Cargando…

Forgotten Joint Score for early outcome assessment after total knee arthroplasty: Is it really useful?

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 F...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lee, Qunn Jid, Chang, Wai Yee Esther, Wong, Yiu Chung
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7388503/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32727584
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s43019-020-00049-0
_version_ 1783564322914435072
author Lee, Qunn Jid
Chang, Wai Yee Esther
Wong, Yiu Chung
author_facet Lee, Qunn Jid
Chang, Wai Yee Esther
Wong, Yiu Chung
author_sort Lee, Qunn Jid
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7388503
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-73885032020-08-07 Forgotten Joint Score for early outcome assessment after total knee arthroplasty: Is it really useful? Lee, Qunn Jid Chang, Wai Yee Esther Wong, Yiu Chung Knee Surg Relat Res Research Article 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. BioMed Central 2020-07-29 /pmc/articles/PMC7388503/ /pubmed/32727584 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s43019-020-00049-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
Lee, Qunn Jid
Chang, Wai Yee Esther
Wong, Yiu Chung
Forgotten Joint Score for early outcome assessment after total knee arthroplasty: Is it really useful?
title Forgotten Joint Score for early outcome assessment after total knee arthroplasty: Is it really useful?
title_full Forgotten Joint Score for early outcome assessment after total knee arthroplasty: Is it really useful?
title_fullStr Forgotten Joint Score for early outcome assessment after total knee arthroplasty: Is it really useful?
title_full_unstemmed Forgotten Joint Score for early outcome assessment after total knee arthroplasty: Is it really useful?
title_short Forgotten Joint Score for early outcome assessment after total knee arthroplasty: Is it really useful?
title_sort forgotten joint score for early outcome assessment after total knee arthroplasty: is it really useful?
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7388503/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32727584
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s43019-020-00049-0
work_keys_str_mv AT leequnnjid forgottenjointscoreforearlyoutcomeassessmentaftertotalkneearthroplastyisitreallyuseful
AT changwaiyeeesther forgottenjointscoreforearlyoutcomeassessmentaftertotalkneearthroplastyisitreallyuseful
AT wongyiuchung forgottenjointscoreforearlyoutcomeassessmentaftertotalkneearthroplastyisitreallyuseful