This study demonstrates a significant correlation between the American Knee Society (AKS) Clinical Rating System and the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and provides a validated prediction tool to estimate score conversion.

A total of 1022 patients were prospectively clinically assessed five years after TKR and completed AKS assessments and an OKS questionnaire. Multivariate regression analysis demonstrated significant correlations between OKS and the AKS knee and function scores but a stronger correlation (r = 0.68, p < 0.001) when using the sum of the AKS knee and function scores. Addition of body mass index and age (other statistically significant predictors of OKS) to the algorithm did not significantly increase the predictive value.

The simple regression model was used to predict the OKS in a group of 236 patients who were clinically assessed nine to ten years after TKR using the AKS system. The predicted OKS was compared with actual OKS in the second group. Intra-class correlation demonstrated excellent reliability (r = 0.81, 95% confidence intervals 0.75 to 0.85) for the combined knee and function score when used to predict OKS.

Our findings will facilitate comparison of outcome data from studies and registries using either the OKS or the AKS scores and may also be of value for those undertaking meta-analyses and systematic reviews.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:503–9.

The routine use of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in evaluating the outcome after arthroplasty by healthcare organisations reflects a growing recognition of the importance of patients’ perspectives in improving treatment. Although widely embraced in the NHS, there are concerns that PROMs are being used beyond their means due to a poor understanding of their limitations.

This paper reviews some of the current challenges in using PROMs to evaluate total knee arthroplasty. It highlights alternative methods that have been used to improve the assessment of outcome.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:3–9.

There is little evidence on the cost effectiveness of different brands of hip prostheses. We compared lifetime cost effectiveness of frequently used brands within types of prosthesis including cemented (Exeter V40 Contemporary, Exeter V40 Duration and Exeter V40 Elite Plus Ogee), cementless (Corail Pinnacle, Accolade Trident, and Taperloc Exceed) and hybrid (Exeter V40 Trilogy, Exeter V40 Trident, and CPT Trilogy). We used data from three linked English national databases to estimate the lifetime risk of revision, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and cost.

For women with osteoarthritis aged 70 years, the Exeter V40 Elite Plus Ogee had the lowest risk of revision (5.9% revision risk, 9.0 QALYs) and the CPT Trilogy had the highest QALYs (10.9% revision risk, 9.3 QALYs). Compared with the Corail Pinnacle (9.3% revision risk, 9.22 QALYs), the most commonly used brand, and assuming a willingness-to-pay of £20 000 per QALY gain, the CPT Trilogy is most cost effective, with an incremental net monetary benefit of £876. Differences in cost effectiveness between the hybrid CPT Trilogy and Exeter V40 Trident and the cementless Corail Pinnacle and Taperloc Exceed were small, and a cautious interpretation is required, given the limitations of the available information.

However, it is unlikely that cemented brands are among the most cost effective. Similar patterns of results were observed for men and other ages. The gain in quality of life after total hip arthroplasty, rather than the risk of revision, was the main driver of cost effectiveness.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:762–70.

A small proportion of patients have persistent pain after total knee replacement (TKR). The primary aim of this study was to record the prevalence of pain after TKR at specific intervals post-operatively and to ascertain the impact of neuropathic pain. The secondary aim was to establish any predictive factors that could be used to identify patients who were likely to have high levels of pain or neuropathic pain after TKR.

A total of 96 patients were included in the study. Their mean age was 71 years (48 to 89); 54 (56%) were female. The mean follow-up was 46 months (39 to 51). Pre-operative demographic details were recorded including a Visual Analogue Score (VAS) for pain, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression score as well as the painDETECT score for neuropathic pain. Functional outcome was assessed using the Oxford Knee score.

The mean pre-operative VAS was 5.8 (1 to 10); and it improved significantly at all time periods post-operatively (p < 0.001): (from 4.5 at day three to five (1 to 10), 3.2 at six weeks (0 to 9), 2.4 at three months (0 to 7), 2.0 at six months (0 to 9), 1.7 at nine months (0 to 9), 1.5 at one year (0 to 8) and 2.0 at mean 46 months (0 to 10)). There was a high correlation (r > 0.7; p < 0.001) between the mean VAS scores for pain and the mean painDETECT scores at three months, one year and three years post-operatively. There was no correlation between the pre-operative scores and any post-operative scores at any time point.

We report the prevalence of pain and neuropathic pain at various intervals up to three years after TKR. Neuropathic pain is an underestimated problem in patients with pain after TKR. It peaks at between six weeks and three-months post-operatively. However, from these data we were unable to predict which patients are most likely to be affected.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1227–33.

This study assessed the effect of concomitant back pain on the Oxford knee score (OKS), Short-Form (SF)-12 and patient satisfaction after total knee replacement (TKR). It involved a prospectively compiled database of demographics and outcome scores for 2392 patients undergoing primary TKR, of whom 829 patients (35%) reported back pain. Compared with those patients without back pain, those with back pain were more likely to be female (odds ratio (OR) 1.5 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.3 to 1.8)), have a greater level of comorbidity, a worse pre-operative OKS (2.3 points (95% CI 1.7 to 3.0)) and worse SF-12 physical (2.0 points (95% CI 1.4 to 2.6)) and mental (3.3 points (95% CI 2.3 to 4.3)) components.

One year post-operatively, those with back pain had significantly worse outcome scores than those without with a mean difference in the OKS of 5 points (95% CI 3.8 to 5.4), in the SF-12 physical component of 6 points (95% CI 5.4 to 7.1) and in the mental component of 4 points (95% CI 3.1 to 4.9). Patients with back pain were less likely to be satisfied (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.5 to 0.78).

After adjusting for confounding variables, concomitant back pain was an independent predictor of a worse post-operative OKS, and of dissatisfaction. Clinicians should be aware that patients suffering concomitant back pain pre-operatively are at an increased risk of being dissatisfied post-operatively.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1632–9.

The February 2013 Knee Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: mobile-bearing TKRs; arthroscopic ACL reconstruction; the use of chondrocytes for osteochondral defects; ACL reconstruction and the return to pivoting sports; ACLs and the MOON study; the benefit of knee navigation; and trabecular metal.

Following arthroplasty of the knee, the patient’s perception of improvement in symptoms is fundamental to the assessment of outcome. Better clinical outcome may offset the inferior survival observed for some types of implant. By examining linked National Joint Registry (NJR) and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) data, we aimed to compare PROMs collected at a minimum of six months post-operatively for total (TKR: n = 23 393) and unicondylar knee replacements (UKR: n = 505). Improvements in knee-specific (Oxford knee score, OKS) and generic (EuroQol, EQ-5D) scores were compared and adjusted for case-mix differences using multiple regression. Whereas the improvements in the OKS and EQ-5D were significantly greater for TKR than for UKR, once adjustments were made for case-mix differences and pre-operative score, the improvements in the two scores were not significantly different. The adjusted mean differences in the improvement of OKS and EQ-5D were 0.0 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.9 to 0.9; p = 0.96) and 0.009 (95% CI -0.034 to 0.015; p = 0.37), respectively.

We found no difference in the improvement of either knee-specific or general health outcomes between TKR and UKR in a large cohort of registry patients. With concerns about significantly higher revision rates for UKR observed in worldwide registries, we question the widespread use of an arthroplasty that does not confer a significant benefit in clinical outcome.