|
| Authors (Year) |
Assessment Tool / Scale |
Population Studied |
Main Findings |
|
|
| Leung et al. (2022) [1] |
WOMAC, SF-36 |
Patients >80 years |
PROMs effective in elderly TKA patients |
|
| Goh et al. (2022) [2] |
Functional scores |
Patients >75 years |
Age not a barrier to cementless TKA |
|
| Schwabe & Hannon (2022) [3] |
PROMs, KSS |
General TKA patients |
Cementless TKA shows good outcomes with PROMs |
|
| McInnis et al. (2003) [4] |
Clinical Evaluation |
Bilateral TKA patients |
Overview of bilateral TKA outcomes |
|
| Christensen et al. (2020) [5] |
Indication protocol + PROMs |
Noncemented TKA candidates |
Defines noncemented TKA indications |
|
| Brinkmann & Fitz (2021) [6] |
Custom protocols + PROMs |
Custom TKA patients |
Customized implants improve recovery |
|
| Van Manen et al. (2012) [7] |
Guidelines for OA |
OA patients pre-TKA |
Primary TKA indications guided by PROMs |
|
| Williams et al. (2010) [8] |
Technique-based |
General TKA population |
PROMs vary depending on surgical technique |
|
| Alsayed et al. (2021) [9] |
Overview |
TKA surgery candidates |
Broad review supports functional evaluation |
|
| Thomsen et al. (2016) [10] |
Registry Data |
Danish TKA population |
Functional outcomes crucial in rising TKA demand |
|
| Sabatini et al. (2021) [11] |
Biomechanical/Functional |
Patients with bicruciate-retaining prostheses |
Bicruciate-retaining improves proprioception |
|
| Tateishi (2001) [12] |
Expert Review |
General clinical TKA population |
Early evidence supporting prosthesis selection |
|
| Saragaglia et al. (2019) [13] |
Biomechanical Analysis |
Patients receiving bicruciate implants |
Improved function with bicruciate-retaining designs |
|
| Lizcano et al. (2024) [14] |
PROMs + implant design |
Complex and revision TKA cases |
Metaphyseal cones effective in complex TKA |
|
| Barnoud et al. (2021) [15] |
PROMs in revision |
Patients undergoing revision TKA |
Rotating hinge more effective than constrained |
|
| Salimy et al. (2024) [16] |
PROMs (revisions) |
Revision TKA patients |
Revisions linked to worse functional reports |
|
| Gademan et al. (2016) [17] |
PROMs in OA indications |
OA patients indicated for TKA |
PROMs support consistent TKA indication |
|
| Pulido et al. (2015) [18] |
WOMAC, KSS |
Primary TKA patients |
Comparable results for cemented and uncemented TKA |
|
| Hannon et al. (2021) [19] |
Revision PROMs |
Patients with trabecular metal implants |
Good outcomes with trabecular metal implants |
|
| Mancuso et al. (1996) [20] |
Orthopedic Survey |
Orthopedic surgeons (survey) |
High variation in TKA indications |
|
| Cross et al. (2006) [21] |
PROMs use consensus |
Orthopedic professionals |
Lack of agreement on TKA criteria |
|
| Austin et al. (2020a) [22] |
SANE |
Postoperative TKA patients |
Valid single-item outcome measure |
|
| Austin et al. (2020b) [23] |
SANE vs PROMs |
Postoperative TKA patients |
Comparable to KOOS, IKDC, SF-36 |
|
| Austin et al. (2020c) [24] |
SANE responsiveness |
Postoperative TKA patients |
Sensitive to clinical improvement |
|
| Florescu et al. (2020) [25] |
Comparative PROMs |
General orthopedic population |
Validates role of PROMs in TKA |
|
| Nazari et al. (2020) [26] |
SANE review |
Patients with joint conditions |
High psychometric validity |
|
| O'Connor et al. (2019) [27] |
SANE vs KOOS, IKDC |
TKA patients |
Strong correlation with validated scales |
|
| Smith et al. (2022) [28] |
PROM reliability |
Orthopedic PROM datasets |
High consistency in PROM application |
|
| Torchia et al. (2020) [29] |
PROMs efficiency |
Orthopedic clinical cohort |
Efficient and patient-friendly PROM |
|
| Winterstein et al. (2013) [30] |
IKDC vs SANE |
Active patients post-TKA |
Comparable in active populations |
|
| Silva Filho et al. (2025) [31] |
SANE (Brazilian validation) |
Brazilian TKA patients |
High internal consistency and validity in TKA |
|
