Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are being used increasingly in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). We conducted a systematic review aimed at identifying psychometrically sound PROMs by appraising their measurement properties. Studies concerning the development and/or evaluation of the measurement properties of PROMs used in a TKA population were systematically retrieved via PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Scopus. Ratings for methodological quality and measurement properties were conducted according to updated COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methodology. Of the 155 articles on 34 instruments included, nine PROMs met the minimum requirements for psychometric validation and can be recommended to use as measures of TKA outcome: Oxford Knee Score (OKS); OKS–Activity and Participation Questionnaire (OKS-APQ); 12-item short form Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome (KOOS-12); KOOS Physical function Short form (KOOS-PS); Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index-Total Knee Replacement function short form (WOMAC-TKR); Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS); Forgotten Joint Score (FJS); Patient’s Knee Implant Performance (PKIP); and University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) activity score. The pain and function subscales in WOMAC, as well as the pain, function, and quality of life subscales in KOOS, were validated psychometrically as standalone subscales instead of as whole instruments. However, none of the included PROMs have been validated for all measurement properties. Thus, further studies are still warranted to evaluate those PROMs. Use of the other 25 scales and subscales should be tempered until further studies validate their measurement properties. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2021;10(3):203–217

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

Objectives. The Manchester–Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOXFQ) is a validated 16-item, patient-reported outcome measure for evaluating outcomes of foot or ankle surgery. The original development of the instrument identified three domains. This present study examined whether the three domains could legitimately be summed to provide a single summary index score. . Methods. The MOXFQ and Short-Form (SF)-36 were administered to 671 patients before surgery of the foot or ankle. Data from the three domains of the MOXFQ (pain, walking/standing and social interaction) were subjected to higher order factor analysis. Reliability and validity of the summary index score was assessed. Results. The mean age of the participants was 52.8 years (. sd. 15.68; 18 to 89). Higher order principle components factor analysis produced one factor, accounting for 74.7% of the variance. The newly derived single index score was found to be internally reliable (α = 0.93) and valid, achieving at least moderate correlations (r ≥ 0.5, p < 0.001) with related (pain/function) domains of the SF-36. Conclusions. Analyses indicated that data from the MOXFQ can be presented in summary form. The MOXFQ summary index score (MOXFQ-Index) provides an overall indication of the outcomes of foot and ankle surgery. Furthermore, the single index reduces the number of statistical comparisons, and hence the role of chance, when exploring MOXFQ data

Objectives. Electronic forms of data collection have gained interest in recent years. In orthopaedics, little is known about patient preference regarding pen-and-paper or electronic questionnaires. We aimed to determine whether patients undergoing total hip (THR) or total knee replacement (TKR) prefer pen-and-paper or electronic questionnaires and to identify variables that predict preference for electronic questionnaires. Methods. We asked patients who participated in a multi-centre cohort study investigating improvement in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) after THR and TKR using pen-and-paper questionnaires, which mode of questionnaire they preferred. Patient age, gender, highest completed level of schooling, body mass index (BMI), comorbidities, indication for joint replacement and pre-operative HRQoL were compared between the groups preferring different modes of questionnaire. We then performed logistic regression analyses to investigate which variables independently predicted preference of electronic questionnaires. Results. A total of 565 THR patients and 387 TKR patients completed the preference question. Of the THR patients, 81.8% (95% confidence interval (CI) 78.4 to 84.7) preferred pen-and-paper questionnaires to electronic questionnaires, as did 86.8% (95% CI 83.1 to 89.8) of TKR patients. Younger age, male gender, higher completed level of schooling and higher BMI independently predicted preference of electronic questionnaires in THR patients. Younger age and higher completed level of schooling independently predicted preference of electronic questionnaires in TKR patients. Conclusions. The majority of THR and TKR patients prefer pen-and-paper questionnaires. Patients who preferred electronic questionnaires differed from patients who preferred pen-and-paper questionnaires. Restricting the mode of patient-reported outcome measures to electronic questionnaires might introduce selection bias. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2013;2:238–44

Aims. A substantial fraction of patients undergoing knee arthroplasty (KA) or hip arthroplasty (HA) do not achieve an improvement as high as the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), i.e. do not achieve a meaningful improvement. Using three patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), our aim was: 1) to assess machine learning (ML), the simple pre-surgery PROM score, and logistic-regression (LR)-derived performance in their prediction of whether patients undergoing HA or KA achieve an improvement as high or higher than a calculated MCID; and 2) to test whether ML is able to outperform LR or pre-surgery PROM scores in predictive performance. Methods. MCIDs were derived using the change difference method in a sample of 1,843 HA and 1,546 KA patients. An artificial neural network, a gradient boosting machine, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression, ridge regression, elastic net, random forest, LR, and pre-surgery PROM scores were applied to predict MCID for the following PROMs: EuroQol five-dimension, five-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L), EQ visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS), Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Physical Function Short-form (HOOS-PS), and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Physical Function Short-form (KOOS-PS). Results. Predictive performance of the best models per outcome ranged from 0.71 for HOOS-PS to 0.84 for EQ-VAS (HA sample). ML statistically significantly outperformed LR and pre-surgery PROM scores in two out of six cases. Conclusion. MCIDs can be predicted with reasonable performance. ML was able to outperform traditional methods, although only in a minority of cases. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2023;12(9):512–521

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

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. This study investigates the use of the metabolic equivalent of task (MET) score in a young hip arthroplasty population, and its ability to capture additional benefit beyond the ceiling effect of conventional patient-reported outcome measures. Methods. From our electronic database of 751 hip arthroplasty procedures, 221 patients were included. Patients were excluded if they had revision surgery, an alternative hip procedure, or incomplete data either preoperatively or at one-year follow-up. Included patients had a mean age of 59.4 years (SD 11.3) and 54.3% were male, incorporating 117 primary total hip and 104 hip resurfacing arthroplasty operations. Oxford Hip Score (OHS), EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D), and the MET were recorded preoperatively and at one-year follow-up. The distribution was examined reporting the presence of ceiling and floor effects. Validity was assessed correlating the MET with the other scores using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient and determining responsiveness. A subgroup of 93 patients scoring 48/48 on the OHS were analyzed by age, sex, BMI, and preoperative MET using the other metrics to determine if differences could be established despite scoring identically on the OHS. Results. Postoperatively the OHS and EQ-5D demonstrate considerable negatively skewed distributions with ceiling effects of 41.6% and 53.8%, respectively. The MET was normally distributed postoperatively with no relevant ceiling effect. Weak-to-moderate significant correlations were found between the MET and the other two metrics. In the 48/48 subgroup, no differences were found comparing groups with the EQ-5D, however significantly higher mean MET scores were demonstrated for patients aged < 60 years (12.7 (SD 4.7) vs 10.6 (SD 2.4), p = 0.008), male patients (12.5 (SD 4.5) vs 10.8 (SD 2.8), p = 0.024), and those with preoperative MET scores > 6 (12.6 (SD 4.2) vs 11.0 (SD 3.3), p = 0.040). Conclusion. The MET is normally distributed in patients following hip arthroplasty, recording levels of activity which are undetectable using the OHS. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2022;11(5):317–326

The use of artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly growing across many domains, of which the medical field is no exception. AI is an umbrella term defining the practical application of algorithms to generate useful output, without the need of human cognition. Owing to the expanding volume of patient information collected, known as ‘big data’, AI is showing promise as a useful tool in healthcare research and across all aspects of patient care pathways. Practical applications in orthopaedic surgery include: diagnostics, such as fracture recognition and tumour detection; predictive models of clinical and patient-reported outcome measures, such as calculating mortality rates and length of hospital stay; and real-time rehabilitation monitoring and surgical training. However, clinicians should remain cognizant of AI’s limitations, as the development of robust reporting and validation frameworks is of paramount importance to prevent avoidable errors and biases. The aim of this review article is to provide a comprehensive understanding of AI and its subfields, as well as to delineate its existing clinical applications in trauma and orthopaedic surgery. Furthermore, this narrative review expands upon the limitations of AI and future direction. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2023;12(7):447–454

Outcomes following different types of surgical intervention for femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) are well reported individually but comparative data are deficient. The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review (SR) and meta-analysis to analyze the outcomes following surgical management of FAI by hip arthroscopy (HA), anterior mini open approach (AMO), and surgical hip dislocation (SHD). This SR was registered with PROSPERO. An electronic database search of PubMed, Medline, and EMBASE for English and German language articles over the last 20 years was carried out according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We specifically analyzed and compared changes in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), α-angle, rate of complications, rate of revision, and conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA). A total of 48 articles were included for final analysis with a total of 4,384 hips in 4,094 patients. All subgroups showed a significant correction in mean α angle postoperatively with a mean change of 28.8° (95% confidence interval (CI) 21 to 36.5; p < 0.01) after AMO, 21.1° (95% CI 15.1 to 27; p < 0.01) after SHD, and 20.5° (95% CI 16.1 to 24.8; p < 0.01) after HA. The AMO group showed a significantly higher increase in PROMs (3.7; 95% CI 3.2 to 4.2; p < 0.01) versus arthroscopy (2.5; 95% CI 2.3 to 2.8; p < 0.01) and SHD (2.4; 95% CI 1.5 to 3.3; p < 0.01). However, the rate of complications following AMO was significantly higher than HA and SHD. All three surgical approaches offered significant improvements in PROMs and radiological correction of cam deformities. All three groups showed similar rates of revision procedures but SHD had the highest rate of conversion to a THA. Revision rates were similar for all three revision procedures

Objectives. The patient-rated wrist evaluation (PRWE) and the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) questionnaire are patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used for clinical and research purposes. Methodological high-quality clinimetric studies that determine the measurement properties of these PROMs when used in patients with a distal radial fracture are lacking. This study aimed to validate the PRWE and DASH in Dutch patients with a displaced distal radial fracture (DRF). Methods. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) was used for test-retest reliability, between PROMs completed twice with a two-week interval at six to eight months after DRF. Internal consistency was determined using Cronbach’s α for the dimensions found in the factor analysis. The measurement error was expressed by the smallest detectable change (SDC). A semi-structured interview was conducted between eight and 12 weeks after DRF to assess the content validity. Results. A total of 119 patients (mean age 58 years (. sd. 15)), 74% female, completed PROMs at a mean time of six months (. sd. 1) post-fracture. One overall meaningful dimension was found for the PRWE and the DASH. Internal consistency was excellent for both PROMs (Cronbach’s α 0.96 (PRWE) and 0.97 (DASH)). Test-retest reliability was good for the PRWE (ICC 0.87) and excellent for the DASH (ICC 0.91). The SDC was 20 for the PRWE and 14 for the DASH. No floor or ceiling effects were found. The content validity was good for both questionnaires. Conclusion. The PRWE and DASH are valid and reliable PROMs in assessing function and disability in Dutch patients with a displaced DRF. However, due to the high SDC, the PRWE and DASH are less useful for individual patients with a distal radial fracture in clinical practice. Cite this article: Y. V. Kleinlugtenbelt, R. G. Krol, M. Bhandari, J. C. Goslings, R. W. Poolman, V. A. B. Scholtes. Are the patient-rated wrist evaluation (PRWE) and the disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand (DASH) questionnaire used in distal radial fractures truly valid and reliable? Bone Joint Res 2018;7:36–45. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.71.BJR-2017-0081.R1

Objectives. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are often used to evaluate the outcome of treatment in patients with distal radial fractures. Which PROM to select is often based on assessment of measurement properties, such as validity and reliability. Measurement properties are assessed in clinimetric studies, and results are often reviewed without considering the methodological quality of these studies. Our aim was to systematically review the methodological quality of clinimetric studies that evaluated measurement properties of PROMs used in patients with distal radial fractures, and to make recommendations for the selection of PROMs based on the level of evidence of each individual measurement property. Methods. A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, EMbase, CINAHL and PsycINFO databases to identify relevant clinimetric studies. Two reviewers independently assessed the methodological quality of the studies on measurement properties, using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. Level of evidence (strong / moderate / limited / lacking) for each measurement property per PROM was determined by combining the methodological quality and the results of the different clinimetric studies. Results. In all, 19 out of 1508 identified unique studies were included, in which 12 PROMs were rated. The Patient-rated wrist evaluation (PRWE) and the Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (DASH) were evaluated on most measurement properties. The evidence for the PRWE is moderate that its reliability, validity (content and hypothesis testing), and responsiveness are good. The evidence is limited that its internal consistency and cross-cultural validity are good, and its measurement error is acceptable. There is no evidence for its structural and criterion validity. The evidence for the DASH is moderate that its responsiveness is good. The evidence is limited that its reliability and the validity on hypothesis testing are good. There is no evidence for the other measurement properties. Conclusion. According to this systematic review, there is, at best, moderate evidence that the responsiveness of the PRWE and DASH are good, as are the reliability and validity of the PRWE. We recommend these PROMs in clinical studies in patients with distal radial fractures; however, more clinimetric studies of higher methodological quality are needed to adequately determine the other measurement properties. Cite this article: Dr Y. V. Kleinlugtenbelt. Are validated outcome measures used in distal radial fractures truly valid?: A critical assessment using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. Bone Joint Res 2016;5:153–161. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.54.2000462

Objectives. This study reports on a secondary exploratory analysis of the early clinical outcomes of a randomised clinical trial comparing robotic arm-assisted unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) for medial compartment osteoarthritis of the knee with manual UKA performed using traditional surgical jigs. This follows reporting of the primary outcomes of implant accuracy and gait analysis that showed significant advantages in the robotic arm-assisted group. Methods. A total of 139 patients were recruited from a single centre. Patients were randomised to receive either a manual UKA implanted with the aid of traditional surgical jigs, or a UKA implanted with the aid of a tactile guided robotic arm-assisted system. Outcome measures included the American Knee Society Score (AKSS), Oxford Knee Score (OKS), Forgotten Joint Score, Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale, University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) activity scale, Short Form-12, Pain Catastrophising Scale, somatic disease (Primary Care Evaluation of Mental Disorders Score), Pain visual analogue scale, analgesic use, patient satisfaction, complications relating to surgery, 90-day pain diaries and the requirement for revision surgery. Results. From the first post-operative day through to week 8 post-operatively, the median pain scores for the robotic arm-assisted group were 55.4% lower than those observed in the manual surgery group (p = 0.040). At three months post-operatively, the robotic arm-assisted group had better AKSS (robotic median 164, interquartile range (IQR) 131 to 178, manual median 143, IQR 132 to 166), although no difference was noted with the OKS. At one year post-operatively, the observed differences with the AKSS had narrowed from a median of 21 points to a median of seven points (p = 0.106) (robotic median 171, IQR 153 to 179; manual median 164, IQR 144 to 182). No difference was observed with the OKS, and almost half of each group reached the ceiling limit of the score (OKS > 43). A greater proportion of patients receiving robotic arm-assisted surgery improved their UCLA activity score. Binary logistic regression modelling for dichotomised outcome scores predicted the key factors associated with achieving excellent outcome on the AKSS: a pre-operative activity level > 5 on the UCLA activity score and use of robotic-arm surgery. For the same regression modelling, factors associated with a poor outcome were manual surgery and pre-operative depression. Conclusion. Robotic arm-assisted surgery results in improved early pain scores and early function scores in some patient-reported outcomes measures, but no difference was observed at one year post-operatively. Although improved results favoured the robotic arm-assisted group in active patients (i.e. UCLA ⩾ 5), these do not withstand adjustment for multiple comparisons. Cite this article: M. J. G. Blyth, I. Anthony, P. Rowe, M. S. Banger, A. MacLean, B. Jones. Robotic arm-assisted versus conventional unicompartmental knee arthroplasty: Exploratory secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial. Bone Joint Res 2017;6:631–639. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.611.BJR-2017-0060.R1

Objective. The objective of this study was to explore dimensionality of the Oxford Hip Score (OHS) and examine whether self-reported pain and functioning can be distinguished in the form of subscales. Methods. This was a secondary data analysis of the UK NHS hospital episode statistics/patient-reported outcome measures dataset containing pre-operative OHS scores on 97 487 patients who were undergoing hip replacement surgery. . Results. The proposed number of factors to extract depended on the method of extraction employed. Velicer’s Minimum Average Partial test and the Parallel Analysis suggested one factor, the Cattell’s scree test and Kaiser-over-1 rule suggested two factors. Exploratory factor analysis demonstrated that the two-factor OHS had most of the items saliently loading either of the two factors. These factors were named ‘Pain’ and ‘Function’ and their respective subscales were created. There was some cross-loading of items: 8 (pain on standing up from a chair) and 11 (pain during work). These items were assigned to the ‘Pain’ subscale. The final ‘Pain’ subscale consisted of items 1, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12. The ‘Function’ subscale consisted of items 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, with the recommended scoring of the subscales being from 0 (worst) to 100 (best). Cronbach’s alpha was 0.855 for the ‘Pain’ subscale and 0.861 for the ‘Function’ subscale. A confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated that the two-factor model of the OHS had a better fit. However, none of the one-factor or two-factor models was rejected. Conclusion. Factor analyses demonstrated that, in addition to current usage as a single summary scale, separate information on pain and self-reported function can be extracted from the OHS in a meaningful way in the form of subscales. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2014;3:305–9

Aims

A core outcome set for adult, open lower limb fracture has been established consisting of ‘Walking, gait and mobility’, ‘Being able to return to life roles’, ‘Pain or discomfort’, and ‘Quality of life’. This study aims to identify which outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) should be recommended to measure each core outcome.

Aims

Open lower limb fracture is a life-changing injury affecting 11.5 per 100,000 adults each year, and causes significant morbidity and resource demand on trauma infrastructures. This study aims to identify what, and how, outcomes have been reported for people following open lower limb fracture over ten years.

Despite the vast quantities of published artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms that target trauma and orthopaedic applications, very few progress to inform clinical practice. One key reason for this is the lack of a clear pathway from development to deployment. In order to assist with this process, we have developed the Clinical Practice Integration of Artificial Intelligence (CPI-AI) framework – a five-stage approach to the clinical practice adoption of AI in the setting of trauma and orthopaedics, based on the IDEAL principles (https://www.ideal-collaboration.net/). Adherence to the framework would provide a robust evidence-based mechanism for developing trust in AI applications, where the underlying algorithms are unlikely to be fully understood by clinical teams.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2024;13(9):507–512.

Aims

The aim of this study was to report the meaningful values of the EuroQol five-dimension three-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L) and EuroQol visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS) in patients undergoing primary knee arthroplasty (KA).