Download PDF
J Knee Surg 2021; 34(11): 1182-1188
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1702190
Original Article

Short-Form New Knee Society Score: What Is Its Responsiveness and Convergent Validity with Other Scores?

Rajesh Navin Maniar
1   Department of Orthopaedics, Lilavati Hospital and Research Centre, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
2   Department of Joint Replacement, Breach Candy Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
,
Parul Rajesh Maniar 
3   Department of Refractive Surgery, Centre for Sight, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
,
Debashish Chanda
4   Department of Orthopedics and Joint Replacement, W. Pratiksha Hospital, Gurgaon, Haryana, India
,
Dnyaneshwar Gajbhare
5   Department of Community Medicine, T. N. Medical College and B. Y. L. Nair Ch. Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
,
Toral Chouhan
6   Nook Clinic, Santacruz (West), Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

The short-form version of New Knee Society Score (SF-NKSS) was designed with a purpose to reduce respondent burden. Literature review revealed only one report by Scuderi et al on responsiveness of derived SF-NKSS, but it was evaluated in two separate patient cohorts pre- and postsurgery. Our study had evaluated responsiveness and convergent validity of derived SF-NKSS in a single, large patient cohort followed longitudinally from preoperative status to over 1 year. Our database of 148 knee arthroplasty patients operated by the same surgeon, whose NKSS, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC), and 12-item Short-Form Survey (SF-12) scores were prospectively collected preoperatively and postoperatively at 3 and 12 months for a study published earlier, was analyzed for derived SF-NKSS. Responsiveness was evaluated by determining the effect size, standardized response mean (SRM), and ceiling and floor effects. For convergent validity, Pearson's correlation coefficient was used. SF-NKSS was found to be most responsive with the largest effect size and SRM at 3 months (3.02 and 2.50, respectively) and at 12 months (3.58 and 2.92, respectively) with no ceiling or floor effect. SF-NKSS was followed in responsiveness by original NKSS, WOMAC, and SF-12 in a descending order. Convergent validity showed a strong correlation (r = 0.8–1.0; p < 0.001) of SF-NKSS with NKSS and a moderate to strong correlation (r = 0.5–0.6; p < 0.001) with WOMAC and SF-12. We concluded that SF-NKSS is a reliable, highly responsive tool for post-total knee replacement evaluation. It also has the ability to register improvement in the patient's recovery, which can continue even after 1 year. We found that the SF-NKSS can be used interchangeably with the original NKSS.

Keywords

knee - arthroplasty - patient-reported outcome measure - New Knee Society Score - short form

Note

This work was primarily performed at the Department of Orthopaedics, Lilavati Hospital and Research Centre, Mumbai, India as well as Breach Candy Hospital, Mumbai, India. The manuscript has been read and approved by all the authors and requirement for authorship of this document has been met. Each author believes that the manuscript represents honest work. A written informed consent was obtained from all patients authorizing radiological examination, photographic documentation, and surgery. They were also informed that the data concerning the case would be submitted for publication and they consented.




Publication History

Received: 07 January 2019

Accepted: 07 January 2020

Article published online:
17 March 2020

© 2020. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Ghomrawi H. CORR Insights(®): The Knee Society short form reduces respondent burden in the assessment of patient-reported outcomes. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2016; 474 (01) 143-145
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Noble PC, Scuderi GR, Brekke AC. et al. Development of a new Knee Society scoring system. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2012; 470 (01) 20-32
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Dinjens RN, Senden R, Heyligers IC, Grimm B. Clinimetric quality of the new 2011 Knee Society score: high validity, low completion rate. Knee 2014; 21 (03) 647-654
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Scuderi GR, Sikorskii A, Bourne RB, Lonner JH, Benjamin JB, Noble PC. The Knee Society short form reduces respondent burden in the assessment of patient-reported outcomes. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2016; 474 (01) 134-142
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Maniar RN, Maniar PR, Chanda D, Gajbhare D, Chouhan T. What is the responsiveness and respondent burden of the new Knee Society Score?. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2017; 475 (09) 2218-2227
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Kazis LE, Anderson JJ, Meenan RF. Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care 1989; 27 (3, Suppl): S178-S189
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Liang MH, Fossel AH, Larson MG. Comparisons of five health status instruments for orthopedic evaluation. Med Care 1990; 28 (07) 632-642
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Swinscow TD, Campbell MJ. Statistics at Square One. 10th ed. London: BMJ Books; 2002
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Roos EM, Toksvig-Larsen S. Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) - validation and comparison to the WOMAC in total knee replacement. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2003; 1: 17
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Marx RG, Jones EC, Atwan NC, Closkey RF, Salvati EA, Sculco TP. Measuring improvement following total hip and knee arthroplasty using patient-based measures of outcome. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005; 87 (09) 1999-2005
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar