+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

The minimal clinically important difference for Knee Society Clinical Rating System after total knee arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis



The minimal clinically important difference for Knee Society Clinical Rating System after total knee arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis



Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy 25(11): 3354-3359



The Knee Society Clinical Rating System (KS) is one of the most popular tools used to assess patient outcome after total knee arthroplasty (TKA), but its minimal clinically important difference (MCID) has not been identified. This study aims to identify the MCID of KS function score (KS-FS) and knee score (KS-KS) after TKA in patients with primary knee osteoarthritis. The authors retrospectively analysed patients who underwent TKA for primary knee osteoarthritis between 2005 and 2015 in a single institution. KS-FS, KS-KS, and Oxford Knee Score (OKS) were collected pre-operatively and 2 years post-operatively. Patient satisfaction with TKA at 2 years was also collected. Anchor-based approach with 2 external indicators was used. The MCID for KS-FS and KS-KS was determined using simple linear regression according to patient satisfaction with TKA and the MCID of OKS. The mean age of the 550 subjects studied was 66 ± 8 years. There were 373 (67.8 %) female subjects. The KS-FS improved by 22.8 (95 % CI 20.9-24.6) points, and the KS-KS improved by 44.4 (95 % CI 42.6-46.3) points. The MCID identified for KS-FS is between 6.1 (95 % CI 5.1-7.1) and 6.4 (95 % CI 4.4-8.4) and between 5.3 (95 % CI 4.3-6.3) and 5.9 (95 % CI 3.9-7.8) for KS-KS. This is the first study, to the knowledge of the authors, to identify the MCID of KS. This will allow future trials to have an accurate prediction of sample size. Clinically, physicians will be able to better interpret outcomes of TKA studies to guide a treatment option. IV.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 059086590

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 27324635

DOI: 10.1007/s00167-016-4208-9


Related references

The minimal clinically important difference in the Oxford knee score and Short Form 12 score after total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surgery Sports Traumatology Arthroscopy 22(8): 1933-1939, 2014

Responsiveness and minimal important changes for the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score in subjects undergoing rehabilitation after total knee arthroplasty. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 92(10): 864-870, 2013

Revision of minimal resection resurfacing unicondylar knee arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty: results compared with primary total knee arthroplasty. Journal of Arthroplasty 28(1): 33-39, 2013

Revision of Minimal Resection Resurfacing Unicondylar Knee Arthroplasty to Total Knee Arthroplasty Results Compared With Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty. 2012

Comparison of the responsiveness of the SF-36, the Oxford Knee Score, and the Knee Society Clinical Rating System in patients undergoing total knee replacement. Quality of Life Research 22(9): 2455-2459, 2014

Achieving Minimum Clinically Important Difference in Oxford Knee Score and Short Form-36 Physical Component Summary Is Less Likely with Single-Radius Compared with Multiradius Total Knee Arthroplasty in Asians. Journal of Knee Surgery 32(3): 227-232, 2019

Comparison of clinical outcomes between total knee arthroplasty and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty for osteoarthritis of the knee: a retrospective analysis of preoperative and postoperative results. Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research 10: 168, 2015

Clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction following revision of failed unicompartmental knee arthroplasty to total knee arthroplasty are as good as a primary total knee arthroplasty. Knee 26(4): 847-852, 2019

The clinical comparison of double knee osteoarthritis patients undergoing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty. Zhonghua Wai Ke Za Zhi 51(2): 157-160, 2013

Examining the Minimal Important Difference of Patient-reported Outcome Measures for Individuals with Knee Osteoarthritis: A Model Using the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score. Journal of Rheumatology 43(2): 395-404, 2016

Comparison of survival and cost-effectiveness between unicondylar arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty in patients with primary osteoarthritis: a follow-up study of 50,493 knee replacements from the Finnish Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthopaedica 79(4): 499-507, 2008

Blood Loss and Transfusion Rates in the Revision of Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty to Total Knee Arthroplasty Are Similar to Those of Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty But Are Lower Compared With the Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty. Journal of Arthroplasty 31(1): 339-341, 2016

Knee extension disturbance of knee osteoarthritis effect the short-term clinical outcomes after total knee arthroplasty. PhysioTherapy 101: E518-E519, 2015

Full-Thickness Cartilage Defects Are Important Independent Predictive Factors for Progression to Total Knee Arthroplasty in Older Adults with Minimal to Moderate Osteoarthritis: Data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American Volume 101(1): 56-63, 2019

Clinical effect of total knee arthroplasty on patients with knee osteoarthritis combined with mild to moderate valgus knee deformity. Zhong Nan Da Xue Xue Bao. Yi Xue Ban 41(9): 955-961, 2016