{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.026845637583892617, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0028763183125599234, 'mean_word_length': 5.286144578313253, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Identification of Potentially High-risk Patients on the Basis of PROMs in a Certified Centre for Joint Replacement (EndoProthetikZentrum) Using the Example of Primary Knee Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND
The subjective evaluation of the patient's state of health with the help of Patient-reported Outcome Measurements (PROMs) provides valuable information for assessing the treatment outcome and for treatment planning. However, the use of PROMs in the field of arthroplasty is not mandatory, so that there is a lack of standardised recording and interpretation. The present study aims to identify patients, who have not achieved the intended treatment goals with regard to pain, function and quality of life after total knee arthroplasty, more easily in the future on the basis of postoperative PROMs.


MATERIAL AND METHODS
Data collection (for 3-month postoperative follow-up) included a standardised clinical follow-up (NU) and a questionnaire of different PROMs (Oxford Knee Score [OKS], OKS Pain Score [OKSS] and EndoCert Risk Score [ERS]). During the specialist follow-up examination, it was decided whether further medical therapy had to be initiated. Accordingly, patients were grouped into four post-treatment categories (NU not required/further diagnostics/new prescription/revision required).


RESULTS
For individual scores and questions, there were significant differences between the respective groups of consequences resulting from the follow-up examination. The OKS, OKS Pain Score and the ERS are suitable for detecting thresholds to determine the need for a follow-up examination. The postoperative thresholds of the scores are 24 for the OKS total score, 52 for the OKS pain score and 4 for the ERS pain intensity score.


CONCLUSION
In the initial three months after knee arthroplasty, certain PROMs are suitable for identifying patients for whom further diagnostics and therapy are indicated. In particular, the OKS and the pain intensity score of the ERS are suitable for detecting a potentially unfavourable development in rehabilitation after total knee arthroplasty.