Forgotten Joint Score for early outcome assessment after total knee arthroplasty: Is it really useful?
1
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Background: Forgotten Joint Score (FJS) has become a popular tool for total knee arthroplasty (TKA), but almost all studies had assessment performed 1 year after surgery. There is a need for a sensitive tool for earlier outcome assessment. The aim of this study was to investigate the usefulness of FJS within the first year after TKA. Methods: This was a cross-sectional study. Patients within the first year after primary TKA were recruited. FJS was translated into the local language with a cross-cultural adaptation and was validated by assessing the correlation with the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index score (WOMAC). Ceiling and floor effects (highest or lowest 10% or 15%) of both scores were compared. Skewness of scores was assessed with a histogram. Results: One hundred sixty-three subjects were recruited: 84 (51.5%) had evaluation at 3 months after the operation, 56 (34.4%) at 6 months, and 23 (14.1%) at 12 months. FJS had fewer patients at the highest 10% (10.7% vs. 16.1%, P = 0.046) or 15% (19.6% vs. 32.1%, P = 0.027) at 6 months and within the first year overall (6.7% vs. 13.5%, P <0.001; 14.1% vs. 22.7%, P <0.001). Also, it had more patients at the lowest 10% (16.7% vs. 0%, P <0.001) or 15% (21.4% vs. 0%, P < 0.001) at 3 months, 6 months (10.7% vs. 0%, P <0.001), and overall (12.9% vs. 0%, P <0.001; 16.6% vs. 0%, P <0.001). The skewness was much less than WOMAC (0.09 vs. −0.56). Conclusions: FJS has a low ceiling effect but a high floor effect in the first year after TKA. Such characteristics make it less useful for the general assessment of early patient report outcome after operation.
Abstract
Background: Forgotten Joint Score (FJS) has become a popular tool for total knee arthroplasty (TKA), but almost all studies had assessment performed 1 year after surgery. There is a need for a sensitive tool for earlier outcome assessment. The aim of this study was to investigate the usefulness of FJS within the first year after TKA. Methods: This was a cross-sectional study. Patients within the first year after primary TKA were recruited. FJS was translated into the local language with a cross-cultural adaptation and was validated by assessing the correlation with the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index score (WOMAC). Ceiling and floor effects (highest or lowest 10% or 15%) of both scores were compared. Skewness of scores was assessed with a histogram. Results: One hundred sixty-three subjects were recruited: 84 (51.5%) had evaluation at 3 months after the operation, 56 (34.4%) at 6 months, and 23 (14.1%) at 12 months. FJS had fewer patients at the highest 10% (10.7% vs. 16.1%, P = 0.046) or 15% (19.6% vs. 32.1%, P = 0.027) at 6 months and within the first year overall (6.7% vs. 13.5%, P <0.001; 14.1% vs. 22.7%, P <0.001). Also, it had more patients at the lowest 10% (16.7% vs. 0%, P <0.001) or 15% (21.4% vs. 0%, P < 0.001) at 3 months, 6 months (10.7% vs. 0%, P <0.001), and overall (12.9% vs. 0%, P <0.001; 16.6% vs. 0%, P <0.001). The skewness was much less than WOMAC (0.09 vs. −0.56). Conclusions: FJS has a low ceiling effect but a high floor effect in the first year after TKA. Such characteristics make it less useful for the general assessment of early patient report outcome after operation.
참고문헌 (14)
- Behrend H, "The"forgotten joint"as the ultimate goal in joint arthroplasty : validation of a new patientreported outcome measure", J Arthroplast, 27(3), pp.430~ (2012)
- Thompson SM, "Construct validity and test re-test reliability of the forgotten joint score", J Arthroplast, 30(11), pp.1902~ (2015)
- Thomsen MG, "Good validity and reliability of the forgotten joint score in evaluating the outcome of total knee arthroplasty", Acta Orthop, 87(3), pp.280~ (2016)
- Hamilton DF, "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, 99-b(2), pp.218~ (2017)
- Hamilton DF, "Responsiveness and ceiling effects of the Forgotten Joint Score-12 following total hip arthroplasty", Bone Joint Res, 5(3), pp.87~ (2016)
- Cao S, "Simplified Chinese version of the Forgotten Joint Score(FJS)for patients who underwent joint arthroplasty : cross-cultural adaptation and validation", J Orthop Surg Res, 12(1), pp.6~ (2017)
- Kim MS, "Differences in patient-reported outcomes between unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasties: a propensity score-matched analysis", J Arthroplast, 32(5), pp.1453~ (2017)
- Thienpont E, "Joint awareness in different types of knee arthroplasty evaluated with the Forgotten Joint score", J Arthroplast, 29(1), pp.48~ (2014)
- Thienpont E, "Higher forgotten joint score for fixed-bearing than for mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty", Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc, 24(8), pp.2641~ (2016)
- Thienpont E, "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, 24(10), pp.3346~ (2016)
- Hiyama Y, "Joint awareness after total knee arthroplasty is affected by pain and quadriceps strength", OrthopTraumatol Surg Res, 102(4), pp.435~ (2016)
- Baker PN, "The effect of surgical factors on early patient-reported outcome measures(PROMS)following total knee replacement", J Bone Joint Surg(Br), 94(8), pp.1058~ (2012)
- Strickland LH, "Patient-reported outcome measure for early postoperative recovery following lower limb arthroplasty : a systematic review", J Arthroplast, 31(12), pp.2933~ (2016)
- Landis JR, "The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data", Biometrics, 33(1), pp.159~ (1977)