Aims

The use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to assess the outcome after total knee (TKA) and total hip arthroplasty (THA) is increasing, with associated regulatory mandates. However, the robustness and clinical relevance of long-term data are often questionable. It is important to determine whether using long-term PROMs data justify the resources, costs, and difficulties associated with their collection. The aim of this study was to assess studies involving TKA and THA to determine which PROMs are most commonly reported, how complete PROMs data are at ≥ five years postoperatively, and the extent to which the scores change between early and long-term follow-up.

Aims. The Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOxFQ) is an anatomically specific patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) currently used to assess a wide variety of foot and ankle pathology. It consists of 16 items across three subscales measuring distinct but related traits: walking/standing ability, pain, and social interaction. It is the most used foot and ankle PROM in the UK. Initial MOxFQ validation involved analysis of 100 individuals undergoing hallux valgus surgery. This project aimed to establish whether an individual’s response to the MOxFQ varies with anatomical region of disease (measurement invariance), and to explore structural validity of the factor structure (subscale items) of the MOxFQ. Methods. This was a single-centre, prospective cohort study involving 6,637 patients (mean age 52 years (SD 17.79)) presenting with a wide range of foot and ankle pathologies between January 2013 and December 2021. To assess whether the MOxFQ responses vary by anatomical region of foot and ankle disease, we performed multigroup confirmatory factor analysis. To assess the structural validity of the subscale items, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were performed. Results. Measurement invariance by pathology was confirmed, suggesting the same model can be used across all foot and ankle anatomical regions. Exploratory factor analysis demonstrated a two- to three-factor model, and suggested that item 13 (inability to carry out work/everyday activities) and item 14 (inability to undertake social/recreational activities) loaded more positively onto the “walking/standing” subscale than their original “social interaction” subscale. Conclusion. This large cohort study supports the current widespread use of the MOxFQ across a broad range of foot and ankle pathologies. Our analyses found indications that could support alterations to the original factor structure (items 13 and 14 might be moved from the “social interaction” to the “walking/standing” subscale). However, this requires further work to confirm. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(3):256–261

Aims. The influence of metabolic syndrome (MetS) on the outcome after hip and knee arthroplasty is debated. We aimed to investigate the change in patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) scores after hip and knee arthroplasty, comparing patients with and without MetS. Methods. From 1 May 2017 to 30 November 2019, a prospective cohort of 2,586 patients undergoing elective unilateral hip and knee arthroplasty was established in Denmark. Data from national registries and a local database were used to determine the presence of MetS. Patients’ scores on Oxford Hip Score (OHS) or Oxford Knee Score (OKS), EuroQol five-dimension five-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L), University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Activity Scale, and Forgotten Joint Score (FJS) at baseline, three, 12, and 24 months after surgery were collected. Primary outcome was the difference between groups from baseline to 12 months in OHS and OKS. Secondary outcomes were scores of OHS and OKS at three and 24 months and EQ-5D-5L, UCLA Activity Scale, and FJS at three, 12, and 24 months after surgery. Generalized linear mixed model was applied, adjusting for age, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and smoking to present marginal mean and associated 95% CIs. Results. A total of 62.3% (1,611/2,586) of the cohort met the criteria for MetS. Both groups showed similar increase in mean OHS (MetS group 22.5 (95% CI 21.8 to 23.1), non-MetS group 22.1 (21.3 to 22.8); p = 0.477) and mean OKS (MetS group 18.0 (17.4 to 18.6), non-MetS group 17.8 (17.0 to 18.7); p = 0.722) at 12 months' follow-up. Between groups, similar improvements were seen for OHS and OKS at three and 24 months postoperatively and for the mean EQ-5D-5L, EuroQol-visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS), UCLA Activity Scale, and FJS at every timepoint. Conclusion. Patients meeting the criteria for MetS obtain the same improvement in PROM scores as individuals without MetS up to 24 months after hip and knee arthroplasty. This is important for the clinician to take into account when assessing and advising patients with MetS. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(10):1074–1083

Abstract. Introduction. Minimum clinically important differences (MCIDs) are critical to understanding changes in patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) scores after total joint arthroplasty (TJA). The usage and adoption of MCIDs not been well-studied. This study was performed to IDENTIFY trends in PROM and MCID use after TJA over the past decade. Methods. All articles published in the calendar years of 2010 and 2020 in CORR, JBJS, and the Journal of Arthroplasty were reviewed. Articles relating to clinical outcomes in primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA) were included. For each article, all reported PROMs and (if present) accompanying MCIDs were recorded. The use of PROMs and MCIDs were compared between articles published in 2010 and 2020. Results. Overall, 263 articles from 2010 and 546 articles from 2020 were included. The total number of articles reporting any PROM after THA and TKA increased from 131 in 2010 to 194 in 2020, but the proportion of articles reporting PROMs decreased from 49.8% (131/263) to 35.5% (194/546). Both the total number and proportion of articles reporting MCIDs increased from 2.3% (3/131) in 2010 to 16.5% (32/194) in 2020. These trends persisted when analyzing THA and TKA articles individually. Conclusions. Both the absolute number and proportion of articles reporting MCIDs in conjunction with PROMs after TJA has increased in the past decade but remains low. We recommend that journal editors and meeting organizers encourage the inclusion of MCID information in all reports on clinical outcomes after joint replacement

Aims. To map the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and High Activity Arthroplasty Score (HAAS) items to a common scale, and to investigate the psychometric properties of this new scale for the measurement of knee health. Methods. Patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) data measuring knee health were obtained from the NHS PROMs dataset and Total or Partial Knee Arthroplasty Trial (TOPKAT). Assumptions for common scale modelling were tested. A graded response model (fitted to OKS item responses in the NHS PROMs dataset) was used as an anchor to calibrate paired HAAS items from the TOPKAT dataset. Information curves for the combined OKS-HAAS model were plotted. Bland-Altman analysis was used to compare common scale scores derived from OKS and HAAS items. A conversion table was developed to map between HAAS, OKS, and the common scale. Results. We included 3,329 response sets from 528 patients undergoing knee arthroplasty. These generally met the assumptions of unidimensionality, monotonicity, local independence, and measurement invariance. The HAAS items provided more information than OKS items at high levels of knee health. Combining both instruments resulted in higher test-level information than either instrument alone. The mean error between common scale scores derived from the OKS and HAAS was 0.29 logits. Conclusion. The common scale allowed more precise measurement of knee health than use of either the OKS or HAAS individually. These techniques for mapping PROM instruments may be useful for the standardization of outcome reporting, and pooling results across studies that use either PROM in individual-patient meta-analysis. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2023;12(10):624–635

Introduction. LIMB-Q Kids is a new patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) for children with Lower limb differences (LLDs). The objective is to conduct an international field test study. Materials & Methods. A mixed method multiphase approach was used to develop LIMB-Q Kids. In phase one, a systematic review was conducted to identify concepts from existing PROMs used in research with children with LLDs. A preliminary conceptual framework derived from the systematic review informed an international qualitative study. The data from qualitative interviews were used to form the LIMB-Q Kids, which was further refined through multiple rounds of cognitive debriefing interviews with children. Input was obtained from parents and healthcare professionals from Australia, Canada, Ethiopia, India, UK, and the USA. LIMB-Q Kids was translated and culturally adapted into multiple languages. Results. The final field-test version consists of 11 scales (159 items) that measure appearance, physical function, symptoms (hip, knee, ankle, foot, and leg), leg-related distress, and school, social and psychological function. This version was rigorously translated into Danish and German. Translations that are in progress include Arabic, Finnish, Hindi, Swahili, Portuguese, Spanish, and Luganda. An international field-test study is underway in nine countries (15 sites with a target recruitment of 150 participants per country). At the time of abstract submission, 190 patients from seven sites have completed LIMB-Q Kids. The UK collaborative has worked on language adaption for the UK and is currently validating the score across five paediatric limb reconstruction units. Conclusions. No internationally applicable PROM exists for children with LLDs. We present the current progress in developing and validating such a score. Data from the international field-test study will be used to reduce items and perform psychometric testing of LIMB-Q Kids. The rigorous translation and cultural adaption process will provide versions of LIMB-Q Kids in different languages. Once completed, the LIMB-Q Kids will provide a common metric for outcome assessment for children with lower limb differences internationally

Over 500 supracondylar humerus fractures (SCHF) are treated at our institution each year. Our standard post-operative pathway includes a 3-week visit for splint removal, wire removal, and radiographs. Subsequent follow-up occurs at 12 weeks for a clinical examination. In an effort to minimize unnecessary follow-up visits, we investigated whether photographs and/or patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) scores could identify patients who do not need routine 3-month in-person follow-up. At the 3-month visit, 248 SCHF patients (mean 6.2 yrs; 0.75-11yrs) had bilateral elbow motion (ROM) and carrying angles measured; and photographs documenting frontal and sagittal alignment of both injured and uninjured upper extremities, in both maximum elbow flexion and extension. Two independent assessors made the same measurements off the clinical photographs to compare these with the clinical measurements. Two PROMs: Self-Assessment Questionnaire (SAQ: 0 best to 14 worst) and QuickDASH (0 best to 100 worst) were completed at the 3-month visit. Inter-rater reliability of the photograph measurements was excellent (Kappa: 0.88-0.93), but weakly concordant with clinical measurements (carrying angle Kappa=0.51;max flexion Kappa=0.68;max extension Kappa=0.64). SAQ moderately correlated with QuickDASH (Kappa=0.59) and performed better at identifying patients with abnormalities. SAQ score ≥ 4 identified patients meeting 3-month follow-up criteria, with sensitivity: 36.1%; specificity: 96.8% and negative-predictive-value (NPV): 87%. We did not find that photographs were reliable. Although SAQ-score has high NPV, a more sensitive fracture-specific PROM is needed to identify patients who do not need a 3-month follow-up visit

The interest in day-case hip arthroplasty is increasing; however, there are conflicting results regarding readmission risk, and little is known about patients’ attitude towards day-case surgery. We aimed to investigate differences in 30-day readmission rates between day-case patients and single-overnight-stay patients following total hip arthroplasty (THA) and explore patients’ attitude towards day-case surgery. From the Danish National Patient Register we identified 29,486 THAs (1353 day-case THAs and 28,133 single-overnight-stay THAs) performed between 2010 and 2020. Day-case surgery was defined as discharge on the day-of-surgery. Overnight admissions within 30 days of surgery were considered readmissions. Differences in readmission rates between day-case and single-overnight-stay patients were investigated using logistic regression adjusted for patient characteristics and year of surgery. In a single-center descriptive study, 2395 hip arthroplasty patients from 2016 to start-2023 answered a questionnaire on patient characteristics, attitude towards day-case surgery and patient-reported outcome measures (PROM). The overall 30-day readmission rate was 4.4% (CI: 4.2–4.6%) with no difference between day-case (4.4%) and single-overnight-stay THAs (4.4%) (odds-ratio: 1.2 [CI: 0.91–1.6]). In the descriptive study answers to the question whether patients were interested in being discharged on the day of surgery, were: “Yes” = 41%, “Do not know” = 20%, “No” = 39%. Patients responding “No” had lower preoperative PROM-scores, were older (“No” = 70.2 y vs. “Yes” = 65.3 y), and more often female (“No” = 72% vs. “Yes” = 52% female). Based on nationwide data from 2010–2020, day-case THA patients were not more likely to be readmitted compared to single-overnight-stay patients. However, most patients were not positive towards day-case surgery. While surgeons may consider day-case surgery to be safe, patients are not intuitively positive, indicating an attitude mismatch. To achieve high success rate and patient satisfaction in day-case surgery, shared-decision making initiatives within day-case surgery are needed

Aims. The Oxford Shoulder Score (OSS) is a 12-item measure commonly used for the assessment of shoulder surgeries. This study explores whether computerized adaptive testing (CAT) provides a shortened, individually tailored questionnaire while maintaining test accuracy. Methods. A total of 16,238 preoperative OSS were available in the National Joint Registry (NJR) for England, Wales, Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man, and the States of Guernsey dataset (April 2012 to April 2022). Prior to CAT, the foundational item response theory (IRT) assumptions of unidimensionality, monotonicity, and local independence were established. CAT compared sequential item selection with stopping criteria set at standard error (SE) < 0.32 and SE < 0.45 (equivalent to reliability coefficients of 0.90 and 0.80) to full-length patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) precision. Results. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) for unidimensionality exhibited satisfactory fit with root mean square standardized residual (RSMSR) of 0.06 (cut-off ≤ 0.08) but not with comparative fit index (CFI) of 0.85 or Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) of 0.82 (cut-off > 0.90). Monotonicity, measured by H value, yielded 0.482, signifying good monotonic trends. Local independence was generally met, with Yen’s Q3 statistic > 0.2 for most items. The median item count for completing the CAT simulation with a SE of 0.32 was 3 (IQR 3 to 12), while for a SE of 0.45 it was 2 (IQR 2 to 6). This constituted only 25% and 16%, respectively, when compared to the 12-item full-length questionnaire. Conclusion. Calibrating IRT for the OSS has resulted in the development of an efficient and shortened CAT while maintaining accuracy and reliability. Through the reduction of redundant items and implementation of a standardized measurement scale, our study highlights a promising approach to alleviate time burden and potentially enhance compliance with these widely used outcome measures. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2024;13(8):392–400

Aims. The aim of this study was to report patient and clinical outcomes following robotic-assisted total knee arthroplasty (RA-TKA) at multiple institutions with a minimum two-year follow-up. Methods. This was a multicentre registry study from October 2016 to June 2021 that included 861 primary RA-TKA patients who completed at least one pre- and postoperative patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) questionnaire, including Forgotten Joint Score (FJS), Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score for Joint Replacement (KOOS JR), and pain out of 100 points. The mean age was 67 years (35 to 86), 452 were male (53%), mean BMI was 31.5 kg/m. 2. (19 to 58), and 553 (64%) cemented and 308 (36%) cementless implants. Results. There were significant improvements in PROMs over time between preoperative, one- to two-year, and > two-year follow-up, with a mean FJS of 17.5 (SD 18.2), 70.2 (SD 27.8), and 76.7 (SD 25.8; p < 0.001); mean KOOS JR of 51.6 (SD 11.5), 85.1 (SD 13.8), and 87.9 (SD 13.0; p < 0.001); and mean pain scores of 65.7 (SD 20.4), 13.0 (SD 19.1), and 11.3 (SD 19.9; p < 0.001), respectively. There were eight superficial infections (0.9%) and four revisions (0.5%). Conclusion. RA-TKA demonstrated consistent clinical results across multiple institutions with excellent PROMs that continued to improve over time. With the ability to achieve target alignment in the coronal, axial, and sagittal planes and provide intraoperative real-time data to obtain balanced gaps, RA-TKA demonstrated excellent clinical outcomes and PROMs in this patient population. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(7):589–595

Increased collection of patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) in registries enables international comparison of patient-centered outcomes after knee and hip replacement. We aimed to investigate 1) variations in PROM improvement, 2) the possible confounding factor of BMI, and 3) differences in comorbidity distributions between registries. Registries affiliated with the International Society of Arthroplasty Registries (ISAR) or OECD membership countries were invited to report aggregate EQ-5D, OKS, OHS, HOOS-PS and KOOS-PS values. Eligible patients underwent primary total, unilateral knee or hip replacement for osteoarthritis within three years and had completed PROMs preoperatively and either 6 or 12 months postoperatively, excluding patients with subsequent revisions. For each PROM cohort, Chi-square tests were performed for BMI distributions across registries and 12 predefined PROM strata (male/female, age 20-64/65-74/>75, high or low preoperative PROM scores). Comorbidity distributions were reported for available comorbidity indexes. Thirteen registries from 9 countries contributed data, n~130000 knee (range 140 to 79848) and n~113000 hip (range 137 to 85281). Mean EQ-5D index values (10 registries) ranged from 0.53 to 0.71 (knee) and 0.50 to 0.70 (hips) preoperatively and 0.78 to 0.85 (knee) and 0.83 to 0.87 (hip) postoperatively. Mean OKS (6 registries) ranged from 19.3 to 23.6 preoperatively and 36.2 to 41.2 postoperatively. Mean OHS (7 registries) ranged from 18.0 to 23.2 preoperatively and 39.8 to 44.2 postoperatively. Four registries reported KOOS-PS and three reported HOOS-PS. Proportions of patients with BMI >30 ranged from 35 to 62% (10 knee registries) and 16 to 43% (11 hip registries). For both knee and hip registries, distributions of patients across six BMI categories differed significantly among registries (p30 were for patients in the youngest age groups (20 to 64 and 65 to 74 years) with the lowest baseline scores. Additionally, females with lowest preoperative PROM scores had highest BMI. These findings were echoed for the OHS and OKS cohorts. Proportions of patients with ASA scores ≥3 ranged from 7 to 42% (9 knee registries) and 6 to 35% (8 hip registries). PROM-score improvement varies between international registries, which may be partially explained by differences in age, sex and preoperative scores. BMI and comorbidity may be relevant to adjust for

Aims. The Forgotten Joint Score-12 (FJS-12) is a validated patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) tool designed to assess artificial prosthesis awareness during daily activities following total hip arthroplasty (THA). The patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) is the minimum cut-off value that corresponds to a patient’s satisfactory state-of-health. Despite the validity and reliability of the FJS-12 having been previously demonstrated, the PASS has yet to be clearly defined. This study aims to define the PASS of the FJS-12 following primary THA. Methods. We retrospectively reviewed all patients who underwent primary elective THA from 2019 to 2020, and answered both the FJS-12 and the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Joint Replacement (HOOS, JR) questionnaires one-year postoperatively. HOOS, JR score was used as the anchor to estimate the PASS of FJS-12. Two statistical methods were employed: the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve point, which maximized the Youden index; and 75th percentile of the cumulative percentage curve of patients who had the HOOS, JR score difference larger than the cut-off value. Results. This study included 780 patients. The mean one-year FJS-12 score was 65.42 (SD 28.59). The mean one-year HOOS, JR score was 82.70 (SD 16.57). A high positive correlation between FJS-12 and HOOS, JR was found (r = 0.74; p<0.001), making the HOOS, JR a valid external anchor. The threshold score of the FJS-12 that maximized the sensitivity and specificity for detecting a PASS was 66.68 (area under the curve = 0.8). The cut-off score value computed with the 75th percentile approach was 92.20. Conclusion. The PASS threshold for the FJS-12 at one year following primary THA was 66.68 and 92.20 using the ROC curve and 75th percentile approaches, respectively. These values can be used to achieve consensus about meaningful postoperative improvement to maximize the utility of the FJS-12 to evaluate and counsel patients undergoing THA. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(4):307–313

Introduction. The British Spinal Registry (BSR) is a web-based database commissioned by the British Association of Spine Surgeons (BASS) in the UK. It allows auditing of spinal surgery outcomes, patient's safety and overall experience. The clinical data include patient's demographics which is entered into the Registry by medical staff, as well as patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) that is submitted to the Registry by the patient themselves at different time periods post-operatively. It has the ability to register Device and Implants as well as co-ordinate multicentre research. This study is to identify both the staff and patient compliance regarding to data submissions to the BSR at St. George's Hospital NHS Trust. Methods and Materials. Retrospective analysis of the BSR data for all spinal surgeries that was performed at SGH by the three Complex Spinal Surgery Consultants between 1st January 2017 to 31st December 2018. This study period allowed up to 12 months PROM data analysis. Staff and Patient compliance were analysed separately depend on the data they submitted. Results. 404 (n) spinal surgeries were performed over this two-year period. Surgical demographics: 39.4% (159/404) males and 56.2% (227/404) females, 4.5% (18/404) declined to be added. Age ranging from 6 to 92, mean age was 47.9. Staff compliance was 89.4% for the registration of patient data. Trauma and tumour patients were excluded as they are not required to complete any pre-operative PROMs. For the remaining patients, 35.8% (116/324) completed their baseline pre-operative PROMs. A steady decrease in patient compliance for post-operative PROMS was observed: 29.8% (2 weeks), 24.9% (6 weeks), 21.2% (6 months), 17.1% (12 months), and 16.6% (24 months). Conclusions. We identified a poor patient compliance in both pre-operative and post-operative PROMS. Patient questionnaire fatigue can occur over time which results in falling compliance to PROMS in 12 months and 24 months. Moreover, patients who do not provide an email address are less likely to fill in their PROMS. Satisfactory compliance for staff regarding to BSR utilisation are shown. Staff should aim to achieve a higher level of compliance as this will help to keep a record of all spinal surgeries that are performed and any complications that are encountered in a particular centre. Over the past three years, the BSR had introduced various schemes to drive up utilisation including a Best Practice Tariff in 2019. Part of the tariff will be withheld when staff failure to enter patients onto the Registry. Further research is needed to determine why there is such fall off especially with patient compliance and to elucidate potential measures to improve their compliance

Aims. To estimate the measurement properties for the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) in patients undergoing revision knee arthroplasty (responsiveness, minimal detectable change (MDC-90), minimal important change (MIC), minimal important difference (MID), internal consistency, construct validity, and interpretability). Methods. Secondary data analysis was performed for 10,727 patients undergoing revision knee arthroplasty between 2013 to 2019 using a UK national patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) dataset. Outcome data were collected before revision and at six months postoperatively, using the OKS and EuroQol five-dimension score (EQ-5D). Measurement properties were assessed according to COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines. Results. A total of 9,219 patients had complete outcome data. Mean preoperative OKS was 16.7 points (SD 8.1), mean postoperative OKS 29.1 (SD 11.4), and mean change in OKS + 12.5 (SD 10.7). Median preoperative EQ-5D index was 0.260 (interquartile range (IQR) 0.055 to 0.691), median postoperative EQ-5D index 0.691 (IQR 0.516 to 0.796), and median change in EQ-5D index + 0.240 (IQR 0.000 to 0.567). Internal consistency was good with Cronbach’s α 0.88 (baseline) and 0.94 (post-revision). Construct validity found a high correlation of OKS total score with EQ-5D index (r = 0.76 (baseline), r = 0.83 (post-revision), p < 0.001). The OKS was responsive with standardized effect size (SES) 1.54 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.51 to 1.57), compared to SES 0.83 (0.81 to 0.86) for the EQ-5D index. The MIC for the OKS was 7.5 points (95% CI 5.5 to 8.5) based on the optimal cut-off with specificity 0.72, sensitivity 0.60, and area under the curve 0.66. The MID for the OKS was 5.2 points. The MDC-90 was 3.9 points. The OKS did not demonstrate significant floor or ceiling effects. Conclusion. This study found that the OKS was a useful and valid instrument for assessment of outcome following revision knee arthroplasty. The OKS was responsive to change and demonstrated good measurement properties. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(4):627–634

Introduction. Surgical outcome analysis has shifted from surgeon- to patient-reported outcome measures (PROM). High rates of dissatisfaction (13–20%) in PROM after TKA have persisted despite significant advances in pain-management, implant design and introduction of newer surgical techniques. The NAVIO robotic-assisted TKA (RA-TKA) was introduced in May 2017 as an integrative approach to planning, execution and evaluation in TKA surgery. The goal of this study was to assess differences PROM scores between conventional instrumented TKA (CI-TKA) and RA-TKA. Methods. Starting in December 2016, prospective data collection of PROM's was initiated in a single-surgeon total joint arthroplasty registry. The Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) was collected for all patients pre-operatively, at three months and at one year post-operatively. In Group A, from December 2016 through May 2017, patients were treated with CI-TKA instrumentation. In Group B, from June 2017 through December 2018, surgery was performed with the NAVIO RA-TKA technique. The Journey II total knee prosthesis was used for all cases. Peri-operative management was consistent for all patients in both groups. Results. A total of 625 patients were available for analysis. 270 RA-TKA and 355 CI-TKA. The results showed a trend toward higher scores for RA-TKA for KOOS overall (p-value = 0.20) and subspecialty scores at 1-year postop, especially for pain and quality of life (p-value = 0.13) and pain (p-value = 0.12). Discussion/Conclusion. In this preliminary study, patients undergoing RA-TKA demonstrated a trend toward higher PROM scores, especially in the categories of Quality of Life and Pain, when compared to CI-TKA. Due to the limited sample size, weighted 1.3:1 for CI-TKA, statistical significance was not shown. Because of the short timeframe available since the introduction of RA-TKA, further data collection and analysis will be necessary to re-assess statistically power in this comparison

Objectives. A lack of connection between surgeons and patients in evaluating the outcome of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has led to the search for the ideal patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) to evaluate these procedures. We hypothesised that the desired psychometric properties of the ideal outcome tool have not been uniformly addressed in studies describing TKA PROMS. Methods. A systematic review was conducted investigating one or more facets of patient-reported scores for measuring primary TKA outcome. Studies were analysed by study design, subject demographics, surgical technique, and follow-up adequacy, with the ‘gold standard’ of psychometric properties being systematic development, validity, reliability, and responsiveness. Results. A total of 38 articles reported outcomes from 47 different PROMS to 85 541 subjects at 26.3 months (standard deviation 30.8) post-operatively. Of the 38, eight developed new scores, 20 evaluated existing scores, and ten were cross-cultural adaptation of existing scores. Only six of 38 surveyed studies acknowledged all ‘gold standard’ psychometric properties. The most commonly studied PROMS were the Oxford Knee Score, New Knee Society Score, Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index. Conclusions. A single, validated, reliable, and responsive PROM addressing TKA patients’ priorities has not yet been identified. Moreover, a clear definition of a successful procedure remains elusive. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2015;4:120–127

To validate the Modified Forgotten Joint Score (MFJS) as a new patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) in hip and knee arthroplasty (THR/TKR) against the UK's gold standard Oxford Hip and Knee Scores (OHS/OKS). The MFJS is a new assessment tool devised to provide a greater discriminatory power, particularly in well performing patients. It measures an appealing concept; the ability of a patient to forget about their artificial joint in everyday life. Postal questionnaires were sent out to 400 THR and TKR patients who were 1–2 years post-op. The data collected from the 212 returned questionnaires was analysed in relation to construct and content validity. 77 patients took part in a test-retest repeatability assessment. The MFJS proved to have an increased discriminatory power in high-performing patients in comparison to the OHS and OKS, highlighted by its more normal frequency of distribution and reduced ceiling effects. 30.8% of patients (n=131) achieved excellent OHS/OKS scores of 42–48 this compared to just 7.69% of patients who achieved a proportionately equivalent MFJS score of 87.5–100. The MFJS proved to have an increased test-retest repeatability based upon its intra-class correlation coefficient of 0.97 compared to the Oxford's 0.85. The MFJS provides a more sensitive tool in the assessment of well performing hip and knee arthroplasties in comparison to the OHS/OKS. The MFJS tests the concept of awareness of a prosthetic joint, rather than pain and function and therefore should be used as adjunct to the OKS/OHS

To validate the Modified Forgotten Joint Score (MFJS) as a new patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) in hip and knee arthroplasty against the UK's gold standard Oxford Hip and Knee Scores (OHS/OKS). The original Forgotten Joint Score was created by Behrend et al to assess post-op hip/knee arthroplasty patients. It is a new assessment tool devised to provide a greater discriminatory power, particularly in the well performing patients. It measures an appealing concept; the ability of a patient to forget about their artificial joint in everyday life. The original FJS was a 12-item questionnaire, which we have modified to 10-items to improve reliability and missing data. Postal questionnaires were sent out to 400 total hip/knee replacement (THR/TKR) patients who were 1–2 years post-op, along with the OHS/OKS and a visual pain analog score. The data collected from the 212 returned questionnaires (53% return rate) was analysed in relation to construct and content validity. A sub-cohort of 77 patients took part in a test-retest repeatability study to assess reliability of the MFJS. The MFJS proved to have an increased discriminatory power in high-performing patients in comparison to the OHS and OKS, highlighted by its more normal frequency of distribution and reduced ceiling effects in the MFJS. 30.8% of patients (n=131) scored 42–48 (equivalent to 87.5–100 in the MFJS) or more in the OKS compared to just 7.69% in the MFJS TKR patients. The MFJS proved to have an increased test-retest repeatability based upon its intra-class correlation coefficient of 0.968 compared to the Oxford's 0.845. The MFJS provides a more sensitive tool in the assessment of well performing hip and knee arthroplasties in comparison to the OHS/OKS. The MFJS tests the concept of awareness of a prosthetic joint, rather than pain and function and therefore should be used as adjunct to the OKS/OHS

Background. Oxford joint scores are increasingly being used in evaluating outcomes following orthopaedic surgery. These patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) have been well validated, but only before and after surgical intervention. We postulated that the scores would deteriorate in the normal population with age. Methods. Members of the public accompanying patients to out-patients and the emergency department in our hospitals were asked to complete an Oxford score questionnaire having ascertained that they had no previous problem with that joint. Exclusions included other multiple joint pathologies and known connective tissue disorders. Power analysis advocated 40 subjects per decade per joint for significance at the 80% mark. 993 subjects between 20 and 80 years of age completed the forms. There were more females than males. The scores were analysed using STATA 8 software. Non-parametric tests of variance, regression analysis, and ANOVA were used. The data were analysed by decades. Results. In all joints (hip, knee, shoulder, and elbow) the mean Oxford score in the 20-30 year olds (third decade) was at least one point below the maximum. The scores then deteriorated with age at the rate of one point per decade. This was statistically significant in all groups (p = 0.002 or less) Sex had no statistical influence on the scores. Conclusion. In our mainly (98%) Caucasian population the Oxford Scores deteriorate with age. We suggest that this should be taken into account when cohort studies are being compared between surgeons and units, especially in units dealing with many younger patients. Oxford scores should be age adjusted, starting at the 3. rd. decade by adding 1 point for the 3. rd. decade, 2 for the fourth, etc. up to 6 points for the eighth decade. Other ethnic groups should also be studied

Physical functioning in patients undergoing hip surgery is commonly assessed in three ways: patient-reported outcome measure (PROM), performance test, or clinician-administered measure. It is recommended that several types of measures are used concurrently to capture an extended picture of function. Patient fatigue and burden, time, resources and logistical constraints of clinic and research appointments mean that collecting multiple measures is seldom feasible, leading to focus on a limited number of measures, if not a single one. While there is evidence that performance-tests and PROMs do not fully correlate, correlations between PROMs, performance tests and clinician-administrated measures are yet to be evaluated. It is also not known if the associations between function and patient characteristics depend on how function is measured. The aim of our study was to use different measures to assess function in the same group of patients before their hip surgery to determine 1. how well PROMs, performance tests and clinician-administrated measures correlate with one another and 2. Whether these measures are associated with the same patient characteristics. We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of the pre-operative information of 125 participants listed for hip replacement. The WOMAC function subscale, Harris Hip Score (HHS) and walk-, step- and balance-tests were assessed by questionnaire or during a clinic visit. Participant socio-demographics and medical characteristics were also collected. Correlations between functional measures were investigated with correlation coefficients (r). Regression models were used to test the association between the patient's characteristics and each of the three types of functional measures. None of the correlations between the PROM, clinician-administrated measure and performance tests were very high (r<0.90). The highest correlations were found between the WOMAC-function and the HHS (r=0.7) or the Walk-test (r=0.6), and between the HHS and the walk-test(r=0.7). All the other performance-tests had low correlations with the other measures(r ranging between 0.3 and 0.5). The associations between patient characteristics and functional scores varied by type of measure. Psychological status was associated with the WOMAC function (p-value<0.0001) but not with the other measures. Age was associated with the performance test measures (p-value ranging from ≤0.01 to <0.0001) but not with the WOMAC function. The clinician-administered (HHS) measure was not associated with age or psychological status. When evaluating function prior to hip replacement clinicians and researchers should be aware that each assessment tool captures different aspects of function and that patient characteristics should be taken into account. Psychological status influences the perception of function; patients may be able to do more than they think they can do, and may need encouragement to overcome anxiety. A performance test like a walk-test would provide a more comprehensive assessment of function limitations than a step or balance test, although performance tests are influenced by age. For the most precise description of functional status a combination of measures should be used. Clinicians should supplement their pre-surgery assessment of function with patient-reported measure to include the patient's perspective