Good validity and reliability of the forgotten joint score in evaluating the outcome of total knee arthroplasty

Morten G Thomsen, Roshan Latifi, Thomas Kallemose, Kristoffer W Barfod, Henrik Husted, Anders Troelsen, Morten G Thomsen, Roshan Latifi, Thomas Kallemose, Kristoffer W Barfod, Henrik Husted, Anders Troelsen

Abstract

Background and purpose - When evaluating the outcome after total knee arthroplasty (TKA), increasing emphasis has been put on patient satisfaction and ability to perform activities of daily living. To address this, the forgotten joint score (FJS) for assessment of knee awareness has been developed. We investigated the validity and reliability of the FJS. Patients and methods - A Danish version of the FJS questionnaire was created according to internationally accepted standards. 360 participants who underwent primary TKA were invited to participate in the study. Of these, 315 were included in a validity study and 150 in a reliability study. Correlation between the Oxford knee score (OKS) and the FJS was examined and test-retest evaluation was performed. A ceiling effect was defined as participants reaching a score within 15% of the maximum achievable score. Results - The validity study revealed a strong correlation between the FJS and the OKS (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) = 0.81, 95% CI: 0.77-0.85; p < 0.001). The test-retest evaluation showed almost perfect reliability for the FJS total score (ICC = 0.91, 95% CI: 0.88-0.94) and substantial reliability or better for individual items of the FJS (ICC? 0.79). We found a high level of internal consistency (Cronbach's? = 0.96). The ceiling effect for the FJS was 16%, as compared to 37% for the OKS. Interpretation - The FJS showed good construct validity and test-retest reliability. It had a lower ceiling effect than the OKS. The FJS appears to be a promising tool for evaluation of small differences in knee performance in groups of patients with good clinical results after TKA.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Flow diagram presenting participants who were invited to participate in the study and included in the analysis.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Distribution of FJS scores.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Distribution of OKS scores.
Figure 4.
Figure 4.
Item characteristic curves for individual FJS items of the constraint graded response model.

References

    1. Atrey A, Edmondson M C, East D, Miles K, Butler-Manuel A, Ellens N.. A retrospective medium- to long-term results of 1500 AGC total knee replacements - An independent centre functional follow up and survivorship. J Orthop 2014; 11: 37–42.
    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.e1.
    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(12): 1833–40.
    1. Bercovy M, Beldame J, Lefebvre B, Duron A.. A prospective clinical and radiological study comparing hydroxyapatite-coated with cemented tibial components in total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2012; 94(4): 497–503.
    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(3): 367–94.
    1. Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Murray D, Carr A.. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1998; 80(1): 63–9.
    1. Dunbar M J, Robertsson O, Ryd L, Lidgren L.. Translation and validation of the Oxford-12 item knee score for use in Sweden. Acta Orthop Scand 2000; 71(3): 268–74.
    1. Dunbar M J, Robertsson O, Ryd L, Lidgren L.. Appropriate questionnaires for knee arthroplasty. Results of a survey of 3600 patients from The Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Registry. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2001; 83(3): 339–44.
    1. Emerson R H, Higgins L L, Head W C.. The AGC total knee prosthesis at average 11 years. J Arthroplasty 2000; 15(4): 418–23.
    1. Ganestam A, Barfod K, Klit J, Troelsen A.. Validity and reliability of the Achilles tendon total rupture score. J Foot Ankle Surg 2013; 52(6): 736–9.
    1. Giesinger K, Hamilton D F, Jost B, Holzner B, Giesinger J M.. Comparative responsiveness of outcome measures for total knee arthroplasty. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2014; 22(2): 184–9.
    1. Guillemin F, Bombardier C, Beaton D.. Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: literature review and proposed guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol 1993; 46(12): 1417–32.
    1. Haverkamp D, Breugem S J M, Sierevelt I N, Blankevoort L, van Dijk C N.. Translation and validation of the Dutch version of the Oxford 12-item knee questionnaire for knee arthroplasty. Acta Orthop 2005; 76(3): 347–52.
    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; (248): 13–4.
    1. Jenny J-Y, Diesinger Y.. The Oxford Knee Score: compared performance before and after knee replacement. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res 2012; 98(4): 409–12.
    1. Jenny J-Y, Louis P, Diesinger Y.. High activity arthroplasty score has a lower ceiling effect than standard scores after knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2014; 29(4): 719–21.
    1. Kievit A J, Schafroth M U, Blankevoort L, Sierevelt I N, van Dijk C N, van Geenen R C I.. Early experience with the Vanguard complete total knee system: 2-7 years of follow-up and risk factors for revision. J Arthroplasty 2014; 29(2): 348–54.
    1. Kim Y-H, Choi Y, Kim J-S.. Range of motion of standard and high-flexion posterior cruciate-retaining total knee prostheses a prospective randomized study. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009; 91(8): 1874–81.
    1. Landis J R, Koch G G.. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977; 33(1): 159–74.
    1. Marx R G, Jones E C, Atwan N C, Closkey R F, Salvati E. A, Sculco T P. Measuring improvement following total hip and knee arthroplasty using patient-based measures of outcome. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005; 87: 1999–2005.
    1. Mokkink L B, Terwee C B, Patrick D L, Alonso J, Stratford P W, Knol D L, et al. The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual Life Res 2010; 19(4): 539–49.
    1. Naal F D, Impellizzeri F M, Sieverding M, Loibl M, von Knoch F, Mannion A F, et al. The 12-item Oxford Knee Score: cross-cultural adaptation into German and assessment of its psychometric properties in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2009; 17(1): 49–52.
    1. Rabin R, de Charro F.. EQ-5D: a measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Ann Med 2001; 33: 337–43.
    1. Ritter M A. The Anatomical Graduated Component total knee replacement: a long-term evaluation with 20-year survival analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2009; 91(6): 745–9.
    1. Schroer W C, Stormont D M, Pietrzak W S.. Seven-year survivorship and functional outcomes of the high-flexion Vanguard complete knee system. J Arthroplasty 2014; 29(1): 61–5.
    1. Shoji H, Solomonow M, Yoshino S, D’Ambrosia R, Dabezies E.. Factors affecting postoperative flexion in total knee arthroplasty. Orthopedics 1990; 13: 643–9.
    1. Stormont D, Chillag K.. The relationship between pre-and postoperative range of motion utilizing three cruciate-retaining total knee prostheses. J Investig Surg 2009; 22(5): 368–74.
    1. Takeuchi R, Sawaguchi T, Nakamura N, Ishikawa H, Saito T, Goldhahn S.. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Oxford 12-item knee score in Japanese. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2011; 131(2): 247–54.
    1. Talbot S, Hooper G, Stokes A, Zordan R.. Use of a new high-activity arthroplasty score to assess function of young patients with total hip or knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2010; 25: 268–73.
    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 2014; 29(1): 48–51.
    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, Husted H, Otte K S, Holm G, Troelsen A.. Do patients care about higher flexion in total knee arthroplasty? A randomized, controlled, double-blinded trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2013; 14: 127.
    1. De Vet H C W, Terwee C B, Knol D L, Bouter L M.. When to use agreement versus reliability measures. J Clin Epidemiol 2006; 59(10): 1033–9.
    1. Ware J E, Sherbourne C D.. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992; 30: 473–83.
    1. Ware J E, Keller S D, Gandek B, Brazier J E, Sullivan M.. Evaluating translations of health status questionnaires. Methods from the IQOLA project. International Quality of Life Assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1995; 11(3): 525–51.
    1. Worland R L, Johnson G V-V, Alemparte J, Jessup D E, Keenan J, Norambuena N, et al. Ten to fourteen year survival and functional analysis of the AGC total knee replacement system. Knee 2002; 9(2): 133–7.

Source: PubMed

赞助者和合作者

医疗条件

药物干预

3
订阅