Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Common Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Knee Arthroplasty Patients

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Critical Rehabilitation for Partial and Total Knee Arthroplasty

  • 510 Accesses

Abstract

The determination of outcome after knee arthroplasty requires assessment of both patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and objective parameters that measure strength, balance, and functional performance. This chapter details the most commonly used PROMs and provides reliability, validity, responsiveness, minimal clinically important difference (MCID), and minimally important change (MIC) when possible to assist users in understanding these instruments. The PROMs include the Knee Society Scoring System, WOMAC, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), KOOS Joint Replacement Survey (KOOS JR), Short Form-36 and Short Form-12, and PROMIS Global-10 Short Form. Activity rating scoring systems typically used after knee arthroplasty are also provided.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Lovelock TM, Broughton NS, Williams CM. The popularity of outcome measures for hip and knee arthroplasties. J Arthroplasty. 2018;33(1):273–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2017.08.024.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Siljander MP, McQuivey KS, Fahs AM, Galasso LA, Serdahely KJ, Karadsheh MS. Current trends in patient-reported outcome measures in total joint arthroplasty: a study of 4 major orthopaedic journals. J Arthroplasty. 2018;33(11):3416–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2018.06.034.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Theodoulou A, Bramwell DC, Spiteri AC, Kim SW, Krishnan J. The use of scoring systems in knee arthroplasty: a systematic review of the literature. J Arthroplasty. 2016;31(10):2364–2370 e2368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2016.05.055.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Rolfson O, Eresian Chenok K, Bohm E, Lubbeke A, Denissen G, Dunn J, Lyman S, Franklin P, Dunbar M, Overgaard S, Garellick G, Dawson J, Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Working Group of the International Society of Arthroplasty R. Patient-reported outcome measures in arthroplasty registries. Acta Orthop. 2016;87(Suppl 1):3–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2016.1181815.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Giesinger JM, Hamilton DF, Jost B, Behrend H, Giesinger K. WOMAC, EQ-5D and knee society score thresholds for treatment success after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2015.06.012.

  6. Services CfMM. Comprehensive care for joint replacement model. 2020. https://innovation.cms.gov/innovation-models/cjr. Accessed 31 Mar 2020.

  7. Molloy IB, Yong TM, Keswani A, Keeney BJ, Moschetti WE, Lucas AP, Jevsevar DS. Do medicare’s patient-reported outcome measures collection windows accurately reflect academic clinical practice? J Arthroplasty. 2020;35(4):911–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2019.11.006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Dummit LA, Kahvecioglu D, Marrufo G, Rajkumar R, Marshall J, Tan E, Press MJ, Flood S, Muldoon LD, Gu Q, Hassol A, Bott DM, Bassano A, Conway PH. Association between hospital participation in a medicare bundled payment initiative and payments and quality outcomes for lower extremity joint replacement episodes. JAMA. 2016;316(12):1267–78. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.12717.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Finkelstein A, Ji Y, Mahoney N, Skinner J. Mandatory medicare bundled payment program for lower extremity joint replacement and discharge to institutional Postacute care: interim analysis of the first year of a 5-year randomized trial. JAMA. 2018;320(9):892–900. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.12346.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Finch DJ, Pellegrini VD Jr, Franklin PD, Magder LS, Pelt CE, Martin BI, Investigators P. The effects of bundled payment programs for hip and knee arthroplasty on patient-reported outcomes. J Arthroplasty. 2020;35(4):918–925 e917. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2019.11.028.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Navathe AS, Liao JM, Dykstra SE, Wang E, Lyon ZM, Shah Y, Martinez J, Small DS, Werner RM, Dinh C, Ma X, Emanuel EJ. Association of hospital participation in a medicare bundled payment program with volume and case mix of lower extremity joint replacement episodes. JAMA. 2018;320(9):901–10. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.12345.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN. Rationale of the knee society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989;248:13–4.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Noble PC, Scuderi GR, Brekke AC, Sikorskii A, Benjamin JB, Lonner JH, Chadha P, Daylamani DA, Scott WN, Bourne RB. Development of a new knee society scoring system. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470(1):20–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-011-2152-z.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Maniar RN, Maniar PR, Chanda D, Gajbhare D, Chouhan T. What is the responsiveness and respondent burden of the new knee society score? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2017;475(9):2218–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-017-5338-1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Jacobs CA, Christensen CP. Correlations between knee society function scores and functional force measures. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467(9):2414–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-009-0811-0.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Scuderi GR, Sikorskii A, Bourne RB, Lonner JH, Benjamin JB, Noble PC. The knee society short form reduces respondent burden in the assessment of patient-reported outcomes. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016;474(1):134–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-015-4370-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Maniar RN, Maniar PR, Chanda D, Gajbhare D, Chouhan T. Short-form new knee society score: what is its responsiveness and convergent validity with other scores? J Knee Surg. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1702190.

  18. 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(12):1833–40.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Bellamy N. Pain assessment in osteoarthritis: experience with the WOMAC osteoarthritis index. Semin Arthritis Rheum. 1989;18(4 Suppl 2):14–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/0049-0172(89)90010-3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Roos EM, Klassbo M, Lohmander LS. WOMAC osteoarthritis index. Reliability, validity, and responsiveness in patients with arthroscopically assessed osteoarthritis. Western Ontario and MacMaster Universities. Scand J Rheumatol. 1999;28(4):210–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Escobar A, Quintana JM, Bilbao A, Arostegui I, Lafuente I, Vidaurreta I. Responsiveness and clinically important differences for the WOMAC and SF-36 after total knee replacement. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2007;15(3):273–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2006.09.001.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Murray D, Carr A. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg. 1998;80(1):63–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Murray DW, Fitzpatrick R, Rogers K, Pandit H, Beard DJ, Carr AJ, Dawson J. The use of the Oxford hip and knee scores. J Bone Joint Surg. 2007;89(8):1010–4. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.89B8.19424.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Beard DJ, Harris K, Dawson J, Doll H, Murray DW, Carr AJ, Price AJ. Meaningful changes for the Oxford hip and knee scores after joint replacement surgery. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(1):73–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.08.009.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Jenny JY, Diesinger Y. The Oxford Knee Score: compared performance before and after knee replacement. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2012;98(4):409–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2012.03.004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Harris K, Dawson J, Doll H, Field RE, Murray DW, Fitzpatrick R, Jenkinson C, Price AJ, Beard DJ. Can pain and function be distinguished in the Oxford Knee Score in a meaningful way? An exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Qual Life Res. 2013;22(9):2561–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-013-0393-x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Harris K, Dawson J, Gibbons E, Lim CR, Beard DJ, Fitzpatrick R, Price AJ. Systematic review of measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures used in patients undergoing hip and knee arthroplasty. Patient Relat Outcome Meas. 2016;7:101–8. https://doi.org/10.2147/PROM.S97774.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Xie F, Ye H, Zhang Y, Liu X, Lei T, Li SC. Extension from inpatients to outpatients: validity and reliability of the Oxford Knee Score in measuring health outcomes in patients with knee osteoarthritis. Int J Rheum Dis. 2011;14(2):206–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-185X.2010.01580.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Clemente CD. Anatomy: a regional atlas of the human body. 5th ed. Baltimore: Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Harris K, Lim CR, Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Beard DJ, Price AJ. The Oxford knee score and its subscales do not exhibit a ceiling or a floor effect in knee arthroplasty patients: an analysis of the National Health Service PROMs data set. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2017;25(9):2736–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-015-3788-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Roos EM, Roos HP, Lohmander LS, Ekdahl C, Beynnon BD. Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)--development of a self-administered outcome measure. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1998;28(2):88–96.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Bekkers JE, de Windt TS, Raijmakers NJ, Dhert WJ, Saris DB. Validation of the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) for the treatment of focal cartilage lesions. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2009;17(11):1434–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2009.04.019.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Peer MA, Lane J. The Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS): a review of its psychometric properties in people undergoing total knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2013;43(1):20–8. https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2013.4057.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Roos EM, Engelhart L, Ranstam J, Anderson AF, Irrgang JJ, Marx RG, Tegner Y, Davis AM. ICRS recommendation document: patient-reported outcome instruments for use in patients with articular cartilage defects. Cartilage. 2011;2(2):122–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/1947603510391084.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Roos EM, Lohmander LS. The Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS): from joint injury to osteoarthritis. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003;1(1):64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Roos EM, Toksvig-Larsen S. Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) - validation and comparison to the WOMAC in total knee replacement. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003;1(1):17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Connelly JW, Galea VP, Rojanasopondist P, Matuszak SJ, Ingelsrud LH, Nielsen CS, Bragdon CR, Huddleston JI 3rd, Malchau H, Troelsen A. Patient acceptable symptom state at 1 and 3 years after total knee arthroplasty: thresholds for the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS). J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2019;101(11):995–1003. https://doi.org/10.2106/jbjs.18.00233.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Lyman S, Lee YY, McLawhorn AS, Islam W, MacLean CH. What are the minimal and substantial improvements in the HOOS and KOOS and JR versions after total joint replacement? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2018;476(12):2432–41. https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000000456.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Haydel A, Guilbeau S, Roubion R, Leonardi C, Bronstone A, Dasa V. Achieving validated thresholds for clinically meaningful change on the knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score after Total knee arthroplasty: findings from a university-based orthopaedic tertiary care safety net practice. J Am Acad Orthop Surg Glob Res Rev. 2019;3(11):e00142. https://doi.org/10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-19-00142.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Gandek B, Ware JE Jr. Validity and responsiveness of the knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score: a comparative study among total knee replacement patients. Arthritis Care Res. 2017;69(6):817–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.23193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Lyman S, Lee YY, Franklin PD, Li W, Cross MB, Padgett DE. Validation of the KOOS, JR: a Short-form Knee Arthroplasty Outcomes Survey. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-016-4719-1.

  42. Jette DU, Hunter SJ, Burkett L, Langham B, Logerstedt DS, Piuzzi NS, Poirier NM, Radach LJL, Ritter JE, Scalzitti DA, Stevens-Lapsley JE, Tompkins J, Zeni J Jr, American Physical Therapy A. Physical therapist management of total knee arthroplasty. Phys Ther. 2020;100(9):1603–31. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/pzaa099.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30(6):473–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Ruta D, Hurst N, Kind P, Hunter M, Stubbings A. Measuring health status in British patients with rheumatoid arthritis: reliability, validity and responsiveness of the short form 36-item health survey (SF-36). Br J Rheumatol. 1998;37(4):425–36.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Linde L, Sørensen J, Østergaard M, Hørslev-Petersen K, Hetland ML. Health-related quality of life: validity, reliability, and responsiveness of SF-36, EQ-15D, EQ-5D, RAQoL, and HAQ in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol. 2008;35(8):1528–37.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Ware J Jr, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care. 1996;34(3):220–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. McHorney CA, Ware JE, Rachel JF, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36): III. Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability across diverse patient groups. Med Care. 1994;32(1):40–66.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Gandek B, Ware JE, Aaronson NK, Apolone G, Bjorner JB, Brazier JE, Bullinger M, Kaasa S, Leplege A, Prieto L, Sullivan M. Cross-validation of item selection and scoring for the SF-12 Health Survey in nine countries: results from the IQOLA Project. International Quality of Life Assessment. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51(11):1171–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Jenkinson C, Layte R, Jenkinson D, Lawrence K, Petersen S, Paice C, Stradling J. A shorter form health survey: can the SF-12 replicate results from the SF-36 in longitudinal studies? J Public Health Med. 1997;19(2):179–86.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Gandhi SK, Salmon JW, Zhao SZ, Lambert BL, Gore PR, Conrad K. Psychometric evaluation of the 12-item short-form health survey (SF-12) in osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials. Clin Ther. 2001;23(7):1080–98.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Resnick B, Nahm ES. Reliability and validity testing of the revised 12-item Short-Form Health Survey in older adults. J Nurs Meas. 2001;9(2):151–61.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Schofield MJ, Mishra G. Validity of the SF-12 compared with the SF-36 Health Survey in pilot studies of the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women’s Health. J Health Psychol. 1998;3(2):259–71.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Cheak-Zamora NC, Wyrwich KW, McBride TD. Reliability and validity of the SF-12v2 in the medical expenditure panel survey. Qual Life Res. 2009;18(6):727–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Hays RD, Bjorner JB, Revicki DA, Spritzer KL, Cella D. Development of physical and mental health summary scores from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) global items. Qual Life Res. 2009;18(7):873–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-009-9496-9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Cella D, Riley W, Stone A, Rothrock N, Reeve B, Yount S, Amtmann D, Bode R, Buysse D, Choi S, Cook K, Devellis R, DeWalt D, Fries JF, Gershon R, Hahn EA, Lai JS, Pilkonis P, Revicki D, Rose M, Weinfurt K, Hays R, Group PC. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of adult self-reported health outcome item banks: 2005–2008. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(11):1179–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.011.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Shim J, Hamilton DF. Comparative responsiveness of the PROMIS-10 global health and EQ-5D questionnaires in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint J. 2019;101-b(7):832–7. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.101b7.Bjj-2018-1543.R1.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Oak SR, Strnad GJ, Bena J, Farrow LD, Parker RD, Jones MH, Spindler KP. Responsiveness comparison of the EQ-5D, PROMIS global health, and VR-12 questionnaires in knee arthroscopy. Orthop J Sports Med. 2016;4(12):2325967116674714. https://doi.org/10.1177/2325967116674714.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Amstutz HC, Thomas BJ, Jinnah R, Kim W, Grogan T, Yale C. Treatment of primary osteoarthritis of the hip. A comparison of total joint and surface replacement arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1984;66(2):228–41.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Naal FD, Impellizzeri FM, Leunig M. Which is the best activity rating scale for patients undergoing total joint arthroplasty? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467(4):958–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-008-0358-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Saleh KJ, Mulhall KJ, Bershadsky B, Ghomrawi HM, White LE, Buyea CM, Krackow KA. Development and validation of a lower-extremity activity scale. Use for patients treated with revision total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87(9):1985–94. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.D.02564.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Scuderi GR, Bourne RB, Noble PC, Benjamin JB, Lonner JH, Scott WN. The new knee society knee scoring system. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470(1):3–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-011-2135-0.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Noyes Knee Institute, Cincinnati, OH, USA

    Sue Barber-Westin

  2. Cincinnati SportsMedicine and Orthopaedic Center, The Noyes Knee Institute, Cincinnati, OH, USA

    Frank R. Noyes

Authors
  1. Sue Barber-Westin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Frank R. Noyes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sue Barber-Westin .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Cincinnati Sportsmedicine and Orthopedic Center, Noyes Knee Institute, Cincinnati, OH, USA

    Frank R. Noyes

  2. Noyes Knee Institute, Cincinnati, OH, USA

    Sue Barber-Westin

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Barber-Westin, S., Noyes, F.R. (2022). Common Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Knee Arthroplasty Patients. In: Noyes, F.R., Barber-Westin, S. (eds) Critical Rehabilitation for Partial and Total Knee Arthroplasty. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87003-4_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87003-4_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-87002-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-87003-4

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation