Yong Zhi Khow1, Ming Han Lincoln Liow2, Graham S Goh1, Jerry Yongqiang Chen1, Ngai Nung Lo1, Seng Jin Yeo1. 1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, 20 College Road, Academia, Level 4, Singapore, 169856, Singapore. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Singapore General Hospital, 20 College Road, Academia, Level 4, Singapore, 169856, Singapore. lincoln.liow.m.h@singhealth.com.sg.
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.
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.
Authors: Paul Baker; Paul Cowling; Steven Kurtz; Simon Jameson; Paul Gregg; David Deehan Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2012-02-22 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Robert B Bourne; Bert M Chesworth; Aileen M Davis; Nizar N Mahomed; Kory D J Charron Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: David J Beard; Kristina Harris; Jill Dawson; Helen Doll; David W Murray; Andrew J Carr; Andrew J Price Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2014-10-31 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: S P Boelch; A Jakuscheit; S Doerries; L Fraissler; M Hoberg; J Arnholdt; M Rudert Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2018-11-10 Impact factor: 2.362