Aims. This study aimed to determine the minimal detectable change (MDC), minimal clinically important difference (MCID), and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) under distribution- and anchor-based methods for the Mayo Elbow Performance Index (MEPI) and range of movement (ROM) after open elbow arthrolysis (OEA). We also assessed the proportion of patients who achieved MCID and SCB; and identified the factors associated with achieving MCID. Methods. A cohort of 265 patients treated by OEA were included. The MEPI and ROM were evaluated at baseline and at two-year follow-up. Distribution-based MDC was calculated with confidence intervals (CIs) reflecting 80% (MDC 80), 90% (MDC 90), and 95% (MDC 95) certainty, and MCID with changes from baseline to follow-up. Anchor-based MCID (anchored to somewhat satisfied) and SCB (very satisfied) were calculated using a five-level Likert satisfaction scale. Multivariate logistic regression of factors affecting MCID achievement was performed. Results. The MDC increased substantially based on selected CIs (MDC 80, MDC 90, and MDC 95), ranging from 5.0 to 7.6 points for the MEPI, and from 8.2° to 12.5° for ROM. The MCID of the MEPI were 8.3 points under distribution-based and 12.2 points under anchor-based methods; distribution- and anchor-based MCID of ROM were 14.1° and 25.0°. The SCB of the MEPI and ROM were 17.3 points and 43.4°, respectively. The proportion of the patients who attained anchor-based MCID for the MEPI and ROM were 74.0% and 94.7%, respectively; furthermore, 64.2% and 86.8% attained SCB. Non-dominant arm (p = 0.022), higher preoperative MEPI rating (p < 0.001), and postoperative visual analogue scale pain score (p < 0.001) were independent predictors of not achieving MCID for the MEPI, while atraumatic causes (p = 0.040) and higher preoperative ROM (p = 0.005) were independent risk factors for ROM. Conclusion. In patients undergoing OEA, the MCID for the increased MEPI is 12.2 points and 25° increased ROM. The SCB is 17.3 points and 43.3°, respectively. Future studies using the MEPI and ROM to assess OEA outcomes should report not only statistical significance but also clinical importance. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(2):366–372

Aims. The aim of this study was to identify the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), minimal important change (MIC), minimal detectable change (MDC), and patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) in the Forgotten Joint Score (FJS) according to patient satisfaction six months following total hip arthroplasty (THA) in a UK population. Methods. During a one-year period, 461 patients underwent a primary THA and completed preoperative and six-month FJS, with a mean age of 67.2 years (22 to 93). At six months, patient satisfaction was recorded as very satisfied, satisfied, neutral, dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied. The difference between patients recording neutral (n = 31) and satisfied (n = 101) was used to define the MCID. MIC for a cohort was defined as the change in the FJS for those patients declaring their outcome as satisfied, whereas receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to determine the MIC for an individual and the PASS. Distribution-based methodology was used to calculate the MDC. Results. Using satisfaction as the anchor, the MCID for the FJS was 8.1 (95% confidence interval (CI) 3.7 to 15.9; p = 0.040), which was affirmed when adjusting for confounding. The MIC for the FJS for a cohort of patients was 17.7 (95% CI 13.7 to 21.7) and for an individual patient was 18. The MDC90 for the FJS was eight, meaning that 90% of patients scoring more than this will have experienced a real change that is beyond measurement error. The PASS threshold for the FJS was defined as 29. Conclusion. The MCID and MIC can be used respectively to assess whether there is a clinical difference between two groups, or whether a cohort or patient has had a meaningful change in their FJS. Both values were greater than measurement error (MDC90), suggesting a real change. The PASS threshold for the postoperative FJS can be used as a marker of achieving patient satisfaction following THA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(12):1759–1765

Aims. The aim of this study was to identify the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), minimal important change (MIC), minimal detectable change (MDC), and patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) threshold in the Forgotten Joint Score (FJS) according to patient satisfaction six months following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods. During a one-year period 484 patients underwent a primary TKA and completed preoperative and six-month FJS and OKS. At six months patients were asked, “How satisfied are you with your operated knee?” Their response was recorded as: very satisfied, satisfied, neutral, dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied. The difference between patients recording neutral (n = 44) and satisfied (n = 153) was used to define the MCID. MIC for a cohort was defined as the change in the FJS for those patients declaring their outcome as satisfied, whereas receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to determine the MIC for an individual and the PASS threshold. Distribution-based methodology was used to calculate the MDC. Results. Using satisfaction as the anchor question, the MCID for the FJS was 16.6 (95% confidence interval (CIs) 8.9 to 24.3; p < 0.001) and when adjusting for confounding this decreased to 13.7 points (95% CI 4.8 to 22.5; p < 0.001). The MIC for the FJS for a cohort of patients was 17.7 points and for an individual patient was 10 points. The MDC90 for the FGS was 12 points; where 90% of patients scoring more than this will have experienced a real change that is beyond measurement error. The PASS was defined as 22 points or more in the postoperative FJS. Conclusion. The estimates for MCID and MIC can be used to assess whether there is clinical difference between two groups and whether a cohort/patient has had a meaningful change in their FJS, respectively. The MDC90 of 12 points suggests a value lower than this may fall within measurement error. A postoperative FJS of 22 or more was predictive of achieving PASS. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(5):846–854

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

Aims

Modern total knee arthroplasty (TKA) prostheses are designed to restore near normal kinematics including high flexion. Kneeling is a high flexion, kinematically demanding activity after TKA. The debate about design choice has not yet been informed by six-degrees-of-freedom in vivo kinematics. This prospective randomized clinical trial compared kneeling kinematics in three TKA designs.

Aims

What represents clinically significant acetabular undercoverage in patients with symptomatic cam-type femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) remains controversial. The aim of this study was to examine the influence of the degree of acetabular coverage on the functional outcome of patients treated arthroscopically for cam-type FAI.

Aims

Outcome measures quantifying aspects of health in a precise, efficient, and user-friendly manner are in demand. Computer adaptive tests (CATs) may overcome the limitations of established fixed scales and be more adept at measuring outcomes in trauma. The primary objective of this review was to gain a comprehensive understanding of the psychometric properties of CATs compared with fixed-length scales in the assessment of outcome in patients who have suffered trauma of the upper limb. Study designs, outcome measures and methodological quality are defined, along with trends in investigation.