Limitations of the Knee Society score in evaluating outcomes following revision total knee arthroplasty

Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery

Volumn 92, Issue 14, 2010, Pages 2445-2451

  Ghanem, Elie ^a   Pawasarat, Ian ^a   Lindsay, Adam ^a   May, Lauren ^a   Azzam, Khalid ^a   Joshi, Ashish ^a   Parvizi, Javad ^a  

^a THOMAS JEFFERSON UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONSTRUCT VALIDITY; CONTROLLED STUDY; FOLLOW UP; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; KNEE SOCIETY RATING SYSTEM; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PAIN ASSESSMENT; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUESTIONNAIRE; RATING SCALE; SHORT FORM 36; TOTAL KNEE REPLACEMENT; HEALTH STATUS INDICATOR; KNEE ARTHROPLASTY; OSTEOARTHRITIS, KNEE; REOPERATION;

ARTHROPLASTY, REPLACEMENT, KNEE; HEALTH STATUS INDICATORS; HUMANS; OSTEOARTHRITIS, KNEE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); PATIENT SATISFACTION; QUESTIONNAIRES; REOPERATION;

EID: 78049466374     PISSN: 00219355     EISSN: 15351386     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.I.00252     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Saleh KJ, Celebrezze M, Kassim R, Dykes DC, Gioe TJ, Callaghan JJ, Salvati EA. Functional outcome after revision hip arthroplasty: a metaanalysis. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;416:254-64.
2. Sheng P, Lehto M, Kataja M, Halonen P, Moilanen T, Pajamaki J. Patient outcome following revision total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis. Int Orthop. 2004;28:78-81.
3. Lavernia C, Lee DJ, Hernandez VH. The increasing financial burden of knee revision surgery in the United States. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006;446:221-6.
4. Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW. 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;15:1833-40.
5. McHorney CA, Haley SM, Ware JE Jr. Evaluation of the MOS SF-36 Physical Functioning Scale (PF-10): II. Comparison of relative precision using Likert and Rasch scoring methods. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50:451-61.
6. McHorney CA, Ware JE Jr. Construction and validation of an alternate form general mental health scale for the Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 36-Item Health Survey. Med Care. 1995;33:15-28.
7. Räsänen P, Paavolainen P, Sintonen H, Koivisto AM, Blom M, Ryynänen OP, Roine RP. Effectiveness of hip or knee replacement surgery in terms of quality-adjusted life years and costs. Acta Orthop. 2007;78:108-15.
8. Conaghan PG, Emerton M, Tennant A. Internal construct validity of the Oxford Knee Scale: evidence from Rasch measurement. Arthritis Rheum. 2007;57:1363-7.
9. Tugwell P, Bombardier C, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Grace E, Hanna B. The MACTAR Patient Preference Disability Questionnaire - an individualized functional priority approach for assessing improvement in physical disability in clinical trials in rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol. 1987;14:446-51.
10. Barrack RL, McClure JT, Burak CF, Clohisy JC, Parvizi J, Sharkey P. Revision total knee arthroplasty: the patient's perspective. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;464:146-50.
11. Dahm DL, Barnes SA, Harrington JR, Berry DJ. Patient reported activity after revision total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2007;22(6 Suppl 2):106-10.
12. Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN. Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989;248:13-4.
13. Scuderi G, Benjamin J, Lonner J, Bourne B, Scott N. The Knee Society. http://www.kneesociety.org/web/outcomes.html. Accessed 2007 Sep 3.
14. Mahomed N, Sledge CB, Daltroy L, Fossel AH, Katz JN. Self-administered patient satisfaction scale for joint replacement arthroplasty. Read at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Orthopaedic Association; 1997 May 31; Hamilton, ON.
15. Katz JN, Phillips CB, Baron JA, Fossel AH, Mahomed NN, Barrett J, Lingard EA, Harris WH, Poss R, Lew RA, Guadagnoli E, Wright EA, Losina E. Association of hospital and surgeon volume of total hip replacement with functional status and satisfaction three years following surgery. Arthritis Rheum. 2003;48:560-8.
16. McHorney CA, Ware JE Jr, Raczek AE. The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): II. Psychometric and clinical tests of validity in measuring physical and mental health constructs. Med Care. 1993;31:247-63.
17. Mahomed N, Sledge CB, Daltroy LH, Fossel AH, Katz JN. Self-administered satisfaction scale for joint replacement arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1998;80(Suppl 1):9.
18. Mahomed NN, Liang MH, Cook EF, Daltroy LH, Fortin PR, Fossel AH, Katz JN. The importance of patient expectations in predicting functional outcomes after total joint arthroplasty. J Rheumatol. 2002;29:1273-9.
19. Anderson JG, Wixson RL, Tsai D, Stulberg SD, Chang RW. Functional outcome and patient satisfaction in total knee patients over the age of 75. J Arthroplasty. 1996;11:831-40.
20. Robertsson O, Dunbar MJ. Patient satisfaction compared with general health and disease-specific questionnaires in knee arthroplasty patients. J Arthroplasty. 2001;16:476-82.
21. Mulhall KJ, Ghomrawi HM, Bershadsky B, Saleh KJ. Functional improvement after total knee arthroplasty revision: new observations on the dimensional nature of outcome. J Orthop Surg Res. 2007;2:25.
22. Lingard EA, Katz JN, Wright RJ, Wright EA, Sledge CB; Kinemax Outcomes Group. Validity and responsiveness of the Knee Society Clinical Rating System in comparison with the SF-36 and WOMAC. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83:1856-64.
23. Brazier J, Jones N, Kind P. Testing the validity of the Euroqol and comparing it with the SF-36 health survey questionnaire. Qual Life Res. 1993;2:169-80.
24. Brazier JE, Harper R, Jones NM, O'Cathain A, Thomas KJ, Usherwood T, Westlake L. Validating the SF-36 health survey questionnaire: new outcome measure for primary care. BMJ. 1992;305:160-4.
25. Jenkinson C, Coulter A, Wright L. Short Form 36 (SF36) health survey questionnaire: normative data for adults of working age. BMJ. 1993;306:1437-40.
26. McHorney CA, Ware JE Jr, Lu JF, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): III. Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability across diverse patient groups. Med Care. 1994;32:40-66.
27. Angst F, Ewert T, Lehmann S, Aeschlimann A, Stucki G. The factor subdimensions of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) help to specify hip and knee osteoarthritis. A prospective evaluation and validation study. J Rheumatol. 2005;32:1324-30.
28. Liow RY, Walker K, Wajid MA, Bedi G, Lennox CM. The reliability of the American Knee Society Score. Acta Orthop Scand. 2000;71:603-8.
29. Liow RY, Walker K, Wajid MA, Bedi G, Lennox CM. Functional rating for knee arthroplasty: comparison of three scoring systems. Orthopedics. 2003;26:143-9.
30. Liang MH, Fossel AH, Larson MG. Comparisons of five health status instruments for orthopedic evaluation. Med Care. 1990;28:632-42.
31. Lieberman JR, Dorey F, Shekelle P, Schumacher L, Thomas BJ, Kilgus DJ, Finerman GA. Differences between patients' and physicians' evaluations of outcome after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1996;78:835-8.
32. König A, Scheidler M, Rader C, Eulert J. The need for a dual rating system in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1997;345:161-7.
33. McHorney CA, Ware JE Jr, Rogers W, Raczek AE, Lu JF. The validity and relative precision of MOS short- and long-form health status scales and Dartmouth COOP charts. Results from the Medical Outcomes Study. Med Care. 1992;30(5 Suppl):MS253-65.
34. McDowell I, Newell C. Measuring health: a guide rating scales and questionnaires. Toronto: Oxford University Press; 1987.
35. Lingard EA, Sledge CB, Learmonth ID; Kinemax Outcomes Group. Patient expectations regarding total knee arthroplasty: differences among the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88:1201-7.