Abstract
Purpose
To compare the following subjective scoring instruments: the Knee Society Function (KS-F) Score and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) in patients who underwent total knee arthroplasty (TKA) by assessing standard metrics related to the utility of each instrument, including responsiveness, ceiling effect, and distribution of scores.
Methods
Patients undergoing TKA for osteoarthritis (n = 82) were evaluated pre-operatively and post-operatively at a median time of 1 year (range 0.7–3.6 years) using the KS-F score and KOOS. Responsiveness, the ability of a tool to measure change over time, was evaluated by computing the standardized response mean. Ceiling effects were determined by calculating the percentage of patients who attained the best-possible score.
Results
The KOOS scale had higher standardized response mean than KS-F scale in the majority of subsections (except sports and recreation). The KOOS had a lower ceiling effect in the majority of subsections (except pain) and was significantly lower on the symptoms and quality of life subscales (both p < 0.05). Scores were not normally distributed for either KS-F or KOOS scales.
Conclusions
Since the KOOS scale had a higher responsiveness and a lower ceiling effect, it appears to be a superior outcome tool versus the KS-F scale when evaluating the outcomes of TKA patients.
Level of evidence
Diagnostic Study, Level I.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Barber-Westin SD, Noyes FR, McCloskey JW (1999) Rigorous statistical reliability, validity, and responsiveness testing of the Cincinnati knee rating system in 350 subjects with uninjured, injured, or anterior cruciate ligament-reconstructed knees. Am J Sports Med 27:402–416
Beaton DE, Hogg-Johnson S, Bombardier C (1997) Evaluating changes in health status: reliability and responsiveness of five generic health status measures in workers with musculoskeletal disorders. J Clin Epidemiol 50:79–93
Bellamy N, Buchanan W, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt L (1988) 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 15:1833–1840
Brazier JE, Harper R, Jones NM, O’Cathain A, Thomas KJ, Usherwood T, Westlake L (1992) Validating the sf-36 health survey questionnaire: a new outcome measure for primary care. Brit Med J 305:160–164
Bullens PH, van Loon CJ, de Waal Malefijt MC, Laan RF, Veth RP (2001) Patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty: a comparison between subjective and objective outcome assessments. J Arthroplasty 16:740–747
Deyo RA, Centor RM (1986) Assessing the responsiveness of functional scales to clinical change: an analogy to diagnostic test performance. J Chronic Dis 39:897–906
Donner A, Eliasziw M (1987) Sample size requirements for reliability studies. Stat Med 6:441–448
Escobar MD, Quintana JM, Bilbao A, Arostegui I, Lafuente I, Vidaurreta I (2007) Responsiveness and clinical important differences for the womac and sf-36 after total knee replacement. Osteoarthr Cartil 15:273–280
Font-Rodriguez DE, Scuderi GR, Insall JN (1997) Survivorship of cemented total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 345:79–86
Ghanem E, Pawasarat I, Lindsay A, May L, Azzam K, Joshi A, Parvizi J (2010) Limitations of the knee society score in evaluating outcomes following revision total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 92:2445–2451
Giesinger K, Hamilton DF, Jost B, Holzner B, Giesinger JM (2014) Comparative responsiveness of outcome measures for total knee arthroplasty. Osteoarthr Cartil 22:184–189
Gill GS, Mills DM (1991) Long-term follow-up evaluation of 1000 consecutive cemented total knee arthroplasties. Clin Orthop Relat Res 273:66–76
Goldberg VM, Figgie MP, Figgie HE 3rd, Heiple KG, Sobel M (1988) Use of a total condylar knee prosthesis for treatment of osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. Long-term results. J Bone Joint Surg Am 70:802–811
Insall J, Scott WN, Ranawat CS (1979) The total condylar knee prosthesis. a report of two hundred and twenty cases. J Bone Joint Surg Am 61:173–180
Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN (1989) Rationale of the knee society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 248:13–14
Kane RL, Saleh KJ, Wilt TJ, Bershadsky B (2005) The functional outcomes of total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 87:1719–1724
Kazis LE, Anderson JJ, Meenan RF (1989) Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med C 27:S178–S189
Kreibich DN, Vaz M, Bourne RB, Rorabeck CH, Kim P, Hardie R, Kramer J, Kirkley A (1996) What is the best way of assessing outcome after total knee replacement? Clin Orthop Relat Res 331:221–225
Liang MH, Fossel AH, Larson MG (1990) Comparisons of five health status instruments for orthopedic evaluation. Med C 28:632–642
Lingard EA, Katz JN, Wright RJ, Wright EA, Sledge CB (2001) Validity and responsiveness of the knee society clinical rating system in comparison with the sf-36 and womac. J Bone Joint Surg Am 83-A:1856–1864
Marin DP, Engelberg R, Agel J, Swiontkowski MF (1997) Comparison of the musculoskeletal function assessment questionnaire with the short form-36, the Western Ontario and McMaster University osteoarthritis index, and the sickness impact profile health-status measures. J Bone Joint Surg Am 79:1323–1335
Marx RG, Jones EC, Allen AA, Altchek DW, O’Brien SJ, Rodeo SA, Williams RJ, Warren RF, Wickiewicz TL (2001) Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of four knee outcome scales for athletic patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am 83-A:1459–1469
Noble PC, Scuderi GR, Brekke AC, Sikorskii A, Benjamin JB, Lonner JH, Chadha P, Daylamani DA, Scott WN, Bourne RB (2012) Development of a new knee society scoring system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 470:20–32
Ranawat CS, Flynn WF Jr, Saddler S, Hansraj KK, Maynard MJ (1993) Long-term results of the total condylar knee arthroplasty. A 15-year survivorship study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 286:94–102
Roos EM, Lohmander LS (2003) The knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (koos): from joint injury to osteoarthritis. Health Qual Life Outcomes 1:64
Roos EM, Roos HP, Lohmander LS, Ekdahl C, Beynnon BD (1998) Knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (koos)—development of a self-administered outcome measure. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 28:88–96
Roos EM, Toksvig-Larsen S (2003) Knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (koos)—validation and comparison to the womac in total knee replacement. Health Qual Life Outcomes 1:17
Saleh KJ, Dykes DC, Tweedie RL, Mohamed K, Ravichandran A, Saleh RM, Gioe TJ, Heck DA (2002) Functional outcome after total knee arthroplasty revision: a meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty 17:967–977
Scuderi GR, Insall JN, Windsor RE, Moran MC (1989) Survivorship of cemented knee replacements. J Bone Joint Surg Br 71:798–803
Wright JG, Young NL (1997) A comparison of different indices of responsiveness. J Clin Epidemiol 50:239–246
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Julie McCauley, MPHc for her help in preparation of this manuscript and Andrea Pallante-Kichura, PhD for technical writing assistance.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Steinhoff, A.K., Bugbee, W.D. Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score has higher responsiveness and lower ceiling effect than Knee Society Function Score after total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 24, 2627–2633 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-014-3433-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-014-3433-3