Abstract
Background
Although total knee replacement (TKR) is an effective intervention for end-stage arthritis of the knee, a significant number of patients remain dissatisfied following this procedure. Our aim was to identify and assess the factors affecting patient satisfaction following a TKR.
Materials and methods
In accordance with the PRISMA guidelines, two reviewers searched the online databases for literature describing factors affecting patient satisfaction following a TKR. The research question and eligibility criteria were established a priori. Any clinical outcome study that described factors relating to overall satisfaction after primary TKR was included. Quality assessment for the included studies was performed by two accredited orthopaedic surgeons experienced in clinical research.
Results
The systematic review identified 181 relevant articles in total. A history of mental health problems was the most frequently reported factor affecting patient satisfaction (13 reportings). When the results of the quality assessment were taken into consideration, a negative history of mental health problems, use of a mobile-bearing insert, patellar resurfacing, severe pre-operative radiological degenerative change, negative history of low back pain, no/less post-operative pain, good post-operative physical function and pre-operative expectations being met were considered to be important factors leading to better patient satisfaction following a TKR.
Conclusion
Surgeons performing a TKR should take these factors into consideration prior to deciding whether a patient is suitable for a TKR. Secondarily, a detailed explanation of these factors should form part of the process of informed consent to achieve better patient satisfaction following TKR. There is a great need for a unified approach to assessing satisfaction following a TKR and also the time at which satisfaction is assessed.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Total knee replacement (TKR) is one of the most effective surgical interventions for relief of pain and functional recovery in patients with advanced osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. Management of OA costs the UK economy equivalent to 1% of its gross national product per year [1]. In the USA, the annual number of TKRs has been projected to rise by over 670% to 3.48 million cases by 2030 [2]. Outcomes of TKR are traditionally assessed by survival analysis with revision as the end point, and technical outcomes of this intervention are excellent. According to the UK National Joint Registry (NJR) annual report, the survival rate has been reported to be over 99.5% after one year and 95.6% at ten years [3].
A revision TKR is most commonly performed for loosening, fracture or infection. However, survival analysis tends to underestimate poor function, pain or dissatisfaction because these problems do not necessarily lead to a revision and are not recorded in the registry. Another issue is that reporting of the outcome of a TKR has predominantly been based on surgeon-derived outcome measures, which include range of movement (ROM), joint stability and post-operative alignment [4,5,6]. However, a report identified a poor correlation between surgeon-derived and patient-reported outcomes, with surgeons overestimating outcomes in comparison with the patients’ [7]. This correlates well with the fact that a significant number of patients experience continual pain and functional disability and therefore remain dissatisfied following the procedure [8,9,10].
In the largest ever reported series on satisfaction following a TKR, which included a survey of 27,372 patients, 17% of the unrevised patients were either dissatisfied or uncertain regarding their outcome [11]. Baker et al. [12] also reviewed the data from the NJR in the UK and reported that 71% of the patients experienced improvement of knee symptoms, but only 22% of them rated the results as excellent. Therefore, although the surgeon-reported outcomes may be good and the patient has no indication for a revision, they may still be dissatisfied following their index TKR. This may be due to a multitude of reasons, but to the best of our knowledge, there has been no systematic review which has specifically focused on the factors that affect patient satisfaction following a TKR. The aim of this systematic review, therefore, was to identify and assess the factors affecting patient satisfaction following a TKR.
Methods
The protocol of this systematic review was developed and has been registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO 2017 CRD42017084659). The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used for designing this study [13].
Search strategy
Two accredited orthopaedic surgeons experienced in clinical research searched the online database Medline, Embase, BNI, AMED, Cochrane and Google Scholar for literature relating to satisfaction following a TKR. The PICO (participants, interventions, comparators, outcomes) tool was adopted and modified to formulate the research question and establish the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Selected articles were then exported to Mendeley reference manager software to organise screen and select articles.
Study screening and selection
Clinical outcome studies that described the factors relating to the overall or general satisfaction/dissatisfaction following a primary TKR irrespective of any pathology were included. The inclusion and exclusion criteria are described in Table 1. Any discrepancies at the title and abstract revision stage were resolved by automatic inclusion to ensure thoroughness. Any discrepancies at the full-text stage were resolved by consensus between the two reviewers. If a consensus could not be reached, a third, more senior reviewer was consulted to resolve the discrepancy.
Data extraction and analysis
The two reviewers independently extracted relevant study data from the final pool of included articles and recorded this data on a spreadsheet designed a priori in Microsoft Excel 2013 (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA). The quality of studies including bias was then analysed and assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist (JBICAC) for cohort studies, case–control studies, cross-sectional studies and case series [14]. For RCTs, a modified version of critical appraisal checklist by van Tulder et al. was used [15].
Statistical methods
Statistical analysis in this study focused on descriptive statistics. After assessing the quality of each study, the score was converted into a percentage from the full score (%), which was then considered to be the ‘strength’ of that particular study. Microsoft Excel 2013 was used for our analysis in reporting the factors affecting patient satisfaction following a TKR, based on the strength of studies as per the type of evidence. The potential factors were then categorised into seven groups designed from the findings of the studies included. The strength of each factor was presented, regardless of whether it was a FACTOR (‘it is a factor for patient satisfaction’) or a Not-FACTOR (‘it is a factor which does NOT relate to patient satisfaction’—in other words, ‘researcher X found Factor Z was irrelevant to patient satisfaction’).
Details are described in Electronic Supplementary Material 1 and Table 2.
Results
A total of 5635 articles were found following the initial search of the electronic databases and citation tracking, followed by removing 2424 duplicate articles. After review by title and abstract, 2977 articles were excluded and 234 potential articles remained for a full-text review. After application of the inclusion and exclusion criteria, a further 53 articles were discarded, leaving 181 relevant articles for the final inclusion, analysis and assessment. The study finally included 40 RCTs (22.1%), 93 cohort studies (51.4%), nine case–control studies (5.0%), 37 cross-sectional studies (20.4%) and 2 case series (1.1%) (Electronic Supplementary Material 2). Flowchart for the review is shown in Fig. 1 and the details of all the 181 studies are shown in Table 3. A total of 22 authors were found to have written several papers. To ensure that duplicate numbers were not included in our analysis, we contacted all these authors and reminder emails were sent as well to ensure a reply. Only five authors replied back with no overlap in their studies, three authors said that there was an overlap and 14 did not reply back. Those who did not reply back were treated as if it was an overlap and, thus, not considered. Due to the lack of homogeneity between studies, a meta-analysis was deemed unsuitable for this study.
From all these studies, we found 98 factors, which could potentially affect patient satisfaction and these were then categorised into seven groups as follows:
-
1.
Patient demographics
-
2.
Non-knee factors
-
3.
Knee factors
-
4.
Factors relating to implants/prostheses
-
5.
Intra-operative technical factors
-
6.
Post-operative outcome factors
-
7.
Surgeon and healthcare factors
All the 98 factors as well as scales/scores which were reported to relate to patient satisfaction are summarised in Table 4. Details of the results in each group are described in Electronic Supplementary Material 3. The number of reportings for each group is presented in Fig. 2, and the methods used to measure satisfaction are shown in Table 5.
The quality of all the 181 studies was assessed and the results are shown in Tables 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10. The strength of each factor was described using the sum of percentage in each type of study (RCT, cohort study, case–control study, cross-sectional study and case series) (Fig. 3). RCTs were considered to be the strongest (deep colour in Fig. 3) and this was followed by cohort study, case–control study and cross-sectional study, respectively. Case series was considered to be the weakest (light colour in Fig. 3).
When the results of the quality assessment were taken into consideration, a negative history of mental health problems, use of a mobile-bearing insert, patellar resurfacing, severe pre-operative radiological degenerative change, negative history of low back pain, no/less post-operative pain, good post-operative physical function and pre-operative expectations being met were considered to be important factors. Significant factors affecting patient satisfaction are summarised in Tables 11, 12 and 13.
Discussion
The dissatisfaction rate following a TKR remains around 20% and is a constant source of frustration for the patient and the surgeon [11, 12]. Our study has systematically reviewed all the articles looking at satisfaction following a TKR to determine the factors, which could be responsible for this issue. Several factors were deemed to be important in affecting patient satisfaction based on the number of studies in which they were reported as well as the results of the quality assessment of the study (Tables 11, 12 and 13).
Negative history of mental health problems
A negative history of mental health problems was the most frequently reported factor affecting patient satisfaction (Table 11) and also scored the highest sum of percentage of FACTOR based on the quality assessment for RCT + cohort study (± case–control study ± cross-sectional study ± case series study) (Table 12). In addition, it was ranked first in terms of the highest sum of percentage of FACTOR and Not-FACTOR based on the quality assessment for all types of the studies (Table 13). Depressive symptoms and anxiety were reported to be predictive of long-term pain and functional impairment as measured by the Knee Society Score in 83 patients at 5 years [16]. In addition, it was reported that pre-operative anxiety/depression is an independent risk for severe post-operative pain and may explain as to why there is a subset of patients with unexplained pain after surgery [17]. Moreover, Macleod et al. report that patients with mental disability suffered a greater level of comorbidity and were socially deprived, which is also related to poorer physical health which then has an impact on satisfaction [18]. Finally, another study reported that patients with poor mental health, which can impair coping mechanisms for pain, might present with less severe disease, and this could also influence their satisfaction [19].
Use of a mobile-bearing insert
The use of a mobile-bearing insert had the highest sum of percentage of FACTOR based on the quality assessment for RCTs. Also, it had the second highest sum of percentage of FACTOR based on the quality assessment for RCT + cohort study (± case–control study) (Table 12). The rationale behind the design of a mobile-bearing insert is to solve the kinematic conflict between low-stress articulation and free axial femoral–tibial rotation by allowing rotation of a highly conforming polyethylene insert [20]. Theoretically, the design of the mobile-bearing insert could lead to better ROM especially during flexion [21]. A greater loss of flexion was reported after 12 months in patients with a TKR with a fixed-bearing prosthesis in comparison with a mobile-bearing prosthesis [22]. It is quite intuitive to comprehend that a good post-operative ROM relates to patient satisfaction, and our results support this (improvement in ROM was the 4th most frequently reported factor for patient satisfaction). Kim et al. suspect the low constraint of mobile-bearing insert may restore normal kinematics of the knee and it contributes to favourable clinical outcomes compared with a fixed-bearing insert [23]. Price et al. in a prospective multicentre trial of 39 simultaneous bilateral procedures also found that patients with a mobile-bearing insert had significantly better clinical results than patients with a fixed-bearing insert [21].
Patellar resurfacing
Patellar resurfacing has the second highest sum of percentage of FACTOR based on the quality assessment for RCTs (Table 12). Four studies showed patients with patella resurfacing were more satisfied than those without it [11, 24,25,26]. Amongst them, one study focused on only knees with no exposed bone on the undersurface of the patella to determine the potential advantages of leaving the patella non-resurfaced [25]. Dissatisfaction in patella non-resurfaced patients may be due to the higher rate of post-operative anterior knee pain, and patients whose patella was not resurfaced at the index TKR tended to have a higher revision rate as well [25,26,27,28]. However, it should be noted that this issue may be strongly related to the design of the implant. There have also been abundant literature that showed that the patellofemoral design in TKR is critical and can vary the forces on the patellofemoral joint as well as patellofemoral tracking [29,30,31]. Two of the 4 studies relate to a specific prosthesis (PFC) which is notoriously patella unfriendly [25, 26], so this relationship may therefore not necessarily hold true for the newer implants with patella-friendly designs.
Severe pre-operative radiological degenerative change
Severe pre-operative radiological degenerative change has the fifth highest sum of percentage of FACTOR and Not-FACTOR based on the quality assessment for all types of studies (Table 13). Although the classic indication for replacing a patient’s knee is end-stage arthritis (Kellgren–Lawrence grade IV [32]), there are a number of patients who have a TKR much before grade IV radiological changes have set in and it is dependent on the symptoms of the patient. The individual indication is complex and involves multiple factors [33]. Patients with mild pre-operative OA were reported to have a worse prognosis in improvement in physical functioning [34, 35], and therefore, it is difficult to meet their expectations post-operatively [35]. These effects are more noticeable in patients undergoing a TKR as compared with those who have had a THR [34]. The knee is a complex joint and the biomechanics of this joint are much more difficult to replicate with a prosthetic knee as compared with a prosthetic hip which may partly explain a smaller increase in physical functioning and a poor rate of satisfaction in patients with mild OA having a TKR [36].
No low back pain
No low back pain has the sixth highest sum of percentage of FACTOR and Not-FACTOR based on the quality assessment for all types of the studies (Table 13). The prevalence of chronic low back pain in the UK has been reported to range from 6 to 11% [29], and this is increased to 55% in patients with OA of the knee [30]. Furthermore, low back pain has been demonstrated to be three to four times more likely to be present in patients with a history of depression [37]. Also, patients with chronic low back pain have a higher rate of musculoskeletal and neuropathic pain conditions, depression, anxiety and sleep disorders [31]. In addition, patients with low back pain reported to have more symptoms from their osteoarthritic knee which may suggest a lower threshold for pain in this cohort leading to dissatisfaction [30].
Normal BMI
Normal BMI was the fifth most frequently reported factor for patient satisfaction (Table 11). BMI greater than 30 kg/m2 was reported to be associated with a higher rate of revision and poorer functional outcomes as well which again contributes to dissatisfaction [38]. In addition, morbidly obese patients are likely to suffer from wound problems, ligament injuries and infections peri-operatively which lead to dissatisfaction [22]. Another study showed that despite lower pre- and post-operative WOMAC and SF-36 scores, obese patients experienced similar improvements compared with non-obese patients, although levels of satisfaction in the obese group were lower than those in the non-obese group [39]. The authors stated that one explanation for this might be that satisfaction was more closely associated with the absolute post-operative functional level rather than the magnitude of any improvement, as the rate of satisfaction mirrored absolute values of post-operative WOMAC and SF-36 scores.
Other factors
Other than factors discussed in the previous section, no/less post-operative pain, good post-operative physical function, improvement in ROM and pre-operative expectations being met were considered to be important for patient satisfaction based on the number of reportings and the results of quality assessment (Tables 11, 12 and 13). TKR is a painful procedure and it does take at least six to 12 months to get the maximum benefit from this procedure [40], and therefore, setting realistic expectations with the patient in the pre-operative clinic is essential to avoid dissatisfaction.
Limitations and strengths of the study
Our study has several limitations. Firstly, the method of measuring satisfaction is different in each study, and therefore, a uniform way of assessing satisfaction is essential for the orthopaedic community. Secondly, the timing of assessment of satisfaction after the index TKR varied amongst studies and this again requires standardisation. Thirdly, in many of the studies included in this review, the authors have only focused on one factor and the mutual or overall effect of multiple factors was not assessed. Fourthly, no statistical tests of intra-class correlation coefficients, inter-rater reliability and heterogeneity amongst the studies were performed in this systematic review. Finally, there are several studies in which patients are duplicated amongst studies and our review was limited to publications in English, so there is a possibility of publication bias.
However, despite all these limitations, the main strength of this study lies in its broad and comprehensive initial literature search as well as complete and in-depth quality assessment for each study and the factors. We have determined all the factors which could potentially affect patient satisfaction following a TKR which have been reported in the literature thus far.
Conclusion
No history of mental health problems, use of a mobile bearing insert, patellar resurfacing, severe pre-operative radiological degenerative change, no low back pain, normal BMI, no/less post-operative pain, good physical function post-operatively, improvement in ROM and pre-operative expectations being met were considered to be significant factors leading to better patient satisfaction following a TKR.
Surgeons performing a TKR should take these factors into consideration prior to deciding whether a patient is suitable for a TKR. Secondarily, a detailed explanation of these factors should form part of the process of informed consent to achieve better patient satisfaction following TKR.
There is great need for a unified approach to assessing satisfaction following a TKR and also the time at which satisfaction is assessed.
Moreover, further studies and ideally larger RCTs focusing on each of these factors are required to determine the exact correlation of these factors with satisfaction.
References
NICE report: Osteoarthritis: the care and management of osteoarthritis. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg177/resources/osteoarthritis-care-and-management-pdf-35109757272517. (date last accessed 16 Dec 2018)
Kurtz S, Ong K, Lau E, Mowat F, Halpern M (2007) Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am 89(4):780–785
NJR Annual reports 2016. http://www.njrcentre.org.uk/njrcentre/Reports,PublicationsandMinutes/Annualreports/tabid/86/Default.aspx (date last accessed 16 Dec 2018)
Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN (1989) Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 248:13–14
Hakim J, Volpin G, Amashah M, Alkeesh F, Khamaisy S, Cohen M, Ownallah J (2019) Long-term outcome of total knee arthroplasty in patients with morbid obesity. Int Orthop
Cho KJ, Seon JK, Jang WY, Park CG, Song EK (2019) Robotic versus conventional primary total knee arthroplasty: clinical and radiological long-term results with a minimum follow-up of ten years. Int Orthop 43(6):1345–1354
Bullens PHJ, Van Loon CJM, De Waal Malefijt MC, Laan RFJM, Veth RPH (2001) Patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty: a comparison between subjective and objective outcome assessments. J Arthroplast 16(6):740–747
Hawker GA (2006) Who, when, and why total joint replacement surgery? The patientʼs perspective. Curr Opin Intern Med 5(6):639–643
Peersman G, Verhaegen J, Favier B (2019) The forgotten joint score in total and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: a prospective cohort study. Int Orthop
Sugita T, Miyatake N, Aizawa T, Sasaki A, Kamimura M, Takahashi A (2018) Quality of life after staged bilateral total knee arthroplasty: a minimum five-year follow-up study of seventy-eight patients. Int Orthop
Robertsson O, Dunbar M, Pehrsson T, Knutson K, Lidgren L (2000) Patient satisfaction after knee arthroplasty: a report on 27,372 knees operated on between 1981 and 1995 in Sweden. Acta Orthop Scand 71(3):262–267
Baker PN, Rushton S, Jameson SS, Reed M, Gregg P, Deehan DJ (2013) Patient satisfaction with total knee replacement cannot be predicted from pre-operative variables alone: a cohort study from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Bone Joint J 95B(10):1359–1365
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2009) Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 6(7):e1000097
JBI JBI-CAT. Critical appraisal tools. http://joannabriggs.org/research/critical-appraisal-tools.html (date last accessed 16 Dec 2018)
van Tulder M, Furlan A, Bombardier C, Bouter L (2003) Updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28(12):1290–1299
Brander V, Gondek S, Martin E, Stulberg SD (2007) Pain and depression influence outcome 5 years after knee replacement surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res 464:21–26
Bonnin MP, Basiglini L, Archbold HA (2011) What are the factors of residual pain after uncomplicated TKA? Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 19(9):1411–1417
Macleod U, Mitchell E, Black M, Spence G (2004) Comorbidity and socioeconomic deprivation: an observational study of the prevalence of comorbidity in general practice. Eur J Gen Pract 10(1):24–26
Verra ML, Angst F, Staal JB et al (2011) Differences in pain, function and coping in Multidimensional Pain Inventory subgroups of chronic back pain: a one-group pretest-posttest study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 12:145
Carothers JT, Kim RH, Dennis DA et al (2011) Mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis. J Arthroplast 26(4):537–542
Price AJ, Rees JL, Beard D et al (2003) A mobile-bearing total knee prosthesis compared with a fixed-bearing prosthesis: a multicentre single-blind randomised controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 85-B:62–67
Shakespeare D, Kinzel V, Ledger M (2005) Achieving ligament stability and correct rotational alignment of the femur in knee arthroplasty: a study using the Medial Pivot knee. Knee 12:419–423
Kim YH, Yoon SH, Kim JS (2009) Early outcome of TKA with a medial pivot fixed-bearing prosthesis is worse than with a PFC mobile-bearing prosthesis. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467(2):493–503
Mayman D, Bourne RB, Rorabeck CH, Vaz M, Kramer J (2003) Resurfacing versus not resurfacing the patella in total knee arthroplasty: 8- to 10-year results. J Arthroplast 18:541–545
Roberts DW, Hayes TD, Tate CT, Lesko JP (2015) Selective patellar resurfacing in total knee arthroplasty: a prospective, randomized, double-blind study. J Arthroplast 30(2):216–222
Waters TS, Bentley G (2003) Patellar resurfacing in total knee arthroplasty. A prospective, randomized study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 85–A(2):212–217
Burnett RS, Haydon CM, Rorabeck CH, Bourne RB (2004) The John Insall Award : patella resurfacing versus nonresurfacing in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 428:12–25
Burnett RSJ, Boone JL, Rosenzweig SD, Steger-May K, Barrack RL (2009) Patellar resurfacing compared with nonresurfacing in total knee arthroplasty: a concise follow-up of a randomized trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am 91(11):2562–2567
Tanzer M, McLean CA, Laxer E et al (2001) Effect of femoral component designs on the contact and tracking characteristics of the unresurfaced patella in total knee arthroplasty. Can J Surg 44:127–133
Benjamin JB, Szivek JA, Hammond AS et al (1998) Contact areas and pressures between native patellas and prosthetic femoral components. J Arthroplast 13:693–698
Andriacchi TP, Yoder D, Conley A et al (1997) Patellofemoral design influences function following total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 12:243–249
Kellgren JH, Lawrence JS (1957) Radiological assessment of osteoarthrosis. Ann Rheum Dis 16(4):494–502
Riddle DL, Jiranek WA, Neff RS, Whitaker D, Hull JR (2012) Extent of tibiofemoral osteoarthritis before knee arthroplasty: multicenter data from the osteoarthritis initiative. Clin Orthop Relat Res 470(10):2836–2842
Keurentjes JC, Fiocco M, So-Osman C et al (2013) Patients with severe radiographic osteoarthritis have a better prognosis in physical functioning after hip and knee replacement: a cohort-study. PLoS One 8(4):e59500
Meding JB, Ritter MA, Faris PM, Keating EM, Harris W (2001) Does the preoperative radiographic degree of osteoarthritis correlate to results in primary total knee arthroplasty? J Arthroplast 16(1):13–16
Wolterbeek N, Garling EH, Mertens BJ, Nelissen RG, Valstar ER (2012) Kinematics and early migration in single-radius mobile- and fixed-bearing total knee prostheses. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 27(4):398–402
Clement ND, MacDonald D, Simpson AHRW, Burnett R (2013) Total knee replacement in patients with concomitant back pain results in a worse functional outcome and a lower rate of satisfaction. Bone Joint J 95-B(12):1632–1639
Singh JA, O'Byrne M, Harmsen S, Lewallen D (2010) Predictors of moderate-severe functional limitation after primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA): 4701 TKAs at 2-years and 2935 TKAs at 5-years. Osteoarthr Cartil 18(4):515–521
Baker P, Muthumayandi K, Gerrand C, Kleim B, Bettinson K, Deehan D (2013) Influence of body mass index (BMI) on functional improvements at 3 years following total knee replacement: a retrospective cohort study. PLoS One 8(3):e59079
Dailiana ZH, Papakostidou I, Varitimidis S et al (2015) Patient-reported quality of life after primary major joint arthroplasty: a prospective comparison of hip and knee arthroplasty. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 16:366
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Nakano, N., Shoman, H., Olavarria, F. et al. Why are patients dissatisfied following a total knee replacement? A systematic review. International Orthopaedics (SICOT) 44, 1971–2007 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-020-04607-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-020-04607-9