Comparative responsiveness of outcome measures for total knee arthroplasty

K Giesinger, D F Hamilton, B Jost, B Holzner, J M Giesinger, K Giesinger, D F Hamilton, B Jost, B Holzner, J M Giesinger

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the responsiveness of various patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and clinician-reported outcomes following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) over a 2-year period.

Methods: Data were collected in a prospective cohort study of primary TKA. Patients who had completed Forgotten Joint Score-12 (FJS-12), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) osteoarthritis (OA) index, EQ-5D, Knee Society Score and range of movement (ROM) assessment were included. Five time points were assessed: pre-operative, 2 months, 6 months, 1 year and 2 years post-operative.

Results: Data from 98 TKAs were available for analysis. Largest effect sizes (ES) for change from pre-operative to 2-month follow-up were observed for the Knee Society Score (KSS) Knee score (1.70) and WOMAC Total (-1.50). For the period from 6 months to 1 year the largest ES for change were shown by the FJS-12 (0.99) and the KSS Function Score (0.88). The EQ-5D showed the strongest ceiling effect at 1-year follow-up with 84.4% of patients scoring the maximum score. ES for the time from 1- to 2-year follow-up were largest for the FJS-12 (0.50). All other outcome measures showed ES equal or below 0.30.

Conclusion: Outcome measures differ considerably in responsiveness, especially beyond one year post-operatively. Joint-specific outcome measures are more responsive than clinician-reported or generic health outcome tools. The FJS-12 was the most responsive of the tools assessed; suggesting that joint awareness may be a more discerning measure of patient outcome than traditional PROMs.

Keywords: Forgotten joint score; Knee arthroplasty; Patient-reported outcome; Responsiveness; WOMAC score.

Copyright © 2013 Osteoarthritis Research Society International. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

References

    1. Collins N.J., Roos E.M. Patient-reported outcomes for total hip and knee arthroplasty: commonly used instruments and attributes of a “good” measure. Clin Geriatr Med. 2012;28:367–394.
    1. Paradowski P.T., Roos E.M. Knee outcome scales: basic concepts, review of methods, cross-cultural and linguistic adaptation. Ortop Traumatol Rehabil. 2004;6:393–405.
    1. Alviar M.J., Olver J., Brand C., Tropea J., Hale T., Pirpiris M., et al. Do patient-reported outcome measures in hip and knee arthroplasty rehabilitation have robust measurement attributes? A systematic review. J Rehabil Med. 2011;43:572–583.
    1. Wang D., Jones M.H., Khair M.M., Miniaci A. Patient-reported outcome measures for the knee. J Knee Surg. 2010;23:137–151.
    1. Hamilton D.F., Gaston P., Simpson A.H. Is patient reporting of physical function accurate following total knee replacement? J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2012;94:1506–1510.
    1. Ko Y., Lo N.N., Yeo S.J., Yang K.Y., Yeo W., Chong H.C., et al. Comparison of the responsiveness of the SF-36, the Oxford Knee Score, and the Knee Society Clinical Rating System in patients undergoing total knee replacement. Qual Life Res. 2013 Mar 5 [Epub ahead of print]
    1. Williams V.J., Piva S.R., Irrgang J.J., Crossley C., Fitzgerald G.K. Comparison of reliability and responsiveness of patient-reported clinical outcome measures in knee osteoarthritis rehabilitation. J Orthopaedic Sports Phys Ther. 2012;42:716–723.
    1. Hamilton D.F., Lane J.V., Gaston P., Patton J.T., Macdonald D., Simpson A.H., et al. What determines patient satisfaction with surgery? A prospective cohort study of 4709 patients following total joint replacement. BMJ Open. 2013;3
    1. Escobar A., Quintana J.M., Bilbao A., Arostegui I., Lafuente I., Vidaurreta I. Responsiveness and clinically important differences for the WOMAC and SF-36 after total knee replacement. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2007;15:273–280.
    1. Bachmeier C.J., March L.M., Cross M.J., Lapsley H.M., Tribe K.L., Courtenay B.G., et al. A comparison of outcomes in osteoarthritis patients undergoing total hip and knee replacement surgery. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2001;9:137–146.
    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. Theiler R., Sangha O., Schaeren S., Michel B.A., Tyndall A., Dick W., et al. Superior responsiveness of the pain and function sections of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) as compared to the Lequesne-Algofunctional Index in patients with osteoarthritis of the lower extremities. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 1999;7:515–519.
    1. Davis A.M., Perruccio A.V., Canizares M., Hawker G.A., Roos E.M., Maillefert J.F., et al. Comparative, validity and responsiveness of the HOOS-PS and KOOS-PS to the WOMAC physical function subscale in total joint replacement for osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2009;17:843–847.
    1. Bellamy N., Buchanan W.W., Goldsmith C.H., Campbell J., Stitt L.W. Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol. 1988;15:1833–1840.
    1. Wolfe F., Kong S.X. Rasch analysis of the Western Ontario MacMaster questionnaire (WOMAC) in 2205 patients with osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, and fibromyalgia. Ann Rheum Dis. 1999;58:563–568.
    1. Impellizzeri F.M., Mannion A.F., Leunig M., Bizzini M., Naal F.D. Comparison of the reliability, responsiveness, and construct validity of 4 different questionnaires for evaluating outcomes after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2011;26:861–869.
    1. Terwee C.B., Roorda L.D., Knol D.L., De Boer M.R., De Vet H.C. Linking measurement error to minimal important change of patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:1062–1067.
    1. Theiler R., Bischoff-Ferrari H.A., Good M., Bellamy N. Responsiveness of the electronic touch screen WOMAC 3.1 OA Index in a short term clinical trial with rofecoxib. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2004;12:912–916.
    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;27:430–436. e431.
    1. Thienpont E., Opsomer G., Koninckx A., Houssiau F. Joint awareness in different types of knee arthroplasty evaluated with the forgotten joint score. J Arthroplasty. 2013 May 17 [Epub ahead of print]
    1. EuroQol Group EuroQol – a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990;16:199–208.
    1. Jenkins P.J., Clement N.D., Hamilton D.F., Gaston P., Patton J.T., Howie C.R. Predicting the cost-effectiveness of total hip and knee replacement: a health economic analysis. Bone Joint J. 2013;95-B:115–121.
    1. Insall J.N., Dorr L.D., Scott R.D., Scott W.N. Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989:13–14.
    1. Lingard E.A., Katz J.N., Wright R.J., Wright E.A., Sledge C.B. Validity and responsiveness of the Knee Society Clinical Rating System in comparison with the SF-36 and WOMAC. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83–A:1856–1864.
    1. Watkins M.A., Riddle D.L., Lamb R.L., Personius W.J. Reliability of goniometric measurements and visual estimates of knee range of motion obtained in a clinical setting. Phys Ther. 1991;71:90–96.
    1. Jakobsen T.L., Christensen M., Christensen S.S., Olsen M., Bandholm T. Reliability of knee joint range of motion and circumference measurements after total knee arthroplasty: does tester experience matter? Physiother Res Int. 2010;15:126–134.
    1. Quintana J.M., Escobar A., Bilbao A., Arostegui I., Lafuente I., Vidaurreta I. Responsiveness and clinically important differences for the WOMAC and SF-36 after hip joint replacement. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2005;13:1076–1083.
    1. Browne J.P., Bastaki H., Dawson J. What is the optimal time point to assess patient-reported recovery after hip and knee replacement? A systematic review and analysis of routinely reported outcome data from the English patient-reported outcome measures programme. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013;11:128.
    1. J Bone Joint Surg. Instructions for authors. URL: (accessed 15th Oct 2013).
    1. McKay C., Prapavessis H., McNair P. Comparing the lower limb tasks questionnaire to the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index: agreement, responsiveness, and convergence with physical performance for knee osteoarthritis patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2013;94:474–479.
    1. Hamilton D., Henderson G.R., Gaston P., MacDonald D., Howie C., Simpson A.H. Comparative outcomes of total hip and knee arthroplasty: a prospective cohort study. Postgrad Med J. 2012;88:627–631.
    1. Fayers P., Hays R. Oxford University Press; Oxford: 2005. Assessing Quality of Life in Clinical Trials – Methods and Practice.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors en medewerkers

Medische omstandigheden

Geneesmiddelinterventies

3
Abonneren