-months (p = 0.0003), but the change was not significantly at two-years. General health score did not change significantly at six-months and decreased by 4.1 at two-years (p < 0.0001). Role emotional score increased by 15.6 and 12.2 at six-months (p < 0.0001) and two-years (p = 0.0001), respectively. The score increments at six-months were 28.5, 37.5, and 16.2 for the OKS, and the KSS knee and functioning, respectively, while the corresponding increments at two-years were 33.4, 41.3, and 20.9 (all ps < 0.0001).
Table 3

Results of the generalized estimating equation model without and with adjustment of demographic characteristics*











   Physical functioning

22.5 (1.65)

< 0.0001

26.7 (2.09)

< 0.0001

22.8 (1.95)

< 0.0001

27.3 (2.51)

< 0.0001

   Role physical

32.9 (3.37)

< 0.0001

28.7 (4.45)

< 0.0001

35.9 (4.00)

< 0.0001

26.8 (5.40)

< 0.0001

   Bodily pain

6.04 (1.46)


-0.57 (1.56)


4.48 (1.72)


-1.41 (1.96)


   General health

0.12 (0.81)


-4.13 (0.90)

< 0.0001

0.34 (1.01)


-4.23 (1.16)


   Role emotional

15.6 (2.60)

< 0.0001

12.2 (3.20)


15.9 (3.37)

< 0.0001

12.9 (3.96)


   Social functioning

1.54 (1.28)


-1.52 (1.22)


0.81 (1.76)


-2.52 (1.72)



-0.202 (1.21)


-0.584 (1.33)


-1.08 (1.53)


0.15 (1.74)


   Mental health

1.18 (0.93)


0.57 (0.95)


2.04 (1.09)


-0.07 (1.28)



28.5 (1.22)

< 0.0001

33.4 (22.6)

< 0.0001

28.8 (1.56)

< 0.0001

32.4 (1.74)

< 0.0001




37.5 (1.32)

< 0.0001

41.3 (1.55)

< 0.0001

37.0 (1.68)

< 0.0001

40.4 (2.12)

< 0.0001


16.2 (1.52)

< 0.0001

20.9 (1.90)

< 0.0001

15.8 (1.79)

< 0.0001

19.4 (2.27)

< 0.0001

OKS: Oxford Knee Score; KSS: Knee Society Clinical Rating Scale.

*Numbers are the mean change from pre-surgery with standard error in parenthesis and p value.

With the adjustment of age, gender, ethnicity, BMI, and years with OA, the magnitude of predicted changes in these scores were similar to those without the adjustment. Physical functioning score increased by 22.8 at six-months (p < 0.0001) and 27.3 at two-years (p < 0.0001). The corresponding increments were 35.9 (p < 0.0001) and 26.8 (p < 0.0001) for role physical and 15.9 (p < 0.0001) and 12.9 (p = 0.0011) for role emotional. The score increments at six-months were 28.8, 37.0, and 15.8 for the OKS, and the KSS knee and functioning, respectively, while the corresponding increments at two-years were 32.4, 40.4, and 19.4 (all ps < 0.0001).


In this two-year prospective study, statistically significant improvements were observed in the generic SF-36 physical functioning, role physical, and role emotional domains and in the two disease-specific instruments. After the adjustment of covariates including age, gender, ethnicity, BMI, and years with OA, the results were similar. The magnitude of the improvements also exceeded the minimally important difference reported for the SF-36[22]. TKR, as an effective surgery option for severe OA patients, can substantially improve both general physical functioning (as measured by the generic SF-36) and knee-specific physical functioning, and reduce knee-related pain (as measured by the OKS and the KSS). However, no significant improvement in other aspects of health (e.g., mental and social health) or general health has been observed.

The improvement in knee functioning and substantial reduction in knee pain as measured by the OKS and the KSS were consistent with previous studies[1317], as was the physical functioning and role physical measured by the SF-36[13, 14, 1720]. Surprisingly no significant change in SF-36 bodily pain score at both six-months and two-years was observed. This finding was different from some published studies[9, 10, 13, 14, 1720, 22], which reported that SF-36 bodily pain had also been reduced significantly after TKR. Though it is not clear about the true answer to this contrast finding, there are several possible explanations. First is the presence of comorbid back pain in this patient population. SF-36 bodily pain domain was designed for general bodily pain (e.g. back pain) as opposed to knee pain. Veerapen et al., found that back pain was more common than knee joint pain in Asian populations[27] and back pain was reported as a significant factor influencing post-TKR SF-36 bodily pain, vitality, and mental health scores[9]. This might be a possible reason why SF-36 bodily pain had demonstrated minimal improvement after surgery if back pain was a common comorbid condition for this patient population. However, the prevalence of back pain was not captured in the present study. It is thus suggested that the information be collected in future studies. Second is the difference in patient characteristics. The patients enrolled in previous studies were either younger[10] or older[9, 22], and with higher BMI[9, 10, 22]. Bugala-Szpak et al., found that BMI, rather than sex and age, had a significantly influence on post-TKR quality of life scores[17]. A large study is necessary to confirm this finding. Thirdly and importantly, ethnic differences in pain perception between Asian and Western populations might contribute to this discrepancy. Thus caution should be exercised when generalizing the results to other ethnic groups.

Social and mental health as measured by the SF-36 remained unchanged or even a little worse after surgery. Singer et al., suggested that there might be a strong psychological adjustment or adaptation to physical disability in the elderly[28]. Nevertheless, patients' social and mental health was still less satisfactory compared to the same age group of Asian populations[29]. Ayers et al., reported that poorer pre-TKR mental health might have a negative impact on the improvement of post-TKR physical functioning[30]. Escobar et al., also found that pre-TKR mental health was a significant factor predicting post-TKR physical functioning[9]. Some studies have demonstrated that social support might play an important role in moderating the effects of pain, physical disability, and depression in patients with OA[3136]. All these evidence may suggest that providing social and mental support to this patient population could be an important way of improving their quality of life in the long term.

The study had higher drop-out rates in following up the patients. A sensitivity analysis was conducted by calculating the mean of the outcome measures at each time point using all available measurements and comparing with those using completers only, and this made very little difference. General health of patients was worse at two-years than that at baseline. General health is also the only significant predictor for the missingness at two-years. This finding was not surprising as more than 80% of the patients were aged over 60 and 40% over 70. Although these patients might be seen in other departments later on, it would be difficult for them to come back to the orthopedic department to complete an additional examination two years after the surgery unless knee OA is getting worse.

In conclusion, both general and knee-specific physical functioning had been significantly improved after TKR, while other health domains remained unchanged after the surgery.


Authors’ Affiliations

Programs for Assessment of Technology in Health, St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton, Hamilton, L8P 1H1, Canada
Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, L8 S 4L8, Canada
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, 169608, Singapore
Centre for Evaluation of Medicine, St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton, Hamilton, L8N 1G6, Canada
Centre for Health Services Research, National University of Singapore, Singapore
Department of Community, Occupation, and Family Medicine, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, 119228, Singapore


  1. Corti MC, Rigon C: Epidemiology of osteoarthritis: prevalence, risk factors and functional impact. Aging Clin ExpRes 2003, 15: 359–363.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Callahan CM, Drake BG, Heck DA, Dittus RS: Patient outcomes following tricompartmental total knee replacement. A meta-analysis. JAMA 1994, 271: 1349–1357. 10.1001/jama.271.17.1349PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Direct and indirect costs of arthritis and other rheumatic conditions--United States, 1997. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2003, 52: 1124–1127.Google Scholar
  4. Dahaghin S, Bierma-Zeinstra SM, Ginai AZ, Pols HA, Hazes JM, Koes BW: Prevalence and pattern of radiographic hand osteoarthritis and association with pain and disability (the Rotterdam study). Ann Rheum Dis 2005, 64: 682–687. 10.1136/ard.2004.023564PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. De Filippis L, Gulli S, Caliri A, Romano C, Munao F, Trimarchi G, La Torre D, Fichera C, Pappalardo A, Triolo G, Gallo M, Valentini G: Epidemiology and risk factors in osteoarthritis: literature review data from "OASIS" study. Reumatismo 2004, 56: 169–184.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Buly RL, Sculco TP: Recent advances in total knee replacement surgery. Curr Opin Rheumatol 1995, 7: 107–113. 10.1097/00002281-199503000-00007PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Nunez M, Nunez E, Luis DV, Ortega R, Segur JM, Hernandez MV, Lozano L, Sastre S, Macule F: Health-related quality of life in patients with osteoarthritis after total knee replacement: Factors influencing outcomes at 36 months of follow-up. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2007, 15: 1001–1007. 10.1016/j.joca.2007.02.019PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Deehan DJ, Murray JD, Birdsall PD, Pinder IM: Quality of life after knee revision arthroplasty. Acta Orthop 2006, 77: 761–766. 10.1080/17453670610012953PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Escobar A, Quintana JM, Bilbao A, Azkarate J, Guenaga JI, Arenaza JC, Gutierrez LF: Effect of patient characteristics on reported outcomes after total knee replacement. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2007, 46: 112–119. 10.1093/rheumatology/kel184View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Shields RK, Enloe LJ, Leo KC: Health related quality of life in patients with total hip or knee replacement. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1999, 80: 572–579. 10.1016/S0003-9993(99)90202-2PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. van den Boom LG, Brouwer RW, van d A-SI, Bulstra SK, van Raaij JJ: Retention of the posterior cruciate ligament versus the posterior stabilized design in total knee arthroplasty: a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2009, 10: 119. 10.1186/1471-2474-10-119PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Krummenauer F, Wolf C, Gunther KP, Kirschner S: Clinical Benefit and Cost Effectiveness of Total Knee Arthroplasty in the Older Patient. Eur J Med Res 2009, 14: 76–84.PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Jolles BM, Bogoch ER: Quality of life after TKA for patients with juvenile rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2008, 466: 167–178. 10.1007/s11999-007-0010-9PubMed CentralPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Nunez M, Lozano L, Nunez E, Segur JM, Sastre S, Macule F, Ortega R, Suso S: Total knee replacement and health-related quality of life: factors influencing long-term outcomes. Arthritis Rheum 2009, 61: 1062–1069. 10.1002/art.24644PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Johnston L, MacLennan G, McCormack K, Ramsay C, Walker A: The Knee Arthroplasty Trial (KAT) design features, baseline characteristics, and two-year functional outcomes after alternative approaches to knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009, 91: 134–141. 10.2106/JBJS.H.01615PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Peterlein CD, Schofer MD, Fuchs-Winkelmann S, Scherf FG: Clinical outcome and quality of life after computer-assisted total knee arthroplasty: results from a prospective, single-surgeon study and review of the literature. Chir Organi Mov 2009, 93: 115–122.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Bugala-Szpak J, Kusz D, Dyner-Jama I: Early evaluation of quality of life and clinical parameters after total knee arthroplasty. Ortop Traumatol Rehabil 2010, 12: 41–49.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Rat AC, Guillemin F, Osnowycz G, Delagoutte JP, Cuny C, Mainard D, Baumann C: Total hip or knee replacement for osteoarthritis: mid- and long-term quality of life. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2010, 62: 54–62. 10.1002/acr.20014View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Anderson PA, Puschak TJ, Sasso RC: Comparison of short-term SF-36 results between total joint arthroplasty and cervical spine decompression and fusion or arthroplasty. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2009, 34: 176–183.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Singh JA, Sloan JA: Health-related quality of life in veterans with prevalent total knee arthroplasty and total hip arthroplasty. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2008, 47: 1826–1831. 10.1093/rheumatology/ken381View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Issa SN, Sharma L: Epidemiology of osteoarthritis: an update. Curr Rheumatol Rep 2006, 8: 7–15. 10.1007/s11926-006-0019-1PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Escobar A, Quintana JM, Bilbao A, Arostegui I, Lafuente I, Vidaurreta I: Responsiveness and clinically important differences for the WOMAC and SF-36 after total knee replacement. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2007, 15: 273–280. 10.1016/j.joca.2006.09.001PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Fayers PM, Machin D: Quality of life: Assessment, Analysis and Interpretation. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 2000.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Ware JE, Kosinski M, Dewey JE: How to score version 2 of the SF-36 Health Survey. Lincoln: QualityMetric Inc; 2000.Google Scholar
  25. Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN: Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1989, 248: 13–14.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Murray D, Carr A: Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1998, 80: 63–69. 10.1302/0301-620X.80B1.7859PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Veerapen K, Wigley RD, Valkenburg H: Musculoskeletal pain in Malaysia: a COPCORD survey. J Rheumatol 2007, 34: 207–213.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Singer MA, Hopman WM, MacKenzie TA: Physical functioning and mental health in patients with chronic medical conditions. Qual Life Res 1999, 8: 687–691. 10.1023/A:1008917016998PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Thumboo J, Chan SP, Machin D, Soh CH, Feng PH, Boey ML, Leong KH, Thio ST, Fong KY: Measuring health-related quality of life in Singapore: normal values for the English and Chinese SF-36 Health Survey. Ann Acad Med Singapore 2002, 31: 366–374.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Ayers DC, Franklin PD, Ploutz-Snyder R, Boisvert CB: Total knee replacement outcome and coexisting physical and emotional illness. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2005, 440: 157–161. 10.1097/01.blo.0000185447.43622.93PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Weinberger M, Tierney WM, Booher P, Hiner SL: Social support, stress and functional status in patients with osteoarthritis. Soc Sci Med 1990, 30: 503–508. 10.1016/0277-9536(90)90353-TPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  32. Weinberger M, Hiner SL, Tierney WM: Improving functional status in arthritis: the effect of social support. Soc Sci Med 1986, 23: 899–904. 10.1016/0277-9536(86)90218-2PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Blixen CE, Kippes C: Depression, social support, and quality of life in older adults with osteoarthritis. Image J Nurs Sch 1999, 31: 221–226. 10.1111/j.1547-5069.1999.tb00484.xPubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Sherman AM: Social relations and depressive symptoms in older adults with knee osteoarthritis. Soc Sci Med 2003, 56: 247–257. 10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00023-0PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Fitzgerald JD, Orav EJ, Lee TH, Marcantonio ER, Poss R, Goldman L, Mangione CM: Patient quality of life during the 12 months following joint replacement surgery. Arthritis Rheum 2004, 51: 100–109. 10.1002/art.20090PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Ethgen O, Vanparijs P, Delhalle S, Rosant S, Bruyere O, Reginster JY: Social support and health-related quality of life in hip and knee osteoarthritis. Qual Life Res 2004, 13: 321–330. 10.1023/B:QURE.0000018492.40262.d1PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar


© Xie et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2010

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.