Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Use of the forgotten joint score (FJS)-12 to evaluate knee awareness after isolated anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with and without meniscus repair or partial meniscectomy

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery & Traumatology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to compare knee awareness, based on the FJS-12 score, among three patient groups: Anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR), ACLR + meniscus repair and ACLR + partial meniscectomy. The relationship between FJS-12 scores and scores on other instruments (Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale, Tegner Activity Level Scale, KOOS and WOMAC) was also evaluated.

Methods

Forty-three patients were divided into group A (isolated ACLR) group B (ACLR + meniscectomy) and group C (ACLR + meniscus repair). Graft thickness, femoral tunnel width, tibial tunnel width, tibial screw thickness and follow-up time were evaluated in all three groups. The subjective knee scores (KOOS, WOMAC, Lysholm Knee Scoring Scale, Tegner Activity Level Scale and FJS-12) of the groups were then compared.

Results

FJS-12 scores of 43 patients were evaluated. The mean age was 26.1 ± 6.5 years (range: 18–40 years). Group A: 23; group B: 9 and group C include 11 patients. The mean FJS-12 score of group B (median: 100 [range: 98–100]) was higher than that the others. Spearman’s rho test showed that the FJS-12 is highly compatible with the other scores.

Conclusion

According to this study, FJS-12 and the other scoring systems showed that ACLR with partial meniscectomy is the most effective surgical method to restore normal sensation in the knee.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article or its supplementary materials.

Code availability

The authors confirm that the code of this study are available within the article or its supplementary materials.

References

  1. Rothrauff BB, Jorge A, de Sa D, Kay J, Fu FH, Musahl V (2019) Anatomic ACL reconstruction reduces risk of post-traumatic osteoarthritis: a systematic review with minimum 10-year follow-up. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-019-05665-2

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Roos EM, Roos HP, Lohmander LS, Ekdahl C, Beynnon BD (1988) Knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS)–development of a self-administered outcome measure. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 28(2):88–96. https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.1998.28.2.88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Tegner Y, Lysholm J (1985) Rating systems in the evaluation of knee ligament injuries. Clin Orthop Relat Res 198:43–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Behrend H, Giesinger K, Giesinger JM, Kuster MS (2012) The “forgotten joint” as the ultimate goal in joint arthroplasty: validation of a new patient-reported outcome measure. J Arthroplasty 27:430–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2011.06.035

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Behrend H, Zdravkovic V, Giesinger JM, Giesinger K (2017) Joint awareness after ACL reconstruction: patient-reported outcomes measured with the forgotten joint score-12. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 25(5):1454–1460. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-016-4357-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kınıklı GI, Deniz HG, Karahan S, Yuksel E, Kalkan S, Donder Kara D, Onal S, Sevinc C, Caglar O, Atilla B, Yuksel İ (2017) Validity and reliability of Turkish version of the forgotten joint score-12. J Exerc Ther Rehabilit 4(1):18–25

    Google Scholar 

  7. Tuzun EH, Eker L, Aytar A, Daskapan A, Bayramoglu M (2005) Acceptability, reliability, validity and responsiveness of the Turkish version of WOMAC osteoarthritis index. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 13(1):28–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2004.10.010

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Paker N, Buğdaycı D, Sabırlı F, Özel S, Ersoy S (2007) Knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score: reliability and validation of the Turkish version. Turkiye Klinikleri J Med Sci 27:350–435

    Google Scholar 

  9. Celik D, Coskunsu D, Kilicoglu O (2013) Translation and cultural adaptation of the Turkish Lysholm knee scale: ease of use, validity, and reliability. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471(8):2602–2610. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-013-3046-z (Epub 2013 May 11)

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Hamilton DF, Giesinger JM, MacDonald DJ, Simpson AH, Howie CR, Giesinger K (2016) Responsiveness and ceiling effects of the forgotten joint score-12 following total hip arthroplasty. Bone Joint Res 5(3):87–91. https://doi.org/10.1302/2046-758.53.2000480

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Thienpont E, Opsomer G, Koninckx A, Houssiau F (2014) Joint awareness in different types of knee arthroplasty evaluated with the forgotten joint score. J Arthroplasty 29(1):48–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2013.04.024

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Thomsen MG, Latifi R, Kallemose T, Barfod KW, Husted H, Troelsen A (2016) Good validity and reliability of the forgotten joint score in evaluating the outcome of total knee arthroplasty. Acta Orthop 87(3):280–285. https://doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2016.1156934

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Bell SW, Stoddard J, Bennett C, London NJ (2014) Accuracy and early outcomes in medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty performed using patient specific instrumentation. Knee 21(Suppl 1):S33–S36. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0968-0160(14)50007-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Matsumoto M, Baba T, Homma Y, Kobayashi H, Ochi H, Yuasa T, Behrend H, Kaneko K (2015) Validation study of the forgotten joint score-12 as a universal patient-reported outcome measure. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 25:1141–1145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-015-1660-

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Thienpont E, Vanden Berghe A, Schwab PE, Forthomme JP, Cornu O (2016) Joint awareness in osteoarthritis of the hip and knee evaluated with the ‘Forgotten Joint’ Score before and after joint replacement. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-00015-03970-00164

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Thienpont E, Zorman D (2015) Higher forgotten joint score for fixed-bearing than for mobile-bearing total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-00015-03663-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Zuiderbaan HA, van der List JP, Khamaisy S, Nawabi DH, Thein R, Ishmael C, Paul S, Pearle AD (2015) Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty versus total knee arthroplasty: Which type of artificial joint do patients forget? Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-00015-03868-00161

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Behrend H, Giesinger K, Zdravkovic V, Giesinger JM (2017) Validating the forgotten joint score-12 in patients after ACL reconstruction. Knee 24(4):768–774. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2017.05.007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Eichler D, Beaulieu Y, Barry J, Massé V, Vendittoli PA (2020) Perception of a natural joint after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 35(2):358–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hevesi M, Krych AJ, Kurzweil PR (2019) Meniscus tear management: indications, technique, and outcomes arthroscopy. J Arthrosc Relat Surg 35(9):2542–2544

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Cinque ME, DePhillipo NN, Moatshe G, Chahla J, Kennedy MI, Dornan GJ, LaPrade RF (2019) Clinical outcomes of inside-out meniscal repair according to anatomic zone of the meniscal tear. Orthop J Sports Med 25(7):2325967119860806

    Google Scholar 

  22. Svantesson E, Cristiani R, Hamrin Senorski E, Forssblad M, Samuelsson K, Stålman A (2018) Meniscal repair results in inferior short-term outcomes compared with meniscal resection: a cohort study of 6398 patients with primary anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc 26(8):2251–2258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-017-4793-2 (Epub 2017 Nov 13)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Inal HS (2011) Women’s and Girls’ Sports in Turkey. WSPAJ. https://doi.org/10.1123/wspaj.20.2.76

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank biostatistician Huseyin Candan for cleaning the data and performing the statistical analysis. The English in this document has been checked by at least two professional editors, both native speakers of English. For a certificate, please see: http://www.textcheck.com/certificate/5Lkmhc.

Funding

This study has no funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Tepecik Training and Research Hospital, 35180, İzmir, Turkey

    Ismail Eralp Kacmaz, Mehmet Can Gezer, Can Doruk Basa & Vadym Zhamilov

  2. Department of Forensic Medicine, Tepecik Training and Research Hospital, İzmir, Turkey

    Oguzhan Ekizoglu

Authors
  1. Ismail Eralp Kacmaz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mehmet Can Gezer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Can Doruk Basa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Vadym Zhamilov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Oguzhan Ekizoglu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

IEK contributed to protocol development, data analysis, manuscript writing/editing, data collection or management. MCG contributed to data collection or management, data analysis, manuscript editing. CDB contributed to data analysis, manuscript editing. VZ contributed to data analysis, manuscript editing. OE contributed to protocol development, data analysis, manuscript writing/editing. All authors confirm that the manuscript has been read and approved by all named authors and there are no other people who meet the criteria for authorship that are no listed. We further confirm that the order of authors listed in the manuscript has been approved by all of us.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ismail Eralp Kacmaz.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethics approval

Approval for the study was obtained from the Local Ethics committee of the hospital where the study was conducted (number 2019/16–10).

Consent to participate

Consent to participate approval was obtained from all participants who participated in the study.

Consent for publication

Consent for publication approval was obtained from all participants who participated in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kacmaz, I.E., Gezer, M.C., Basa, C.D. et al. Use of the forgotten joint score (FJS)-12 to evaluate knee awareness after isolated anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction with and without meniscus repair or partial meniscectomy. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 32, 413–418 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-021-02991-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-021-02991-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation