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).

Aims

This study evaluates the quality of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) reported in childhood fracture trials and recommends outcome measures to assess and report physical function, functional capacity, and quality of life using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) standards.

Aims. Responsiveness and ceiling effects are key properties of an outcome score. No such data have been reported for the original English version of the International Hip Outcome Tool 12 (iHOT-12) at a follow-up of more than four months. The aim of this study was to identify the responsiveness and ceiling effects of the English version iHOT-12 in a series of patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for intra-articular hip pathology at a minimum of one year postoperatively. Methods. A total of 171 consecutive patients undergoing hip arthroscopy with a diagnosis of femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) under the care of a single surgeon between January 2013 and March 2017 were included. iHOT-12 and EuroQol 5D-5L (EQ-5D-5L) scores were available pre- and postoperatively. Effect size and ceiling effects for the iHOT-12 were calculated with subgroup analysis. Results. A total of 122 patients (71.3%) completed postoperative PROMs scores with median follow-up of 24.3 months (interquartile range (IQR) 17.2 to 33.5). The median total cohort iHOT-12 score improved significantly from 31.0 (IQR 20 to 58) preoperatively to 72.5 (IQR 47 to 90) postoperatively (p < 0.001). The effect size (Cohen’s d) was 1.59. In all, 33 patients (27%) scored within ten points (10%) of the maximum score and 38 patients (31.1%) scored within the previously reported minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of the maximum score. Furthermore, nine (47%) male patients aged < 30 years scored within 10% of the maximum score and ten (53%) scored within the previously reported MCID of the maximum score. Conclusion. There is a previously unreported ceiling effect of the iHOT-12 at a minimum one-year follow-up which is particularly marked in young, male patients following hip arthroscopy for FAI. This tool may not have the maximum measurement required to capture the true outcome following this procedure. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(8):1010–1015

Aims

To validate the Sydney Hamstring Origin Rupture Evaluation (SHORE), a hamstring-specific clinical assessment tool to evaluate patient outcomes following surgical treatment.

Aims. Responsiveness to clinically important change is a key feature of any outcome measure. Throughout Europe, health-related quality of life following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is routinely measured with EuroQol five-dimension (EQ-5D) questionnaires. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System 10-Question Short-Form (PROMIS-10 Global Health) score is a new general heath outcome tool which is thought to offer greater responsiveness. Our aim was to compare these two tools. Patients and Methods. We accessed data from a prospective multicentre cohort study in the United Kingdom, which evaluated outcomes following TKA. The median age of the 721 patients was 69.0 years (interquartile range, 63.3 to 74.6). There was an even division of sex, and approximately half were educated to secondary school level. The preoperative EQ-5D, PROMIS-10, and Oxford Knee Scores (OKS) were available and at three, six, and 12 months postoperatively. Internal responsiveness was assessed by standardized response mean (SRM) and effect size (Cohen’s d). External responsiveness was assessed by correlating change scores of the EQ-5D and PROMIS-10, with the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of the OKS. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to assess the ability of change scores to discriminate between improved and non-improved patients. Results. All measures showed significant changes between the preoperative score and the various postoperative times (p < 0.001). Most improvement occurred during the first three months, with small but significant changes between three and six months, and no further change between six and 12 months postoperatively. SRM scores for EQ-5D, PROMIS-10, and OKS were large (> 0.8). ROC curves showed that both EQ-5D and PROMIS-10 were able to discriminate between patients who achieved the OKS MCID and those who did not (area under the curve (AUC) of 0.7 to 0.82). Conclusion. The PROMIS-10 physical health tool showed greater responsiveness to change than the EQ-5D, most probably due to the additional questions on physical health parameters that are more susceptible to modification following TKA. The EQ-5D was, however, shown to be sensitive to clinically meaningful change following TKA, and provides the additional ability to calculate health economic utility scores. It is likely, therefore, that EQ-5D will continue to be the global health metric of choice in the United Kingdom. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:832–837

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.

The foot and ankle outcome score (FAOS) has been evaluated for many conditions of the foot and ankle. We evaluated its construct validity in 136 patients with osteoarthritis of the ankle, its content validity in 37 patients and its responsiveness in 39. Data were collected prospectively from the registry of patients at our institution.

All FAOS subscales were rated relevant by patients. The Pain, Activities of Daily Living, and Quality of Life subscales showed good correlation with the Physical Component score of the Short-Form-12v2. All subscales except Symptoms were responsive to change after surgery.

We concluded that the FAOS is a weak instrument for evaluating osteoarthritis of the ankle. However, some of the FAOS subscales have relative strengths that allow for its limited use while we continue to seek other satisfactory outcome instruments.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B:662–7.

Accurate, reproducible outcome measures are essential for the evaluation of any orthopaedic procedure, in both clinical practice and research.

Commonly used patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have drawbacks such as ‘floor’ and ‘ceiling’ effects, limitations of worldwide adaptability and an inability to distinguish pain from function. They are also unable to measure the true outcome of an intervention rather than a patient’s perception of that outcome.

Performance-based functional outcome tools may address these problems. It is important that both clinicians and researchers are aware of these measures when dealing with high-demand patients, using a new intervention or implant, or testing a new rehabilitation protocol.

This article provides an overview of some of the clinically-validated performance-based functional outcome tools used in the assessment of patients undergoing hip and knee surgery.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1431–5.

The primary aim of this study was to develop a patient-reported Activity & Participation Questionnaire (the OKS-APQ) to supplement the Oxford knee score, in order to assess higher levels of activity and participation. The generation of items for the questionnaire involved interviews with 26 patients. Psychometric analysis (exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis and Rasch analysis) guided the reduction of items and the generation of a scale within a prospective study of 122 relatively young patients (mean age 61.5 years (42 to 71)) prior to knee replacement. A total of 99, completed pre-operative and six month post-operative assessments (new items, OKS, Short-Form 36 and American Knee Society Score).

The eight-item OKS-APQ scale is unidimensional, reliable (Cronbach’s alpha 0.85; intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) 0.79; or 0.92 when one outlier was excluded), valid (r >  0.5 with related scales) and responsive (effect size 4.16).

We recommend that it is used with the OKS with adults of all ages when further detail regarding the levels of activity and participation of a patient is required.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:332–8.

Although the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities (WOMAC) osteoarthritis index was originally developed for the assessment of non-operative treatment, it is commonly used to evaluate patients undergoing either total hip (THR) or total knee replacement (TKR). We assessed the importance of the 17 WOMAC function items from the perspective of 1198 patients who underwent either THR (n = 704) or TKR (n = 494) in order to develop joint-specific short forms. After these patients were administered the WOMAC pre-operatively and at three, six, 12 and 24 months’ follow-up, they were asked to nominate an item of the function scale that was most important to them. The items chosen were significantly different between patients undergoing THR and those undergoing TKR (p < 0.001), and there was a shift in the priorities after surgery in both groups. Setting a threshold for prioritised items of ≥ 5% across all follow-up, eight items were selected for THR and seven for TKR, of which six items were common to both. The items comprising specific WOMAC-THR and TKR function short forms were found to be equally responsive compared with the original WOMAC function form.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:239–43.

The responsiveness of the Manchester–Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOXFQ) was compared with foot/ankle-specific and generic outcome measures used to assess all surgery of the foot and ankle. We recruited 671 consecutive adult patients awaiting foot or ankle surgery, of whom 427 (63.6%) were female, with a mean age of 52.8 years (18 to 89). They independently completed the MOXFQ, Short-Form 36 (SF-36) and EuroQol (EQ-5D) questionnaires pre-operatively and at a mean of nine months (3.8 to 14.4) post-operatively. Foot/ankle surgeons assessed American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) scores corresponding to four foot/ankle regions. A transition item measured perceived changes in foot/ankle problems post-surgery. Of 628 eligible patients proceeding to surgery, 491 (78%) completed questionnaires and 262 (42%) received clinical assessments both pre- and post-operatively. The regions receiving surgery were: multiple/whole foot in eight (1.3%), ankle/hindfoot in 292 (46.5%), mid-foot in 21 (3.3%), hallux in 196 (31.2%), and lesser toes in 111 (17.7%). Foot/ankle-specific MOXFQ, AOFAS and EQ-5D domains produced larger effect sizes (> 0.8) than any SF-36 domains, suggesting superior responsiveness. In analyses that anchored change in scores and effect sizes to patients’ responses to a transition item about their foot/ankle problems, the MOXFQ performed well. The SF-36 and EQ-5D performed poorly. Similar analyses, conducted within foot-region based sub-groups of patients, found that the responsiveness of the MOXFQ was good compared with the AOFAS.

This evidence supports the MOXFQ’s suitability for assessing all foot and ankle surgery.

We have developed an illustrated questionnaire, the Hand20, comprising 20 short and easy-to-understand questions to assess disorders of the upper limb. We have examined the usefulness of this questionnaire by comparing reliability, validity, responsiveness and the level of missing data with those of the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire.

A series of 431 patients with disorders of the upper limb completed the Hand20 and the Japanese version of the DASH (DASH-JSSH) questionnaire. The norms for Hand20 scores were determined in another cross-sectional study.

Most patients had no difficulty in completing the Hand20 questionnaire, whereas the DASH-JSSH had a significantly higher rate of missing data. The standard score for the Hand20 was smaller than the reported norms for the DASH.

Our study showed that the Hand20 questionnaire provided validation comparable with that of the DASH-JSSH. Explanatory illustrations and short questions which were easy-to-understand led to better rates of response and fewer missing data, even in elderly individuals with cognitive deterioration.

Orthopaedic outcome measures are used to evaluate the effect of operative interventions. They are used for audit and research. Knowledge of these measures is becoming increasingly important with league tables comparing surgeons and hospitals being made accessible to the profession and the general public.

Several types of tool are available to describe outcome after hip surgery such as generic quality-of-life questionnaires, disease-specific quality-of-life questionnaires, hip-specific outcome measures and general short-term clinical measures. We provide an overview of the outcome measures commonly used to evaluate hip interventions.

We developed a questionnaire to assess patient-reported outcome after surgery of the elbow from interviews with patients. Initially, 17 possible items with five response options were included. A prospective study of 104 patients (107 elbow operations) was carried out to analyse the underlying factor structure, dimensionality, internal and test-retest reliability, construct validity and responsiveness of the questionnaire items. This was compared with the Mayo Elbow performance score clinical scale, the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire, and the Short-Form (SF-36) General Health Survey. In total, five questions were considered inappropriate, which resulted in the final 12-item questionnaire, which has been referred to as the Oxford elbow score. This comprises three unidimensional domains, ‘elbow function’, ‘pain’ and ‘social-psychological’; with each domain comprising four items with good measurement properties.

This new 12-item Oxford elbow score is a valid measure of the outcome of surgery of the elbow.

This study validates the short-form WOMAC function scale for assessment of conservative treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee. Data were collected before treatment and six and nine months later, from 100 patients with osteoarthritis of the knee to determine the validity, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, floor and ceiling effects, and responsiveness of the short-form WOMAC function scale. The scale showed high correlation with the traditional WOMAC and other measures. The internal consistency was good (Cronbach α: 0.88 to 0.95) and an excellent test-retest reliability was found (Lin’s concordance correlation coefficient (ρ_c): 0.85 to 0.94). The responsiveness was adequate and comparable to that of the traditional WOMAC (standardised response mean 0.56 to 0.44 and effect size 0.64 to 0.57) and appeared not to be significantly affected by floor or ceiling effects (0% and 7%, respectively).

The short-form WOMAC function scale is a valid, reliable and responsive alternative to the traditional WOMAC in the evaluation of patients with osteoarthritis of the knee managed conservatively. It is simple to use in daily practice and is therefore less of a burden for patients in clinical trials.

We used prospective data from 862 total knee and 716 total hip replacements three years after surgery in order to derive and validate a reduced Western Ontario and McMasters University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) function scale. The reduced scale was derived using the advice of clinical experts as well as analysis of data. The scale was tested for validity, reliability and responsiveness. Items which were retained included: ascending stairs, rising from sitting, walking on the flat, getting in or out of a car, putting on socks, rising from bed, and sitting. The reduced and full scales had comparable, moderate correlations with other measures of function, confirming convergent validity. Cronbach’s alpha was high (α > 0.85) with the reduced scale confirming reliability. Responsiveness was greater for the reduced scale (full = 1.4, reduced = 1.6). This reduced version of the WOMAC function scale provides a practical, valid, reliable and responsive alternative to the full function scale for use after total joint replacement. Further work is needed to demonstrate its wider applicability