Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 5/2020

01-05-2020 | KNEE

Minimal clinically important differences and substantial clinical benefits for Knee Society Scores

Authors: Alejandro Lizaur-Utrilla, Santiago Gonzalez-Parreño, Daniel Martinez-Mendez, Francisco A. Miralles-Muñoz, Fernando A. Lopez-Prats

Published in: Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy | Issue 5/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

There is a paucity of literature defining the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the Knee Society Scores (KSS) after total knee arthroplasty (TKA), and no data on the substantial clinical benefit (SCB) for KSS have been reported. The purpose of this study was to determine MCID and SCB for the KSS in patients with primary TKA.

Methods

The median age of patients was 71.6 (range 50–88) years, and 60.3% were females 507 patients with TKA were prospectively enrolled. Patients completed the KSS before surgery and at second postoperative year. The MCID values of the KSS were estimated using anchor-based method, distribution-based method and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis with calculation of the area under curve (AUC). SCB was estimated using ROC.

Results

The MCID for KSS-knee score was 7.2 points by the anchor-based method, 7.2 by the distribution-based method, and using a ROC analysis the cutoff point was 8.9 points with an AUC of 0.75. For KSS-function score, the MCID values were 9.7, 6.3, and 10.3 (AUC 0.71), respectively. SCB values were 39.7 points (AUC 0.74) for the KSS-knee score, and 38.6 (AUC 0.76) for the KSS-function score. Logistic regression showed age and Charlson index to negatively affect the changes in KSS.

Conclusion

Different methods for MCID calculation lead to different results. With the use of ROC curve analysis, patients with an improvement of at least 9 points for KSS-knee and 10 points for KSS-function scores experience a clinically important change, whereas those who have at least an improvement of 40 points for KSS-knee and 39 points for KSS-function scores experience a substantial clinical benefit. These findings can ensure clinical improvement from the patient’s perspective and also aid in interpreting results from clinical studies.

Level of evidence

III.
Literature
2.
go back to reference Ares O, Castellet E, Macule F, Leon V, Montanez E, Freire A, Hinarejos P, Montserrat F, Amillo JR (2013) Translation and validation of ‘The Knee Society Clinical Rating System’ into Spanish. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 21:2618–2624CrossRef Ares O, Castellet E, Macule F, Leon V, Montanez E, Freire A, Hinarejos P, Montserrat F, Amillo JR (2013) Translation and validation of ‘The Knee Society Clinical Rating System’ into Spanish. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 21:2618–2624CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Charlson M, Szatrowski TP, Peterson J, Gold J (1994) Validation of a combined comorbidity index. J Clin Epidemiol 47:1245–1251CrossRef Charlson M, Szatrowski TP, Peterson J, Gold J (1994) Validation of a combined comorbidity index. J Clin Epidemiol 47:1245–1251CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Clement ND, Burnett R (2013) Patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty is affected by their general physical well-being. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 21:2638–2646CrossRef Clement ND, Burnett R (2013) Patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty is affected by their general physical well-being. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 21:2638–2646CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Clement ND, Macdonald D, Burnett R (2013) Predicting patient satisfaction using the Oxford knee score: where do we draw the line? Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 133:689–694CrossRef Clement ND, Macdonald D, Burnett R (2013) Predicting patient satisfaction using the Oxford knee score: where do we draw the line? Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 133:689–694CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Clement ND, MacDonald D, Simpson AH (2014) The minimal clinically important difference in the Oxford Knee Score and short form 12 score after total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 22:1933–1939CrossRef Clement ND, MacDonald D, Simpson AH (2014) The minimal clinically important difference in the Oxford Knee Score and short form 12 score after total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 22:1933–1939CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Cook CE (2008) Clinimetrics corner. The minimal clinically important change score (MCID): a necessary pretense. J Man Manip Ther 16:e82–e83CrossRef Cook CE (2008) Clinimetrics corner. The minimal clinically important change score (MCID): a necessary pretense. J Man Manip Ther 16:e82–e83CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Copay AG, Subach BR, Glassman SD, Polly DW Jr, Schuler TC (2007) Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods. Spine J 7:541–546CrossRef Copay AG, Subach BR, Glassman SD, Polly DW Jr, Schuler TC (2007) Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods. Spine J 7:541–546CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Crosby RD, Kolotkin RL, Williams GR (2003) Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol 56:395–407CrossRef Crosby RD, Kolotkin RL, Williams GR (2003) Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol 56:395–407CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Murray D, Carr A (1998) Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total knee replacement. J Bone Jt Surg Br 80:63–69CrossRef Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Murray D, Carr A (1998) Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total knee replacement. J Bone Jt Surg Br 80:63–69CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Ghomrawi HMK, Mancuso CA, Dunning A, Gonzalez Della Valle A, Alexiades M, Cornell C, Sculco T, Bostrom M, Mayman D, Marx RG, Westrich G, O’Dell M, Mushlin AI (2017) Do surgeon expectations predict clinically important improvements in WOMAC scores after THA and TKA? Clin Orthop Relat Res 475:2150–2158CrossRef Ghomrawi HMK, Mancuso CA, Dunning A, Gonzalez Della Valle A, Alexiades M, Cornell C, Sculco T, Bostrom M, Mayman D, Marx RG, Westrich G, O’Dell M, Mushlin AI (2017) Do surgeon expectations predict clinically important improvements in WOMAC scores after THA and TKA? Clin Orthop Relat Res 475:2150–2158CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Glassman SD, Copay AG, Berven SH, Polly DW, Subach BR, Carreon LY (2008) Defining substantial clinical benefit following lumbar spine arthrodesis. J Bone Jt Surg Am 90:1839–1847CrossRef Glassman SD, Copay AG, Berven SH, Polly DW, Subach BR, Carreon LY (2008) Defining substantial clinical benefit following lumbar spine arthrodesis. J Bone Jt Surg Am 90:1839–1847CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN (1989) Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 248:13–14 Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN (1989) Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 248:13–14
14.
go back to reference Jacobs CA, Christensen CP (2009) Correlations between knee society function scores and functional force measures. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467:2414–2419CrossRef Jacobs CA, Christensen CP (2009) Correlations between knee society function scores and functional force measures. Clin Orthop Relat Res 467:2414–2419CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Klit J, Jacobsen S, Rosenlund S, Sonne-Holm S, Troelsen A (2014) Total knee arthroplasty in younger patients evaluated by alternative outcome measures. J Arthroplasty 29:912–917CrossRef Klit J, Jacobsen S, Rosenlund S, Sonne-Holm S, Troelsen A (2014) Total knee arthroplasty in younger patients evaluated by alternative outcome measures. J Arthroplasty 29:912–917CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Koskinski M, Zhao SZ, Deshiya S, Osterhaus JT, Ware JE (2000) Determining minimally important changes in generic and disease-specific health-related quality of life questionnaires in clinical trials of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 43:1478–1487CrossRef Koskinski M, Zhao SZ, Deshiya S, Osterhaus JT, Ware JE (2000) Determining minimally important changes in generic and disease-specific health-related quality of life questionnaires in clinical trials of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 43:1478–1487CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Lee WC, Kwan YH, Chong HC, Yeo SJ (2017) The minimal clinically important difference for Knee Society Clinical Rating System after total knee arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 25:3354–3359CrossRef Lee WC, Kwan YH, Chong HC, Yeo SJ (2017) The minimal clinically important difference for Knee Society Clinical Rating System after total knee arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 25:3354–3359CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Noble PC, Conditt MA, Cook KF, Mathis KB (2006) The John Insall award: patient expectations affect satisfaction with total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 452:35–43CrossRef Noble PC, Conditt MA, Cook KF, Mathis KB (2006) The John Insall award: patient expectations affect satisfaction with total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 452:35–43CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Revicki D, Hays RD, Cella D, Sloan J (2008) Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 61:102–109CrossRef Revicki D, Hays RD, Cella D, Sloan J (2008) Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 61:102–109CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Shirley ED, Sanders JO (2013) Patient satisfaction: implications and predictors of success. J Bone Jt Surg Am 95:e69CrossRef Shirley ED, Sanders JO (2013) Patient satisfaction: implications and predictors of success. J Bone Jt Surg Am 95:e69CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Tashjian RZ, Deloach J, Green A, Porucznik CA, Powell AP (2010) Minimal clinically important differences in ASES and simple shoulder test scores after nonoperative treatment of rotator cuff disease. J Bone Joint Surg Am 92:296–303CrossRef Tashjian RZ, Deloach J, Green A, Porucznik CA, Powell AP (2010) Minimal clinically important differences in ASES and simple shoulder test scores after nonoperative treatment of rotator cuff disease. J Bone Joint Surg Am 92:296–303CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Terwee CB, Roorda LD, Dekker J, Bierma-Zeinstra SM, Peat G, Jordan KP, Croft P, de Vet HC (2010) Mind the MIC: large variation among populations and methods. J Clin Epidemiol 63:524–534CrossRef Terwee CB, Roorda LD, Dekker J, Bierma-Zeinstra SM, Peat G, Jordan KP, Croft P, de Vet HC (2010) Mind the MIC: large variation among populations and methods. J Clin Epidemiol 63:524–534CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Wells G, Beaton D, Shea B, Boers M, Simon L, Strand V, Brooks P, Tugwell P (2001) Minimal clinically significant important differences: review of methods. J Rheumatol 28:406–412PubMed Wells G, Beaton D, Shea B, Boers M, Simon L, Strand V, Brooks P, Tugwell P (2001) Minimal clinically significant important differences: review of methods. J Rheumatol 28:406–412PubMed
Metadata
Title
Minimal clinically important differences and substantial clinical benefits for Knee Society Scores
Authors
Alejandro Lizaur-Utrilla
Santiago Gonzalez-Parreño
Daniel Martinez-Mendez
Francisco A. Miralles-Muñoz
Fernando A. Lopez-Prats
Publication date
01-05-2020
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy / Issue 5/2020
Print ISSN: 0942-2056
Electronic ISSN: 1433-7347
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-019-05543-x

Other articles of this Issue 5/2020

Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 5/2020 Go to the issue