Abstract
Only in the past decade has the routine use of outcome instruments been introduced into orthopedic practice. Early arthroplasty literature was dominated by actuarial survival analysis and the outcome instruments of Harris [1] and Charnley [2] hip scores. These latter two traditional approaches to outcome required both signs and symptoms to be measured, thus when regular follow-up was required, these instruments imposed a large burden on clinical and hence financial resources. The emphasis has now moved to the design of patient self-reporting questionnaires, which are much more practical to implement. This is a reasonable approach as a patient presents with symptoms and the “healing physician” is expected to relieve these symptoms.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
