Performance and Validity of Knee Function Assessment Tools After Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review

Global Journal of Orthopedics | Vol 1, Issue 1

Table 1. Functional Assessment Tools in Total KneeArthroplasty (TKA)

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