Literature DB >> 31111184

Minimal clinically important differences and substantial clinical benefits for Knee Society Scores.

Alejandro Lizaur-Utrilla1,2, Santiago Gonzalez-Parreño3, Daniel Martinez-Mendez3, Francisco A Miralles-Muñoz3, Fernando A Lopez-Prats4.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: There is a paucity of literature defining the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the Knee Society Scores (KSS) after total knee arthroplasty (TKA), and no data on the substantial clinical benefit (SCB) for KSS have been reported. The purpose of this study was to determine MCID and SCB for the KSS in patients with primary TKA.
METHODS: The median age of patients was 71.6 (range 50-88) years, and 60.3% were females 507 patients with TKA were prospectively enrolled. Patients completed the KSS before surgery and at second postoperative year. The MCID values of the KSS were estimated using anchor-based method, distribution-based method and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis with calculation of the area under curve (AUC). SCB was estimated using ROC.
RESULTS: The MCID for KSS-knee score was 7.2 points by the anchor-based method, 7.2 by the distribution-based method, and using a ROC analysis the cutoff point was 8.9 points with an AUC of 0.75. For KSS-function score, the MCID values were 9.7, 6.3, and 10.3 (AUC 0.71), respectively. SCB values were 39.7 points (AUC 0.74) for the KSS-knee score, and 38.6 (AUC 0.76) for the KSS-function score. Logistic regression showed age and Charlson index to negatively affect the changes in KSS.
CONCLUSION: Different methods for MCID calculation lead to different results. With the use of ROC curve analysis, patients with an improvement of at least 9 points for KSS-knee and 10 points for KSS-function scores experience a clinically important change, whereas those who have at least an improvement of 40 points for KSS-knee and 39 points for KSS-function scores experience a substantial clinical benefit. These findings can ensure clinical improvement from the patient's perspective and also aid in interpreting results from clinical studies. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Functional outcome; Knee Society Scores; MCID; Minimal clinically important difference; Patient-related outcome; Total knee arthroplasty

Year:  2019        PMID: 31111184     DOI: 10.1007/s00167-019-05543-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc        ISSN: 0942-2056            Impact factor:   4.342


  22 in total

Review 1.  Minimal clinically important differences: review of methods.

Authors:  G Wells; D Beaton; B Shea; M Boers; L Simon; V Strand; P Brooks; P Tugwell
Journal:  J Rheumatol       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 4.666

2.  Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life.

Authors:  Ross D Crosby; Ronette L Kolotkin; G Rhys Williams
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 6.437

Review 3.  Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods.

Authors:  Anne G Copay; Brian R Subach; Steven D Glassman; David W Polly; Thomas C Schuler
Journal:  Spine J       Date:  2007-04-02       Impact factor: 4.166

4.  Clinimetrics Corner: The Minimal Clinically Important Change Score (MCID): A Necessary Pretense.

Authors:  Chad E Cook
Journal:  J Man Manip Ther       Date:  2008

5.  Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system.

Authors:  J N Insall; L D Dorr; R D Scott; W N Scott
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1989-11       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  The minimal clinically important difference for Knee Society Clinical Rating System after total knee arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis.

Authors:  Wu Chean Lee; Yu Heng Kwan; Hwei Chi Chong; Seng Jin Yeo
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2016-06-21       Impact factor: 4.342

7.  The John Insall Award: Patient expectations affect satisfaction with total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Philip C Noble; Michael A Conditt; Karon F Cook; Kenneth B Mathis
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  The minimal clinically important difference in the Oxford knee score and Short Form 12 score after total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  N D Clement; D MacDonald; A H R W Simpson
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2013-11-20       Impact factor: 4.342

9.  Minimal clinically important differences in ASES and simple shoulder test scores after nonoperative treatment of rotator cuff disease.

Authors:  Robert Z Tashjian; Julia Deloach; Andrew Green; Christina A Porucznik; Amy P Powell
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 5.284

10.  Patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty is affected by their general physical well-being.

Authors:  N D Clement; R Burnett
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2013-05-14       Impact factor: 4.342

View more
  25 in total

1.  V-Y turndown flap augmentation for acute quadriceps rupture after total knee arthroplasty: a prospective matched cohort study.

Authors:  Francisco A Miralles-Muñoz; Marta Rubio-Morales; Matias Ruiz-Lozano; Daniel Martinez-Mendez; Santiago Gonzalez-Parreño; Alejandro Lizaur-Utrilla
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2021-01-13       Impact factor: 3.075

2.  The effect of immediate post-operative knee range of motion photographs on post-operative range of motion after total knee arthroplasty : An assessor-blinded randomized controlled clinical trial in sixty patients.

Authors:  Piya Pinsornsak; Supakit Kanitnate; Krit Boontanapibul
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2020-11-24       Impact factor: 3.075

3.  The Effect of Time Spent with a Dynamic Spacer on Clinical and Functional Outcomes in Two-Stage Revision Knee Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Fatih Golgelioglu; Sinan Oguzkaya; Abdulhamit Misir; Ahmet Guney
Journal:  Indian J Orthop       Date:  2020-09-02       Impact factor: 1.251

4.  An anatomo-functional implant positioning technique with robotic assistance for primary TKA allows the restoration of the native knee alignment and a natural functional ligament pattern, with a faster recovery at 6 months compared to an adjusted mechanical technique.

Authors:  Sébastien Parratte; Philippe Van Overschelde; Marc Bandi; Burak Yagmur Ozturk; Cécile Batailler
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2022-05-13       Impact factor: 4.342

5.  Is sequential bilateral robotic total knee arthroplasty a safe procedure? A matched comparative pilot study.

Authors:  Cécile Batailler; Mike B Anderson; Xavier Flecher; Matthieu Ollivier; Sébastien Parratte
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2022-05-10       Impact factor: 3.067

6.  [Comparison of effectiveness of total knee arthroplasty with tantalum monoblock tibial component and cemented tibial plateau prosthesis in patients of different ages].

Authors:  Yu Jiao; Xiaogang Zhang; Boyong Xu; Guoqing Li; Li Cao
Journal:  Zhongguo Xiu Fu Chong Jian Wai Ke Za Zhi       Date:  2021-12-15

7.  Comparative Analysis of Contemporary Fixed Tibial Inserts: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Authors:  John Krumme; Roma Kankaria; Madana Vallem; John Cyrus; Peter Sculco; Gregory Golladay; Niraj Kalore
Journal:  Orthop Rev (Pavia)       Date:  2022-06-27

8.  Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes After Treatment of Patellar Chondral Defects: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Charles A Su; Nikunj N Trivedi; Hao-Tinh Le; Lakshmanan Sivasundaram; Travis G Maak; Michael J Salata; James E Voos; Michael Karns
Journal:  Sports Health       Date:  2021-04-22       Impact factor: 3.843

Review 9.  Implant survival of 3rd-condyle and post-cam posterior-stabilised total knee arthroplasty are comparable at follow-up > 10 years: a systematic review.

Authors:  David H Dejour; Jacobus H Müller; Mo Saffarini; Michel Timoteo; Pierre Chambat; Gerard Deschamps; Michel P Bonnin
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2021-03-04       Impact factor: 4.342

10.  Midterm functional recovery of Total knee arthroplasty patients compared between the ATTUNE knee system and the press fit condylar (PFC) SIGMA knee system.

Authors:  Ekasame Vanitcharoenkul; Aasis Unnanuntana
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2021-07-13       Impact factor: 2.362

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.