Defining the Minimal Clinically Important Difference for The knee Society Score Following Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty

Overview

Journal Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc

Publisher Wiley

Specialties Emergency Medicine
General Surgery
Orthopedics

Date 2021 Jun 12

PMID 34117505

Citations 3

Authors

Yong Zhi Khow

Ming Han Lincoln Liow

Graham S Goh

Jerry Yongqiang Chen

Ngai Nung Lo

Seng Jin Yeo

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: No previous study has evaluated the MCID for revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). This study aimed to identify the MCID for the Knee Society Score (KSS), for revision TKA.

Methods: Prospectively collected data from 270 patients who underwent revision TKA at a single institution was analysed. Clinical assessment was performed preoperatively, at 6 months and 2 years using Knee Society Function Score (KSFS) and Knee (KSKS) Scores, and Oxford Knee Score (OKS). MCID was evaluated with a three-pronged methodology, using (1) anchor-based method with linear regression, (2) anchor-based method with receiver operating characteristic (ROC) and area under curve (AUC), (3) distribution-based method with standard deviation (SD). The anchors used were improvement in OKS ≥ 5, patient satisfaction, and implant survivorship following revision TKA.

Results: The cohort comprised 70% females, with mean age of 69.0 years, that underwent unilateral revision TKA. The MCID determined by anchor-based linear regression method using OKS was 6.3 for KSFS, and 6.6 for KSKS. The MCID determined by anchor-based ROC was between 15 and 20 for KSFS (AUC: satisfaction = 71.8%, survivorship = 61.4%) and between 33 and 34 for KSKS (AUC: satisfaction = 76.3%, survivorship = 67.1%). The MCID determined by distribution-based method of 0.5 SD was 11.7 for KSFS and 11.9 for KSKS.

Conclusion: The MCID of 6.3 points for KSFS, and 6.6 points for KSKS, is a useful benchmark for future studies looking to compare revision against primary TKA outcomes. Clinically, the MCID between 15 and 20 for KSFS and between 33 and 34 for KSKS is a powerful tool for discriminating patients with successful outcomes after revision TKA. Implant survivorship is an objective and naturally dichotomous outcome measure that complements the subjective measure of patient satisfaction, which future MCID studies could consider utilizing as anchors in ROC.

Level Of Evidence: II.

Citing Articles

A Single Surgeon Experience of Selective Patellar Resurfacing During Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty.

Woelfle C, Cooper H Arthroplast Today. 2024; 30:101563.

PMID: 39634105 PMC: 11615874. DOI: 10.1016/j.artd.2024.101563.

Preoperative high-intensity strength training combined with balance training can improve early outcomes after total knee arthroplasty.

Sun J, Shan Y, Wu L, Li N, Xu F, Kong X J Orthop Surg Res. 2023; 18(1):692.

PMID: 37715204 PMC: 10504716. DOI: 10.1186/s13018-023-04197-3.

Acceptable migration of a fully cemented rotating hinge-type knee revision system measured in 20 patients with model-based RSA with a 2-year follow-up.

van Laarhoven S, Te Molder M, van Hellemondt G, Heesterbeek P Acta Orthop. 2023; 94:185-190.

PMID: 37096567 PMC: 10127004. DOI: 10.2340/17453674.2023.12305.

References

Angst F, Aeschlimann A, Angst J . The minimal clinically important difference raised the significance of outcome effects above the statistical level, with methodological implications for future studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016; 82:128-136. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.11.016. View

Anthoine E, Moret L, Regnault A, Sebille V, Hardouin J . Sample size used to validate a scale: a review of publications on newly-developed patient reported outcomes measures. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014; 12:176. PMC: 4275948. DOI: 10.1186/s12955-014-0176-2. View

Ares O, Castellet E, Macule F, Leon V, Montanez E, Freire A . Translation and validation of 'The Knee Society Clinical Rating System' into Spanish. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2013; 21(11):2618-24. DOI: 10.1007/s00167-013-2412-4. View

Baker P, Cowling P, Kurtz S, Jameson S, Gregg P, Deehan D . Reason for revision influences early patient outcomes after aseptic knee revision. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012; 470(8):2244-52. PMC: 3392406. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-012-2278-7. View

Baker P, van der Meulen J, Lewsey J, Gregg P . The role of pain and function in determining patient satisfaction after total knee replacement. Data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007; 89(7):893-900. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.89B7.19091. View

Beard D, Harris K, Dawson J, Doll H, Murray D, Carr A . Meaningful changes for the Oxford hip and knee scores after joint replacement surgery. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014; 68(1):73-9. PMC: 4270450. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.08.009. View

Bin Abd Razak H, Tan C, Chen Y, Pang H, Tay K, Chin P . Age and Preoperative Knee Society Score Are Significant Predictors of Outcomes Among Asians Following Total Knee Arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2016; 98(9):735-41. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.15.00280. View

Boelch S, Jakuscheit A, Doerries S, Fraissler L, Hoberg M, Arnholdt J . Periprosthetic infection is the major indication for TKA revision - experiences from a university referral arthroplasty center. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2018; 19(1):395. PMC: 6234791. DOI: 10.1186/s12891-018-2314-1. View

Bourne R, Chesworth B, Davis A, Mahomed N, Charron K . Patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty: who is satisfied and who is not?. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009; 468(1):57-63. PMC: 2795819. DOI: 10.1007/s11999-009-1119-9. View

10.

Celik D, Coban O, Kilicoglu O . Minimal clinically important difference of commonly used hip-, knee-, foot-, and ankle-specific questionnaires: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019; 113:44-57. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.04.017. View

11.

Chawla H, van der List J, Christ A, Sobrero M, Zuiderbaan H, Pearle A . Annual revision rates of partial versus total knee arthroplasty: A comparative meta-analysis. Knee. 2016; 24(2):179-190. DOI: 10.1016/j.knee.2016.11.006. View

12.

Chesworth B, Mahomed N, Bourne R, Davis A . Willingness to go through surgery again validated the WOMAC clinically important difference from THR/TKR surgery. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008; 61(9):907-18. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.10.014. View

13.

Choi H, Bedair H . Mortality following revision total knee arthroplasty: a matched cohort study of septic versus aseptic revisions. J Arthroplasty. 2014; 29(6):1216-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2013.11.026. View

14.

Clement N, MacDonald D, Simpson A . The minimal clinically important difference in the Oxford knee score and Short Form 12 score after total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2013; 22(8):1933-9. DOI: 10.1007/s00167-013-2776-5. View

15.

Clement N, Weir D, Holland J, Gerrand C, Deehan D . Meaningful changes in the Short Form 12 physical and mental summary scores after total knee arthroplasty. Knee. 2019; 26(4):861-868. DOI: 10.1016/j.knee.2019.04.018. View

16.

Copay A, Eyberg B, Chung A, Zurcher K, Chutkan N, Spangehl M . Minimum Clinically Important Difference: Current Trends in the Orthopaedic Literature, Part II: Lower Extremity: A Systematic Review. JBJS Rev. 2018; 6(9):e2. DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.RVW.17.00160. View

17.

Copay A, Subach B, Glassman S, Polly Jr D, Schuler T . Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods. Spine J. 2007; 7(5):541-6. DOI: 10.1016/j.spinee.2007.01.008. View

18.

Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Murray D, Carr A . Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1998; 80(1):63-9. DOI: 10.1302/0301-620x.80b1.7859. View

19.

Dowsey M, Choong P . The utility of outcome measures in total knee replacement surgery. Int J Rheumatol. 2013; 2013:506518. PMC: 3833283. DOI: 10.1155/2013/506518. View

20.

Goh G, Fillingham Y, Ong C, Krueger C, Courtney P, Hozack W . Redefining Indications for Modern Cementless Total Knee Arthroplasty: Clinical Outcomes and Survivorship in Patients >75 Years Old. J Arthroplasty. 2021; 37(3):476-481.e1. DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2021.11.031. View