DOS 2020

234 · DOS Abstracts Patient-Reported Outcomes of 7,133 Distal Femoral, Patellar, and Proximal Tibial Fracture Patients: A National Cross-Sectional Study with 1-, 3-, and 5-Year Follow-Up Veronique Vestergaard, Henrik Morville Schrøder, Kristoffer Borbjerg Hare, Peter Toquer, Anders Troelsen, Alma Becic Pedersen Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Copenhagen University Hospital Hvidovre; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Næstved Hospital; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Slagelse Hospital; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Køge Hospital; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Copenhagen University Hospital Hvidovre; Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Aarhus University Hospital Background: Few studies have described patient-reported outcomes (PROMs), prognoses and the current state of care of the knee fracture population. Studying risk factors of poor PROM scores is important in understanding the key drivers of poor outcome and in direct- ing future quality reported outcomes (PROMs), prognoses and the current state of care of the knee fracture population. Studying risk factors of poor PROM scores is important in understanding the key drivers of poor outcome and in directing future quality-improvement initiatives. Purpose / Aim of Study: 1) Report knee-specific and generic median PROM scores af- ter knee fracture. 2) Identify risk factors for poor outcome defined by low median PROM scores. Materials and Methods: In a Danish cross-sectional study of 7,133 distal femoral, patel- lar, and proximal tibial fracture patients during 2011-2017, OKS, FJS-12, EQ5D-5L Index and EQ5D-5L Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) were collected electronically via a national, CPR- linked digital mail system (response rate 53%; median age 60 years; 63% female). Poor outcome was defined as score lower than median PROM score. Poor outcome risk factors were estimated as odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals from binary logistic regression models. linked digital mail system (response rate 53%; median age 60 years; 63% female). Poor outcome was defined as score lower than median PROM score. Poor outcome risk factors were estimated as odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals from binary logistic regression models. Findings / Results: At 0-1 years after knee fracture, median PROM scores were 31 (OKS), 27 (FJS-12), 0.50 (EQ5D-5L Index) and 74 (EQ5D-5L VAS). All four PROM scores pla- teaued at 3-5 years after knee fracture. At >5 years after knee fracture, median PROM scores were 40 (OKS), 54 (FJS-12), 0.76 (EQ5D-5L Index) and 80 (EQ5D-5L VAS). Age >40 years was associated with poor OKS and FJS-12 scores at both short- and long-term follow-up after knee fracture. Comorbidity burden, distal femoral fracture and treatment with external fixation and knee arthroplasty were risk factors for poor outcome at long- term follow-up, for all four PROMs. Conclusions: Knee fracture patients have relatively high knee function and quality of life (OKS, EQ5D-5L Index and EQ5D-5L VAS), while their ability to forget about the knee joint after knee fracture is compromised (FJS-12). Risk factors for poor outcome vary depending on the PROM and follow-up period studied. This study will further research in ensuring high quality of care for all patient groups regardless of their associated patient-, fracture- and treatment-related factors and in informing patients on varying aspects of expected out- come after knee fracture, including the presented risk factors which modulate their out- come. 213.