Metabolic syndrome and patient-reported outcome two years after hip and knee arthroplasty

Aims The influence of metabolic syndrome (MetS) on the outcome after hip and knee arthroplasty is debated. We aimed to investigate the change in patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) scores after hip and knee arthroplasty, comparing patients with and without MetS. Methods From 1 May 2017 to 30 November 2019, a prospective cohort of 2,586 patients undergoing elective unilateral hip and knee arthroplasty was established in Denmark. Data from national registries and a local database were used to determine the presence of MetS. Patients’ scores on Oxford Hip Score (OHS) or Oxford Knee Score (OKS), EuroQol five-dimension five-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L), University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Activity Scale, and Forgotten Joint Score (FJS) at baseline, three, 12, and 24 months after surgery were collected. Primary outcome was the difference between groups from baseline to 12 months in OHS and OKS. Secondary outcomes were scores of OHS and OKS at three and 24 months and EQ-5D-5L, UCLA Activity Scale, and FJS at three, 12, and 24 months after surgery. Generalized linear mixed model was applied, adjusting for age, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and smoking to present marginal mean and associated 95% CIs. Results A total of 62.3% (1,611/2,586) of the cohort met the criteria for MetS. Both groups showed similar increase in mean OHS (MetS group 22.5 (95% CI 21.8 to 23.1), non-MetS group 22.1 (21.3 to 22.8); p = 0.477) and mean OKS (MetS group 18.0 (17.4 to 18.6), non-MetS group 17.8 (17.0 to 18.7); p = 0.722) at 12 months' follow-up. Between groups, similar improvements were seen for OHS and OKS at three and 24 months postoperatively and for the mean EQ-5D-5L, EuroQol-visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS), UCLA Activity Scale, and FJS at every timepoint. Conclusion Patients meeting the criteria for MetS obtain the same improvement in PROM scores as individuals without MetS up to 24 months after hip and knee arthroplasty. This is important for the clinician to take into account when assessing and advising patients with MetS. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(10):1074–1083.