The Forgotten Joint Score-12 in Swedish patients undergoing knee arthroplasty: a validation study with the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) as comparator

Siri Heijbel, Josefine E Naili, Axel Hedin, Annette W-Dahl, Kjell G Nilsson, Margareta Hedström, Siri Heijbel, Josefine E Naili, Axel Hedin, Annette W-Dahl, Kjell G Nilsson, Margareta Hedström

Abstract

Background and purpose - Having patients self-evaluate the outcome is an important part of the follow-up after knee arthroplasty. The Forgotten Joint Score-12 (FJS-12) introduced joint awareness as a new approach, suggested to be sensitive enough to differentiate well-functioning patients. This study evaluated the Swedish translation of the FJS-12 and investigated the validity, reliability, and interpretability in patients undergoing knee arthroplastyPatients and methods - We included 109 consecutive patients 1 year after primary knee arthroplasty to assess construct validity (Pearson's correlation coefficient, r), internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha [CA]), floor and ceiling effects, and score distribution. The Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) was the comparator instrument for the analyses. Further, 31 patients preoperatively and 22 patients postoperatively were included to assess test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]).Results - Construct validity was moderate to excellent (r = 0.62-0.84). The FJS-12 showed a high degree of internal consistency (CA = 0.96). The ICC was good preoperatively (0.76) and postoperatively (0.87). Ceiling effects were 2.8% in the FJS-12 and ranging between 0.9% and 10% in the KOOS.Interpretation - The Swedish translation of the FJS-12 showed good validity and reliability and can be used to assess outcome after knee arthroplasty. Moreover, the FJS-12 shows promising results in its ability to differentiate well-functioning patients. Future studies on unidimensionality, scale validity, interpretability, and responsiveness are needed for a more explicit analysis of the psychometric properties.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Distribution of scores 1 year after knee arthroplasty in FJS-12 and KOOS domains: Symptoms; Pain; Functions in daily life (ADL); Functions in sport and recreational activities (Sport/Rec), and Knee-related quality of life (QoL).

References

    1. Baumann F, Ernstberger T, Loibl M, Zeman F, Nerlich M, Tibesku C. Validation of the German Forgotten Joint Score (G-FJS) according to the COSMIN checklist: does a reduction in joint awareness indicate clinical improvement after arthroplasty of the knee? Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2016; 136(2): 257–64.
    1. Behrend H, Giesinger K, Giesinger J M, Kuster M S. The “forgotten joint” as the ultimate goal in joint arthroplasty: validation of a new patient-reported outcome measure. J Arthroplasty 2012; 27(3): 430–6.
    1. Cao S, Liu N, Han W, Zi Y, Peng F, Li L, Fu Q, Chen Y, Zheng W, Qian Q. Simplified Chinese version of the Forgotten Joint Score (FJS) for patients who underwent joint arthroplasty: cross-cultural adaptation and validation. J Orthop Surg Res 2017; 12(1): 6.
    1. Dawson B, Trapp R G. summarizing data & presenting data in tables & graphs. In: Basic & clinical biostatistics, 4th ed., Chapter 3. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2004.
    1. Hamilton D F, Loth F L, Giesinger J M, Giesinger K, MacDonald D J, Patton J T, Simpson A H R W, Howie C R. Validation of the English language Forgotten Joint Score-12 as an outcome measure for total hip and knee arthroplasty in a British population. Bone Joint J 2017; 99-B(2): 218–24.
    1. Koo T L, Li M Y. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med 2016; 15(2): 155–63.
    1. Larsson A, Rolfson O, Karrholm J. Evaluation of Forgotten Joint Score in total hip arthroplasty with Oxford Hip Score as reference standard. Acta Orthop 2019; 90(3): 253–57.
    1. Loth F L, Liebensteiner M C, Giesinger J M, Giesinger K, Bliem H R, Holzner B. What makes patients aware of their artificial knee joint? BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2018; 19(1): 5.
    1. Nemes S, Rolfson O, W-Dahl A, Garellick G, Sundberg M, Karrholm J, et al. . Historical view and future demand for knee arthroplasty in Sweden. Acta Orthop 2015; 86(4): 426–31.
    1. Robinson P G, Rankin C S, Lavery J, Anthony I, Blyth M, Jones B. The validity and reliability of the modified forgotten joint score. J Orthop 2018; 15(2): 480–5.
    1. Rolfson O, Eresian Chenok K, Bohm E, Lübbeke A, Denissen G, Dunn J, Lyman S, Franklin P, Dunbar M, Overgaard S, Garellick G, Dawson J; Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Working Group of the International Society of Arthroplasty Registries. Patient-reported outcome measures in arthroplasty registries. Acta Orthop 2016; 87(eSuppl 362): 3–8.
    1. Roos E M, Toksvig-Larsen S. Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS): validation and comparison to the WOMAC in total knee replacement. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2003; 1: 17.
    1. Roos E M, Roos H P, Lohmander L S, Ekdahl C, Beynnon B D. Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS): development of a self-administered outcome measure. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 1998; 28(2): 88–96.
    1. Shadid M B, Vinken N S, Marting L N, Wolterbeek N. The Dutch version of the Forgotten Joint Score: test–retesting reliability and validation. Acta Orthop Belg 2016; 82(1): 112–8
    1. SKAR . Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register Annual Report; 2018. ISBN 978-91-88017-20-8
    1. Terwee C B, Bot S D, de Boer M R, van der Windt D A, Knol D L, Dekker J, Bouter L M, de Vet H C W. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 2007; 60(1): 34–42.
    1. Thienpont E, Vanden Berghe A, Schwab P E, Forthomme J P, Cornu O. Joint awareness in osteoarthritis of the hip and knee evaluated with the “Forgotten Joint” Score before and after joint replacement. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2016; 24(10): 3346–51.
    1. Thompson S M, Salmon L J, Webb J M, Pinczewski L A, Roe J P. Construct validity and test re-test reliability of the Forgotten Joint Score. J Arthroplasty 2015; 30(11): 1902–5.
    1. Thomsen M G, Latifi R, Kallemose T, Barfod K W, Husted H, Troelsen A. Good validity and reliability of the forgotten joint score in evaluating the outcome of total knee arthroplasty. Acta Orthop 2016; 87(3): 280–5.
    1. Wild D, Grove A, Martin M, Eremenco S, McElroy S, Verjee-Lorenz A, Erikson P. Principles of good practice for the translation and cultural adaptation process for patient-reported outcomes (PRO) measures: report of the ISPOR Task Force for Translation and Cultural Adaptation. Value Health 2005; 8(2): 94–104.

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores y Colaboradores

Condiciones médicas

Intervenciones de drogas

3
Suscribir