Evaluation of consistency of patient-satisfaction score in the 2011 Knee Society Score to other patient-reported outcome measures

Mechanically Aligned Second-Generation Medial Pivot Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty Does Not Reproduce Normal Knee Biomechanics: A Gait Analysis Study

Background: This study aimed to evaluate post-operative lower limb function following second-generation mechanically aligned medial pivot (MP) TKA implantation. Standard gait analysis was performed to collect kinematic and kinetic data, which were then compared with physiological data from the literature obtained using the same evaluation methodology as the present study. The hypothesis was that this TKA would not fully restore normal knee and adjacent joint motion during walking. Methods: Our cohort comprised 15 patients consecutively enrolled from September 2019 to December 2022 who underwent primary TKA with the second-generation MP Evolution Knee System (MicroPort Orthopaedics Inc., Arlington, TN, USA). Pre-operatively and 6 months post-surgery, gait analysis during level walking was performed on all patients, as well as clinical evaluations using the Knee Society Score (KSS), the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), and the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Results: The clinical scores improved significantly (p < 0.001) after surgery (pre-/post-operative KSS functional, KSS clinical, VAS, and KOOS: 51.7 ± 17.3/84 ± 18.4, 45.3 ± 16.2/74.1 ± 12.6, 6.9 ± 1.8/2.0 ± 1.9, and 33.9 ± 11.8/69.1 ± 16.5, respectively). The statistical parametric mapping (SPM) analysis between the post-operative and reference control data revealed significant differences in the initial and final 20% of the gait cycle for the rotation of the knee in the frontal and transverse planes and for the rotation of the ankle in the sagittal plane. Conclusions: This study shows that new-generation MP TKA with mechanical alignment does not fully restore normal gait biomechanics, particularly in knee rotational movements, indicating a need for improved surgical techniques and prosthetic designs.

Comparing Outcomes of Bicruciate-Stabilized and Cruciate-Retaining Total Knee Arthroplasty

Background

Bicruciate-stabilized (BCS) total knee arthroplasty (TKA) aims to restore normal kinematics by replicating the function of both cruciate ligaments. Conventional cruciate-retaining (CR) design in TKA has shown previous clinical success with lower complication rates. This study compared the patient-reported outcomes between the BCS and CR TKA designs.

Methods

This retrospective study examined patients who underwent primary TKA using a CR or a BCS implant. Patient demographics, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement (KOOS, JR), and Forgotten Joint Score (FJS) were compared between two cohorts. Patient-reported outcome measures were analyzed using independent samples t-tests.

Results

There were no significant preoperative demographic differences between groups. The CR cohort (n = 756) had significantly higher average KOOS, JR Scores compared to the BCS cohort (n = 652) at 3 months (59.7 ± 3.8 vs. 53.0 ± 3.9, p < 0.001) and 2 years (62.6 ± 8.0 vs. 53.8 ± 6.7, p = 0.001) after TKA. Within the cohort, KOOS, JR delta differences were not significant for CR when comparing patient scores 3 months to 1 year after surgery. Meanwhile, the BCS patients did show significant delta improvement (4.1 ± 1.9, p = 0.030) when compared 3 months to 1 year after surgery. One year postoperatively, the BCS cohort (n = 134) showed a significantly higher average FJS score (49.5 ± 31.4, vs. 36.8 ± 28.5, p = 0.028) than the CR cohort (n = 203). Both cohorts displayed a significant difference in delta improvements within their respective cohort when measuring FJS from 3 months to 1 year, 2 years, and 3 years after surgery.

Conclusions

The CR cohort performed better on average, compared to the BCS cohort in measures of KOOS, JR scores at the 2-year follow-up. The BCS cohort performed marginally better regarding FJS only at 1-year follow-up.

The Joint Awareness Score: A Shortened, Simplified, Improved Alternative to the Forgotten Joint Score

Background

The Forgotten Joint Score (FJS) is a 12-question patient-reported outcomes measure created to measure a patient's awareness of their artificial joint. The FJS has attained wide usage, though it is not without weaknesses. Our patients report that the semantics of the English translation are flawed and that the 5 answer options for each question are poorly differentiated. Additionally, the FJS will result in no score if 3 or more questions are unanswered. This prompted the development of an alternative patient-reported outcomes measure, the Joint Awareness Score (JAS), that builds upon the core concept of joint awareness underlying the FJS, but that is easier to understand and shorter to complete. We completed an exploratory, pilot study to evaluate this outcomes instrument. Our hypothesis is that the JAS will correlate strongly with the FJS and could be used as a substitute.

Methods

Knee arthroplasty patients in a prospective registry were administered the FJS and the JAS. Internal consistency and correlation were calculated with Cronbach's alpha and Pearson's correlation coefficient, respectively.

Results

This study included 174 patients. Cronbach's alpha for FJS was 0.97 for 6 months and 0.97 for 12 months, whereas JAS was 0.89 at 6 months and 0.85 at 12 months. Pearson correlation comparing FJS and JAS at 6 months was 0.88 (95% confidence interval: 0.83, 0.92) and 0.86 (95% confidence interval: 0.78, 0.92) at 12 months.

Conclusions

The Joint Awareness Score is a new patient-reported outcomes measure that is a substitute for the FJS, with half the number of questions, improved semantics, and simplified answers.

Image-free handheld robotic-assisted technology improved the accuracy of implant positioning compared to conventional instrumentation in patients undergoing simultaneous bilateral total knee arthroplasty, without additional benefits in improvement of clinical outcomes

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical and radiological outcomes in patients who underwent simultaneous bilateral total knee arthroplasty (SB-TKA) using either robotic-assisted TKA (RA-TKA) or conventional TKA (C-TKA).

METHODS

Included were the patients who underwent SB-TKA between January 2018 and January 2020 and had a minimum follow-up of 2 years. Of 151 patients included, 117 patients were operated using an image-free handheld robotic sculpting system (RA-TKA group) and 34 patients operated using conventional instrumentation (C-TKA group). The key outcomes noted were multiple patient-reported outcomes (PROs), adverse events, and radiological outcomes. Two investigators independently measured the radiological outcomes on pre- and post-operative radiographs in coronal plane (medial proximal tibial angle [MPTA] and anatomic lateral distal femoral angle [aLDFA]) and sagittal plane (posterior tibial slope [PTS] and posterior condylar offset [PCO]). The chi-square test was used to examine categorical variables. Student's t test was used to analyze the continuous variables.

RESULTS

Patients in both groups were similar in baseline characteristics (gender, body mass index, incidence of comorbidities, and length of hospital stay) except that RA-TKA group patients younger (66.7 ± 8.9 vs 70.4 ± 10.5, P = 0.037) than C-TKA group. The operative time was longer in RA-TKA group as compared to C-TKA (189.3 ± 37.1 vs 175.0 ± 28.2, P = 0.040). The final PROs at each were similar between the two groups (P > 0.05). The values of PROs at final follow-up in RA-TKA compared to C-TKA were VAS pain (0.4 ± 0.9 vs 0.4 ± 0.5), KOOS-JR (89.3 ± 5.8 vs 87.1 ± 5.3), and physical (55.9 ± 2.8 vs 55.4 ± 3.2), mental (61.1 ± 4.4 vs 60.2 ± 4.7) component of VR-12 scores, and KSS satisfaction (37.5 ± 1.1 vs 37.1 ± 2.2) (all P > 0.50 or non-significant [n.s.]). While one patient in RA-TKA required revision of femoral component for peri-prosthetic fracture, none of the patient in conventional group were revised (0.85% vs 0%, P = n.s.). The proportion of patients with outliers in RA-TKA group was lower for aLDFA (2.6% vs 22.1%, P < 0.01) and PTS (0% vs 35%, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

This comparative study in patients undergoing SB-TKA found reduction of outliers in femoral and tibial implant positioning with RA-TKA as compared to C-TKA. There were no differences in both groups for pain, function, and satisfaction at a minimum of 2 years of follow-up.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III Therapeutic Study.

Does Adjusting for Social Desirability Reduce Ceiling Effects and Increase Variation of Patient-Reported Experience Measures?

Social desirability bias (a tendency to underreport undesirable attitudes and behaviors) may account, in part, for the notable ceiling effects and limited variability of patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) such as satisfaction, communication effectiveness, and perceived empathy. Given that there is always room for improvement for both clinicians and the care environment, ceiling effects can hinder improvement efforts. This study tested whether weighting of satisfaction scales according to the extent of social desirability can create a more normal distribution of scores and less ceiling effect. In a cross-sectional study 118 English-speaking adults seeking musculoskeletal specialty care completed 2 measures of satisfaction with care (one iterative scale and one 11-point ordinal scale), a measure of social desirability, and basic demographics. Normality of satisfaction scores was assessed using Shapiro-Wilk tests. After weighting for social desirability, scores on the iterative satisfaction scale had a more normal distribution while scores on the 11-point ordinal satisfaction scale did not. The ceiling effects in satisfaction decreased from 47% (n = 56) to 2.5% (n = 3) for the iterative scale, and from 81% (n = 95) to 2.5% (n = 3) for the ordinal scale. There were no differences in mean satisfaction when the social desirability was measured prior to completion of the satisfaction surveys compared to after. The observation that adjustment for levels of social desirability bias can reduce ceiling effects suggests that accounting for personal factors could help us develop PREMs with greater variability in scores, which may prove useful for quality improvement efforts.