Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) – validation and comparison to the WOMAC in total knee replacement

BackgroundThe Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) is an extension of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthrtis Index (WOMAC), the most commonly used outcome instrument for assessment of patient-relevant treatment effects in osteoarthritis. KOOS was developed for younger and/or more active patients with knee injury and knee osteoarthritis and has in previous studies on these groups been the more responsive instrument compared to the WOMAC. Some patients eligible for total knee replacement have expectations of more demanding physical functions than required for daily living. This encouraged us to study the use of the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) to assess the outcome of total knee replacement.MethodsWe studied the test-retest reliability, validity and responsiveness of the Swedish version LK 1.0 of the KOOS when used to prospectively evaluate the outcome of 105 patients (mean age 71.3, 66 women) after total knee replacement. The follow-up rates at 6 and 12 months were 92% and 86%, respectively.ResultsThe intraclass correlation coefficients were over 0.75 for all subscales indicating sufficient test-retest reliability. Bland-Altman plots confirmed this finding. Over 90% of the patients regarded improvement in the subscales Pain, Symptoms, Activities of Daily Living, and knee-related Quality of Life to be extremely or very important when deciding to have their knee operated on indicating good content validity. The correlations found in comparison to the SF-36 indicated the KOOS measured expected constructs. The most responsive subscale was knee-related Quality of Life. The effect sizes of the five KOOS subscales at 12 months ranged from 1.08 to 3.54 and for the WOMAC from 1.65 to 2.56.ConclusionThe Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) is a valid, reliable, and responsive outcome measure in total joint replacement. In comparison to the WOMAC, the KOOS improved validity and may be at least as responsive as the WOMAC.

[1]  J. Katz,et al.  Measuring relevant change: an emerging challenge in rheumatologic clinical trials. , 1995, Arthritis and rheumatism.

[2]  E. Roos,et al.  WOMAC Osteoarthritis Index--additional dimensions for use in subjects with post-traumatic osteoarthritis of the knee. Western Ontario and MacMaster Universities. , 1999, Osteoarthritis and cartilage.

[3]  J. Ware.  SF-36 health survey: Manual and interpretation guide , 2003 .

[4]  J. Lysholm,et al.  Rating systems in the evaluation of knee ligament injuries. , 1985, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[5]  K. Leo,et al.  Health related quality of life in patients with total hip or knee replacement. , 1999, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

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

[7]  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.

[8]  M H Liang,et al.  Comparative measurement efficiency and sensitivity of five health status instruments for arthritis research. , 1985, Arthritis and rheumatism.

[9]  S R Hinderer,et al.  Measurement standards for interdisciplinary medical rehabilitation. , 1992, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[10]  B. Beynnon,et al.  Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)--development of a self-administered outcome measure. , 1998, The Journal of orthopaedic and sports physical therapy.

[11]  D. Streiner,et al.  Health Measurement Scales: A practical guide to thier development and use , 1989 .

[12]  J M Bland,et al.  Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement , 1986 .

[13]  M. Snaith,et al.  Generic and condition-specific outcome measures for people with osteoarthritis of the knee. , 1999, Rheumatology.

[14]  Diane P. Martin,et al.  Comparison of the Musculoskeletal Function Assessment Questionnaire with the Short Form-36, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, and the Sickness Impact Profile Health-Status Measures* , 1997, The Journal of bone and joint surgery. American volume.

[15]  L. Ryd,et al.  Substantial disability 3 months after arthroscopic partial meniscectomy: A prospective study of patient-relevant outcomes. , 2000, Arthroscopy : the journal of arthroscopic & related surgery : official publication of the Arthroscopy Association of North America and the International Arthroscopy Association.

[16]  Lewis E. Kazis,et al.  Effect Sizes for Interpreting Changes in Health Status , 1989, Medical care.

[17]  L. Lynch,et al.  Effects of a milk-based bioactive micronutrient beverage on pain symptoms and activity of adults with osteoarthritis: a double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical evaluation. , 2002, Nutrition.

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

[19]  A. Nilsdotter,et al.  Age and waiting time as predictors of outcome after total hip replacement for osteoarthritis. , 2002, Rheumatology.

[20]  E. Roos,et al.  WOMAC osteoarthritis index. Reliability, validity, and responsiveness in patients with arthroscopically assessed osteoarthritis. Western Ontario and MacMaster Universities. , 1999, Scandinavian journal of rheumatology.

[21]  F R Noyes,et al.  Quantitative assessment of functional limitations in normal and anterior cruciate ligament-deficient knees. , 1990, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[22]  P. Tugwell,et al.  Recommendations for a core set of outcome measures for future phase III clinical trials in knee, hip, and hand osteoarthritis. Consensus development at OMERACT III. , 1997, The Journal of rheumatology.

[23]  Michael Dunbar,et al.  Patient satisfaction after knee arthroplasty: A report on 27,372 knees operated on between 1981 and 1995 in Sweden , 2000, Acta orthopaedica Scandinavica.

[24]  A. Kirkley,et al.  The Development and Evaluation of a Disease-Specific Quality of Life Measurement Tool for Shoulder Instability , 1998, The American journal of sports medicine.

[25]  Jon Karlsson,et al.  Validation of the Foot and Ankle Outcome Score for Ankle Ligament Reconstruction , 2001, Foot & ankle international.

[26]  C. Ekdahl,et al.  Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) ‐ validation of a Swedish version , 1998, Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports.

[27]  N. Bellamy.  Musculoskeletal Clinical Metrology , 1993 .

[28]  Jacob Cohen.  Statistical Power Analysis , 1992 .

[29]  G. Chard.  International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health , 2004 .

[30]  N. Bellamy,et al.  Minimal perceptible clinical improvement with the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index questionnaire and global assessments in patients with osteoarthritis. , 2000, The Journal of rheumatology.

[31]  E. Roos,et al.  Effectiveness and practice variation of rehabilitation after joint replacement. , 2003, Current opinion in rheumatology.