Can Knees be Forgotten 2 Years After Total Knee Arthroplasty?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15438/rr.12.1.248Keywords:
Total Knee Arthroplasty, patient reported outcome measure, Forgotten Joint Score - FJS, Oxford Knee Score - OKS, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index - WOMACAbstract
Background:
There have been multiple ways to measure outcomes post total knee arthroplasty. Ultimate goal is to replicate a natural joint to allow patients to perform most activities of daily living and give high satisfaction rates. Patient reported outcome measures (PROM) like Forgotten Joint Score (FJS), Oxford Knee Score (OKS)and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) have been validated and used for evaluation of TKA patients. FJS helps to evaluate how natural a prosthesis feels post surgery. Our aim was to study how natural a joint felt or was forgotten 2 year after surgery and how FJS correlates with OKS and WOMAC scores.
Materials and Methods :
We evaluated 254 total knee replacements with minimum 2 year post TKA. All the patients who were at least 2 year post operative, completed FJS questionnaire where scores are ranged from 0-100; OKS questionnaire where scores are ranged between 0-48; Short – form WOMAC questionnaire where scores are ranged between 0-28. Correlation analysis was performed for FJS with OKS and short - form WOMAC scores.
Results:
254 patients with mean age of 65.01 years of which 83 males and 171 females were evaluated with minimum of 24 months follow up and average follow-up of 30.85 months. Average FJS, OKS and SF WOMAC were 77.24, 38.75 & 79.97 respectively. FJS showed good correlation with OKS and SF WOMAC scores.
Conclusion :
FJS is an easy and equally effective outcome measure, which is valid and reliable like the other common well know measures like OKS and WOMAC. Patients experience a marked improvement in the FJS over the first two years. Patients in our series had good outcomes who had more natural feel of knees or a feeling of “forgotten knees” in their day to day activity after 2 years of surgery.
References
Baker PN, van der Meulen JH, Lewsey J, Gregg PJ, National Joint Registry
for England and Wales. The role of pain and function in determining patient satisfaction after total knee replacement. Data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 2007;89-B:893–900.
Hamilton DF, Lane JV, Gaston P, Patton JT, MacDonald D, Simpson AHRW, et al. What determines patient satisfaction with surgery? A prospective cohort study of 4709 patients following total joint replacement. BMJ Open 2013;3:e002525. https://doiorg/10.1136/bmjopen-2012-002525
Hamilton DF, Burnett R, Patton JT, et al. Implant design influences patient outcome after total knee arthroplasty: a prospective double-blind randomised controlled trial. Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:64–70.
Bullens PH, Van Loon CJ, De Waal Malefijt MC, et al. Patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty: a comparison between subjective and objective outcome assessments. J Arthroplasty 2001;16:740.
Suda AJ, Seeger JB, Bitsch RG, et al. Are patient’s expectations of hip and knee arthroplasty fulfilled? A prospective study of 130 patients. Orthopedics 2010; 33:76.
Bourne RB. Measuring tools for functional outcomes in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2008;466(11):2634.
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;131:247– 254.
Jenny JY, Diesinger Y. Validation of a French version of the Oxford knee questionnaire. Orthop Traumatol: Surg Res. 2011;97:267–271.
Behrend H, Giesinger K, Giesinger JM, Kuster MS. The ‘forgotten joint’ as the ultimate goal in joint arthroplasty. Validation of a new patient-reported outcome measure. J Arthroplasty 2012;27(3):430-436.
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
Thienpont E, Zorman D. Higher Forgotten Joint Score for fixed-bearing than for mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 2015;24:2641-2645.
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;15:1833-1840.
Wolfe F, Kong SX. 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.
Impellizzeri FM, Mannion AF, Leunig M, Bizzini M, Naal FD. 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.
Terwee CB, Roorda LD, Knol DL, De Boer MR, De Vet HC. Linking measurement error to minimal important change of patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62:1062-1067.
Whitehouse SL, Lingard EA, Katz JN, Learmonth ID. Development and testing of a reduced WOMAC function scale. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 2003;85-B:706-711.
K Yang, NJ Raijmakers, AB Verbout, WJ Dhert, DBF Saris. Validation of the short-form WOMAC function scale for the evaluation of osteoarthritis of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 2007;89-B:50-56.
Burchell B, Marsh C. The effect of questionnaire length on survey response. Quality and Quantity 1992;26:233-244.
Herzog AR, Bachman JG. Effects of questionnaire length on response quality. The public opinion quarterly 1981;45:549-559.
Kalantar JS, Talley NJ. The effects of lottery incentive and length of questionnaire on health survey response rates: a randomised study. J Clin Epidemiol 1999;52:1117- 1122.
Whitehouse SL, Crawford RW, Learmonth ID. Validation for the reduced Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index function scale. J Orthop Surg 2008;16(1):50-53.
J. Dawson, R. Fitzpatrick, D. Murray, and A. Carr. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 1998;80(1):63–69.
D.W. Murray, R. Fitzpatrick, K. Rogers et al. The use of the Oxford hip and knee scores. J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 2007;89( 8):1010–1014.
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): 268-274.
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): 347-352.
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.
Mokkink LB, Prinsen CA, Bouter LM, Vet HC, Terwee CB. The Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) and how to select an outcome measurement instrument. Braz J Phys Ther 2016;20:105–113.
Roos EM, Toksvig-Larsen S. Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) — validation and comparison to theWOMAC in total knee replacement. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2003;1:17.
Eun IS, Kim OG, Kim CK, Lee HS, Lee JS. Validation of the Korean version of the Oxford Knee Score in patients undergoing total Knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2013;471:600–605.
G. Baron, F. Tubach, P. Ravaud, I. Logeart, and M. Dougados. Validation of a short form of the Western Ontario and McMasterUniversities osteoarthritis Index function subscale in hip and knee osteoarthritis. Arthritis Care and Res 2007;57(4):633-638.
Carlson VR, Post ZD, Orozco FR, Davis DM, Lutz RW, Ong AC. When does the knee feel normal again: a cross-sectional study assessing the forgotten joint score in patients after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplast 2018;33(3):700–703.
Kim MS, Koh IJ, Choi YJ, Lee JY, In Y. Differences in Patient-Reported Outcomes Between Unicompartmental and Total Knee Arthroplasties: A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis. The Journal of arthroplasty 2017;32(5):1453-1459.
Thippanna RK, Mahesh P, Kumar MN. PCL-retaining versus PCL-substituting TKR -Outcome assessment based on the "forgotten joint score". Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma 2015;6(4):236-239.
Schotanus MG, Pilot P, Vos R, Kort NP. No difference in joint awareness after mobile and fixed-bearing total knee arthroplasty: 3-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatology 2017;27(8):1151-1155.
Hamilton DF, Loth FL, Giesinger JM, et al. 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:218–224.
Giesinger K, Hamilton DF, Jost B, Holzner B, Giesinger JM. Comparative responsiveness of outcome measures for total knee arthroplasty osteoarthritis and cartilage. Osteoarthr Res Soc 2014;22(2):184–189.
Thompson, Simon & Salmon, Lucy & Webb, Justin & Pinczewski, Leo & Roe, Justin. Construct Validity and Test Re-Test Reliability of the Forgotten Joint Score. J Arthroplasty 2015;30(11):1902-1905.
Behrend H, Zdravkovic V, Giesinger J, Giesinger K. Factors predicting the forgotten joint score after Total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2016;31(9):1927–1932.
Thomsen MG, Latifi R, Kallemose T, Barfod KW, 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):280–285.
Thienpont E, Vanden Berghe A, Schwab PE, Forthomme JP, 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;24:3346–3351.
Robinson PG, Rankin CS, Lavery J, Anthony I, Blyth M, Jones B. The validity and reliability of the modified forgotten joint score. J Orthop 2018;15(2):480–485.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Rahul Bansal, Angad Jolly, Easwar Balasubramaniana, Shamsundar Yalamanchalia
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Copyright and License Agreement:
Authors who publish with the Reconstructive Review agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work. Reconstructive Review follows the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial CC BY-NC. This license allows anyone to download works, build upon the material, and share them with others for non-commercial purposes as long as they credit the senior author, Reconstructive Review, and the Joint Implant Surgery & Research Foundation (JISRF). An example credit would be: "Courtesy of (senior author's name), Reconstructive Review, JISRF, Chagrin Falls, Ohio". While works can be downloaded and shared they cannot be used commercially.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
