Objectives. To assess the responsiveness and ceiling/floor effects of the Forgotten Joint Score -12 and to compare these with that of the more widely used Oxford Hip Score (OHS) in patients six and 12 months after primary total hip arthroplasty. Methods. We prospectively collected data at six and 12 months following total hip arthroplasty from 193 patients undergoing surgery at a single centre. Ceiling effects are outlined with frequencies for patients obtaining the lowest or highest possible score. Change over time from six months to 12 months post-surgery is reported as effect size (Cohen’s d). Results. The mean OHS improved from 40.3 (. sd. 7.9) at six months to 41.9 (. sd. 7.2) at 12 months. The mean FJS-12 improved from 56.8 (. sd. 30.1) at six months to 62.1 (. sd. 29.0) at 12 months. At six months, 15.5% of patients reached the best possible score (48 points) on the OHS and 8.3% obtained the best score (100 points) on the FJS-12. At 12 months, this percentage increased to 20.8% for the OHS and to 10.4% for the FJS-12. In terms of the effect size (Cohen’s d), the change was d = 0.10 for the OHS and d = 0.17 for the FJS-12. Conclusions. The FJS-12 is more responsive to change between six and 12 months following total hip arthroplasty than is the OHS, with the measured ceiling effect for the OHS twice that of the FJS-12. The difference in effect size of change results in substantial differences in required sample size if aiming to detect change between these two time points. This has important implications for powering clinical trials with patient-reported measures as the primary outcome. Cite this article: Dr D. F. Hamilton. Responsiveness and ceiling effects of the Forgotten Joint Score-12 following total hip arthroplasty. Bone Joint Res 2016;5:87–91. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.53.2000480

Aims. To validate the English language Forgotten Joint Score-12 (FJS-12) as a tool to evaluate the outcome of hip and knee arthroplasty in a United Kingdom population. Patients and Methods. All patients undergoing surgery between January and August 2014 were eligible for inclusion. Prospective data were collected from 205 patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA) and 231 patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Outcomes were assessed with the FJS-12 and the Oxford Hip and Knee Scores (OHS, OKS) pre-operatively, then at six and 12 months post-operatively. Internal consistency, convergent validity, effect size, relative validity and ceiling effects were determined. Results. Data for the TKA and THA patients showed high internal consistency for the FJS-12 (Cronbach α = 0.97 in TKAs, 0.98 in THAs). Convergent validity with the Oxford Scores was high (r = 0.85 in TKAs, r = 0.79 for THAs). From six to 12 months, the change was higher for the FJS-12 than for the OHS in THA patients (effect size d = 0.21 versus -0.03). Ceiling effects at one-year follow-up were low for the FJS-12 with just 3.9% (TKA) and 8.8% (THA) of patients achieving the best possible score. Conclusion. The FJS-12 has strong measurement properties in terms of validity, internal consistency and sensitivity to change in TKA and THA patients. Low ceiling effects and good relative validity allow the monitoring of longer term outcomes, particularly in well-performing groups after total joint arthroplasty. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:218–24

Aims

To assess how the cost-effectiveness of total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) varies with age, sex, and preoperative Oxford Hip or Knee Score (OHS/OKS); and to identify the patient groups for whom THA/TKA is cost-effective.

Aims

This study aims to describe the pre- and postoperative self-reported health and quality of life from a national cohort of patients undergoing elective total conventional hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in Australia. For context, these data will be compared with patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) data from other international nation-wide registries.

Objectives

The Oxford Hip and Knee Scores (OHS, OKS) have been demonstrated to vary according to age and gender, making it difficult to compare results in cohorts with different demographics. The aim of this paper was to calculate reference values for different patient groups and highlight the concept of normative reference data to contextualise an individual’s outcome.