Amy K Steinhoff1, William D Bugbee2. 1. Kaiser Permanente Orthopedics, San Marcos Outpatient Medical Center, 400 Craven Rd, San Marcos, CA, 92078, USA. 2. Division of Orthopaedic Surgery, Scripps Clinic, 10666 North Torrey Pines Road, MS 116, La Jolla, CA, 92037, USA. Bugbee.William@scrippshealth.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the following subjective scoring instruments: the Knee Society Function (KS-F) Score and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) in patients who underwent total knee arthroplasty (TKA) by assessing standard metrics related to the utility of each instrument, including responsiveness, ceiling effect, and distribution of scores. METHODS: Patients undergoing TKA for osteoarthritis (n = 82) were evaluated pre-operatively and post-operatively at a median time of 1 year (range 0.7-3.6 years) using the KS-F score and KOOS. Responsiveness, the ability of a tool to measure change over time, was evaluated by computing the standardized response mean. Ceiling effects were determined by calculating the percentage of patients who attained the best-possible score. RESULTS: The KOOS scale had higher standardized response mean than KS-F scale in the majority of subsections (except sports and recreation). The KOOS had a lower ceiling effect in the majority of subsections (except pain) and was significantly lower on the symptoms and quality of life subscales (both p < 0.05). Scores were not normally distributed for either KS-F or KOOS scales. CONCLUSIONS: Since the KOOS scale had a higher responsiveness and a lower ceiling effect, it appears to be a superior outcome tool versus the KS-F scale when evaluating the outcomes of TKA patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic Study, Level I.
PURPOSE: To compare the following subjective scoring instruments: the Knee Society Function (KS-F) Score and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) in patients who underwent total knee arthroplasty (TKA) by assessing standard metrics related to the utility of each instrument, including responsiveness, ceiling effect, and distribution of scores. METHODS:Patients undergoing TKA for osteoarthritis (n = 82) were evaluated pre-operatively and post-operatively at a median time of 1 year (range 0.7-3.6 years) using the KS-F score and KOOS. Responsiveness, the ability of a tool to measure change over time, was evaluated by computing the standardized response mean. Ceiling effects were determined by calculating the percentage of patients who attained the best-possible score. RESULTS: The KOOS scale had higher standardized response mean than KS-F scale in the majority of subsections (except sports and recreation). The KOOS had a lower ceiling effect in the majority of subsections (except pain) and was significantly lower on the symptoms and quality of life subscales (both p < 0.05). Scores were not normally distributed for either KS-F or KOOS scales. CONCLUSIONS: Since the KOOS scale had a higher responsiveness and a lower ceiling effect, it appears to be a superior outcome tool versus the KS-F scale when evaluating the outcomes of TKA patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic Study, Level I.
Entities:
Keywords:
Ceiling effect; Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score; Knee Society Function Score; Standardized response mean; Total knee arthroplasty
Authors: Philip C Noble; Giles R Scuderi; Adam C Brekke; Alla Sikorskii; James B Benjamin; Jess H Lonner; Priya Chadha; Daniel A Daylamani; W Norman Scott; Robert B Bourne Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Josefine E Naili; Per Wretenberg; Viktor Lindgren; Maura D Iversen; Margareta Hedström; Eva W Broström Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2017-03-21 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Josefine E Naili; Maura D Iversen; Anna-Clara Esbjörnsson; Margareta Hedström; Michael H Schwartz; Charlotte K Häger; Eva W Broström Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2016-07-19 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Erik Lenguerrand; Vikki Wylde; Rachael Gooberman-Hill; Adrian Sayers; Luke Brunton; Andrew D Beswick; Paul Dieppe; Ashley W Blom Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-02-12 Impact factor: 3.240