Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

, Volume 475, Issue 9, pp 2218–2227 | Cite as

What is the Responsiveness and Respondent Burden of the New Knee Society Score?

  • Rajesh N. Maniar
  • Parul R. Maniar
  • Debashish Chanda
  • Dnyaneshwar Gajbhare
  • Toral Chouhan
Clinical Research

Abstract

Background

Although the new Knee Society score (NKSS) has been validated by a task force, a longitudinal study of the same cohort of patients to evaluate the score’s responsiveness and respondent burden has not been reported, to our knowledge.

Questions/Purposes

We analyzed the NKSS for (1) responsiveness; (2) respondent burden; and (3) convergent validity in 148 patients studied longitudinally during more than 1 year.

Methods

During an 8-month period, 165 patients underwent TKA by the same surgeon at our institution, of whom 148 (90%) completed this study; the others were excluded because of distance to travel or loss to followup at the specified time. The NKSS, WOMAC, and SF-12 were completed by each patient 1 day before surgery and at 3 and 12 months postoperatively. At the same times, the original KSS (OKSS) which is designed as an observer’s assessment, was completed by the same orthopaedic fellow for all patients. Responsiveness of the NKSS was assessed by determining effect size, standardized response mean (SRM), and ceiling and floor effects. Respondent burden was assessed through time to completion recorded in minutes and ease of completion which was measured objectively on a Likert scale of 1 to 5 by the patients. Convergent validity was assessed by correlating the NKSS with the WOMAC, SF-12, and OKSS (current, widely used scales) by Pearson’s correlation coefficient.

Results

Effect size was largest (2.83 and 3.38) and SRM was highest (2.29 and 2.68) for the NKSS at 3 and 12 months respectively, indicating the NKSS to be the most-responsive score followed by the OKSS, WOMAC, and SF-12. The NKSS exhibited no ceiling and floor effects. The NKSS took a longer time to complete (5.49 ± 3.56 minutes) compared with the WOMAC (4.64 ± 3.19 minutes) and SF-12 (4.35 ± 3.27 minutes). The mean difference in time taken for the NKSS versus the WOMAC was 0.85 minutes (95% CI, 0.54–1.17 minutes; p < 0.001) and the mean difference for the NKSS versus the SF-12 was 1.14 minutes (95% CI, 0.76–1.15 minutes; p < 0.001). Its ease of completion generally was comparable to that of the WOMAC and SF-12. Convergent validity showed a strong correlation (r > 0.6; p < 0.001) of the NKSS with the WOMAC at all times and moderate to strong correlation (r = 0.4–0.6; p < 0.001) with the SF-12 and OKSS at the first two assessments, which became strong (r > 0.6; p < 0.001) at 12 months.

Conclusions

The NKSS exhibited greater responsiveness than the WOMAC, SF-12, and OKSS scales and showed no ceiling effect, indicating adequate potential for recording future improvement. The NKSS also showed reliable convergent validity when correlated with these other scores. However, it posed a greater respondent burden in terms of time to completion.

Clinical Relevance

As independent nondevelopers of the NKSS, we found it to be a responsive tool for assessment of TKA outcomes. We have confirmed that the NKSS can be used interchangeably for this purpose with the WOMAC scale and that it correlates positively with other established scales of the SF-12 and OKSS. Further study of the short-form version will establish whether it also can be used effectively while reducing the respondent burden.

References

  1. 1.
    Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW. Validation study of the WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient-relevant outcomes following total hip or knee arthroplasty in osteoarthritis. J Orthop Rheumatol. 1988;1:95–108.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    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;15:1833–1840.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. New York, NY: Academic Press Inc; 1977.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Davies AP. Rating systems for total knee replacement. Knee. 2002;9:261–266.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Debette C, Parratte S, Maucort-Boulch D, Blanc G, Pauly V, Lustig S, Servien E, Neyret P, Argenson JN. French adaptation of the new Knee Society Scoring System for total knee arthroplasty. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2014;100:531–534.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dinjens RN, Senden R, Heyligers IC, Grimm B. Clinimetric quality of the new 2011 Knee Society score: high validity, low completion rate. Knee. 2014;21:647–654.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hamamoto Y, Ito H, Furu M, Ishikawa M, Azukizawa M, Kuriyama S, Nakamura S, Matsuda S. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Japanese version of the new Knee Society Scoring System for osteoarthritic knee with total knee arthroplasty. J Orthop Sci. 2015;20:849–853.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN. Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1989;248:13–14.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Insall JN, Ranawat CS, Aglietti P, Shine J. A comparison of four models of total knee-replacement prostheses. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1976;58:754–765.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kazis LE, Anderson JJ, Meenan RF. Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care. 1989;27(3 suppl):S178-189.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kreibich DN, Vaz M, Bourne RB, Rorabeck CH, Kim P, Hardie R, Kramer J, Kirkley A. What is the best way of assessing outcome after total knee replacement? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1996;331:221–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Liang MH, Fossel AH, Larson MG. Comparisons of five health status instruments for orthopedic evaluation. Med Care. 1990;28:632–642.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lingard EA, Katz JN, Wright RJ, Wright EA, Sledge CB; Kinemax Outcomes Group. Validity and responsiveness of the Knee Society Clinical Rating System in comparison with the SF-36 and WOMAC. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001;83:1856–1864.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Marx RG, Jones EC, Atwan NC, Closkey RF, Salvati EA, Sculco TP. Measuring improvement following total hip and knee arthroplasty using patient-based measures of outcome. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:1999–2005.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    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;470:20–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    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;1:17.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    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;474:134–142.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Swinscow TD, Campbell MJ, Statistics at Square One.10th ed. London, UK: BMJ Books; 2002.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Van Der Straeten C1, Witvrouw E, Willems T, Bellemans J, Victor J. Translation and validation of the Dutch new Knee Society Scoring System ©. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471:3565–3571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    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;34:220–233.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons® 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rajesh N. Maniar
    • 1
  • Parul R. Maniar
    • 2
  • Debashish Chanda
    • 3
  • Dnyaneshwar Gajbhare
    • 4
  • Toral Chouhan
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryLilavati Hospital & Research CentreMumbaiIndia
  2. 2.Department of Refractive SurgeryNew Vision Laser CentresMumbaiIndia
  3. 3.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryW Pratiksha HospitalGurgaonIndia
  4. 4.Department of Community MedicineT N Medical CollegeMumbaiIndia
  5. 5.Research UnitNook ClinicMumbaiIndia

Personalised recommendations