Limitations of the Knee Society Score in evaluating outcomes following revision total knee arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND Traditionally, the results of revision total knee arthroplasty have been determined with use of surgeon-based measures such as the Knee Society rating system. Recently, outcome and quality-of-life measures have shifted toward a greater emphasis on patient-based evaluation. The aim of our study was to determine the validity and responsiveness of the Knee Society rating system compared with the Short Form-36 health survey (SF-36), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and a four-question 4-point Likert scale satisfaction questionnaire following revision total knee arthroplasty. METHODS A total of 152 patients underwent revision total knee arthroplasty at our institution, between August 2003 and January 2007, and had a two-year follow-up evaluation after revision surgery. The SF-36, WOMAC, Knee Society rating system, and satisfaction scores were completed preoperatively and postoperatively. Spearman correlation coefficients were calculated to determine the degree of correlation for each outcome scale. The SF-36, WOMAC, and patient satisfaction were correlated with the Knee Society rating system. RESULTS Both before and after surgery, the correlation among items of the Knee Society rating system displayed low to negligible levels of association. The Knee Society rating system pain score showed modest levels of convergent construct validity with the WOMAC and SF-36. However, the Knee Society functional score displayed negligible to low correlation with its WOMAC functional counterpart preoperatively. The Knee Society pain and functional scores, respectively, showed marked and moderate association with satisfaction. The change in the Knee Society pain and functional scores had moderate association with the SF-36 and WOMAC counterparts, except low correlation was displayed between the pain scores for the Knee Society rating system and the SF-36. The Knee Society rating system pain score was found to be the most responsive of the measures with a standardized response mean of 1.6, whereas the Knee Society rating system functional score was found to be the least responsive at 0.7. CONCLUSIONS Currently, there is no so-called gold standard that optimally reflects the status of the knee, as well as the patient, prior to and following revision total knee arthroplasty. Ideally, numerous assessment scales should be administered to the patient in order to accurately reflect the patient characteristics for the purpose of academic study, but from a practical standpoint, this may not be feasible. We encourage further research and development of a simple and concise standardized questionnaire for use before and after revision total knee arthroplasty.

[1]  Khaled J Saleh,et al.  Functional improvement after Total Knee Arthroplasty Revision: New observations on the dimensional nature of outcome , 2007, Journal of orthopaedic surgery and research.

[2]  E. Cook,et al.  The importance of patient expectations in predicting functional outcomes after total joint arthroplasty. , 2002, The Journal of rheumatology.

[3]  N. Jones,et al.  Testing the validity of the Euroqol and comparing it with the SF-36 health survey questionnaire , 1993, Quality of Life Research.

[4]  L. Dorr,et al.  Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. , 1989, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[5]  D. Dahm,et al.  Patient reported activity after revision total knee arthroplasty. , 2007, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[6]  Jane Barrett,et al.  Association of hospital and surgeon volume of total hip replacement with functional status and satisfaction three years following surgery. , 2003, Arthritis and rheumatism.

[7]  C. Sherbourne,et al.  The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) , 1992 .

[8]  C. Goldsmith,et al.  Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. , 1988, The Journal of rheumatology.

[9]  G. Bedi,et al.  Functional rating for knee arthroplasty: comparison of three scoring systems. , 2003, Orthopedics.

[10]  J. Larson.  The MOS 36-Item Short form Health Survey , 1997, Evaluation & the health professions.

[11]  Anastasia E. Raczek,et al.  The validity and relative precision of MOS short- and long-form health status scales and Dartmouth COOP charts. Results from the Medical Outcomes Study. , 1992, Medical care.

[12]  C. Rader,et al.  The need for a dual rating system in total knee arthroplasty. , 1997, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[13]  A. Tennant,et al.  Internal construct validity of the Oxford Knee Scale: evidence from Rasch measurement. , 2007, Arthritis and rheumatism.

[14]  M J Dunbar,et al.  Patient satisfaction compared with general health and disease-specific questionnaires in knee arthroplasty patients. , 2001, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[15]  P Tugwell,et al.  The MACTAR Patient Preference Disability Questionnaire--an individualized functional priority approach for assessing improvement in physical disability in clinical trials in rheumatoid arthritis. , 1987, The Journal of rheumatology.

[16]  R Y Liow,et al.  The reliability of the American Knee Society Score , 2000, Acta orthopaedica Scandinavica.

[17]  C. McHorney,et al.  Construction and validation of an alternate form general mental health scale for the Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 36-Item Health Survey. , 1995, Medical care.

[18]  T. Moilanen,et al.  Patient outcome following revision total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis , 2004, International Orthopaedics.

[19]  R L Wixson,et al.  Functional outcome and patient satisfaction in total knee patients over the age of 75. , 1996, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[20]  T. Mills,et al.  Measuring Health: A Guide to Rating Scales and Questionnaires , 2006 .

[21]  M. Liang,et al.  Comparisons of Five Health Status Instruments for Orthopedic Evaluation , 1990, Medical care.

[22]  J. E. Brazier,et al.  Validating the SF-36 health survey questionnaire: new outcome measure for primary care. , 1992, BMJ.

[23]  C. McHorney,et al.  The MOS 36‐Item Short‐Form Health Survey (SF‐36): II. Psychometric and Clinical Tests of Validity in Measuring Physical and Mental Health Constructs , 1993, Medical care.

[24]  C. Sledge,et al.  Patient expectations regarding total knee arthroplasty: differences among the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia. , 2006, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[25]  A Coulter,et al.  Short form 36 (SF36) health survey questionnaire: normative data for adults of working age. , 1993, BMJ.

[26]  C. Engh,et al.  Extensively porous-coated stems for femoral revision: a choice for all seasons. , 2007, The Journal of arthroplasty.

[27]  J. Callaghan,et al.  Functional Outcome After Revision Hip Arthroplasty: A Metaanalysis , 2003, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[28]  Rosalind J Wright,et al.  Validity and Responsiveness of the Knee Society Clinical Rating System in Comparisonwith the SF-36 and WOMAC , 2001, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[29]  C. McHorney,et al.  Evaluation of the MOS SF-36 Physical Functioning Scale (PF-10): II. Comparison of relative precision using Likert and Rasch scoring methods. , 1997, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[30]  G. Stucki,et al.  The factor subdimensions of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) help to specify hip and knee osteoarthritis. a prospective evaluation and validation study. , 2005, The Journal of rheumatology.

[31]  Victor Hugo Hernandez,et al.  The Increasing Financial Burden of Knee Revision Surgery in the United States , 2006, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[32]  P Shekelle,et al.  Differences between Patients' and Physicians' Evaluations of Outcome after Total Hip Arthroplasty* , 1996, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[33]  R. Barrack,et al.  Revision total hip arthroplasty. , 1982, AORN journal.

[34]  C. Sherbourne,et al.  The MOS 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): III. Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability across diverse patient groups. , 1994 .

[35]  H. Sintonen,et al.  Effectiveness of hip or knee replacement surgery in terms of quality-adjusted life years and costs , 2007, Acta orthopaedica.