Turkish Version of the Knee Society Short Form in Older Adults with Total Knee Arthroplasty: Reliability and Validity Study

Abstract

The present study aimed to demonstrate the psychometric properties of the Turkish version of the Knee Society Score-Short Form in individuals before and after total knee arthroplasty. A prospective cross-sectional study was conducted with 112 participants (67 pre-operative, 45 post-operative). Participants were evaluated with Knee Society Score-Short Form, Visual Analog Scale (VAS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), and Short Form-36 (SF-36) in the initial assessment. Forty-two participants refilled the Knee Society Score-Short Form one week later. Test-retest reliability and internal consistency of the Knee Society Score-Short Form (total score and items) were high (ICC: 0.84-0.96, α: 0.68-0.82). Knee Society Score-Short Form demonstrated a single factor in Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) (0.30-0.87). There was a high correlation between Knee Society Score-Short Form and WOMAC (r: -0.58, p<0.001). VAS (gait) and VAS (stairs or inclines) scores were moderately correlated with Knee Society Score-Short Form (r1: -0.39, r2: -0.49, p<0.001). Knee Society Score-Short Form was primarily associated (moderate to high) with social function (r: 0.57, p<0.001), physical function (r: -0.41, p<0.001), bodily pain (r: 0.45, p<0.001), general health (r: 0.43, p<0.001) and energy/vitality (r: 0.40, p<0.001) among the SF-36 subscores. Besides, ROC curve-based cut-off value, SEM and MDC of the Knee Society Score-Short Form were 52.5, 4.40 and 12.18, respectively. The Turkish version of the Knee Society Score-Short Form is a reliable and valid scale in older adults with total knee arthroplasty.

Keywords

• Knee Osteoarthritis
• Knee Prosthesis
• Knee Society Score
• Total Knee Replacement

Total Diz Artroplastisi Uygulanan Yaşlı Yetişkinlerde Diz Cemiyeti Kısa Formu Türkçe Versiyonu: Güvenilirlik ve Geçerlilik Çalışması

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı, total diz artroplastisi öncesi ve sonrası bireylerde Diz Cemiyeti-Kısa Form'un Türkçe versiyonunun psikometrik özelliklerini ortaya koymaktır. Prospektif kesitsel çalışma 112 katılımcı (67 ameliyat öncesi, 45 ameliyat sonrası) ile gerçekleştirilmiştir. Katılımcılar ilk değerlendirmede Diz Cemiyeti-Kısa Form, Görsel Analog Skala (GAS), Western Ontario ve McMaster Üniversiteleri Osteoartrit İndeksi (WOMAC) ve Kısa Form-36 (SF-36) ile değerlendirilmiştir. Kırk iki katılımcı bir hafta sonra Diz Cemiyeti-Kısa Formu tekrar doldurmuştur. Diz Cemiyeti-Kısa Formun (toplam puan ve maddeler) test-tekrar test güvenilirliği ve iç tutarlılığı yüksek bulunmuştur (ICC: 0,84-0,96, α: 0,68-0,82). Diz Cemiyeti-Kısa Form, Açıklayıcı Faktör Analizi'nde (AFA) tek bir faktör göstermiştir (0,30-0,87). Diz Cemiyeti-Kısa Form ile WOMAC arasında yüksek bir korelasyon vardı (r: -0,58, p<0,001). GAS (yürüme) ve GAS (merdiven veya eğim) skorları Diz Cemiyeti-Kısa Form ile orta düzeyde korelasyon göstermiştir (r1: -0,39, r2: -0,49, p<0,001). Diz Cemiyeti-Kısa Form, SF-36 alt skorlarından sosyal fonksiyon (r: 0,57, p<0,001), fiziksel fonksiyon (r: -0,41, p<0,001), bedensel ağrı (r: 0,45, p<0,001), genel sağlık (r: 0,43, p<0,001) ve enerji/canlılık (r: 0,40, p<0,001) ile öncelikli olarak ilişkiliydi (orta ila yüksek). Ayrıca, Diz Cemiyeti-Kısa Formun ROC eğrisine dayalı kesme değeri, SEM ve MDC sırasıyla 52,5, 4,40 ve 12,18 olarak bulunmuştur. Diz Cemiyeti-Kısa Form’un Türkçe versiyonu total diz artroplatisili yaşlı yetişkinlerde güvenilir ve geçerli bir ölçektir.

Keywords

• Diz Osteoartriti
• Diz Protezi
• Diz Toplum Skoru
• Total Diz Protezi

References

1. Ares, O., León-Muñoz, V. J., Castellet, E., Pelfort, X., Hinarejos, P., Amillo, J. R., Ríos, J., & Torner, P. (2021). Translation and validation of the new knee society knee scoring system into Spanish: Spanish KSS translation. Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy, 29, 2934-2939. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-020-06225-9
2. Baumgartner, T. A., & Chung, H. (2001). Confidence limits for intraclass reliability coefficients. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 5(3), 179-188. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327841MPEE0503_4
3. Boeckstyns, M. E., & Backer, M. (1989). Reliability and validity of the evaluation of pain in patients with total knee replacement. Pain, 38(1), 29-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-3959(89)90069-9
4. Culliton, S. E., Bryant, D. M., MacDonald, S. J., Hibbert, K. M., & Chesworth, B. M. (2018). Validity and internal consistency of the new knee society knee scoring system. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 476(1), 77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999.0000000000000014
5. Davies, A. P. (2002). Rating systems for total knee replacement. The Knee, 9(4), 261-266. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0968-0160(02)00095-9
6. Debette, C., Parratte, S., Maucort-Boulch, D., Blanc, G., Pauly, V., Lustig, S., Servien, E., Neyret, P., & Argenson, J.-N. (2014). French adaptation of the new Knee Society Scoring System for total knee arthroplasty. Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research, 100(5), 531-534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.otsr.2014.03.025
7. Dinjens, R. N., Senden, R., Heyligers, I. C., & Grimm, B. (2014). Clinimetric quality of the new 2011 Knee Society score: high validity, low completion rate. The Knee, 21(3), 647-654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2014.02.004
8. Giesinger, J. M., Hamilton, D. F., Jost, B., Behrend, H., & Giesinger, K. (2015). WOMAC, EQ-5D and knee society score thresholds for treatment success after total knee arthroplasty. The Journal of Arthroplasty, 30(12), 2154-2158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2015.06.012

9. Guillemin, F., Bombardier, C., & Beaton, D. (1993). Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: literature review and proposed guidelines. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 46(12), 1417-1432. https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(93)90142-N
10. Hamamoto, Y., Ito, H., Furu, M., Ishikawa, M., Azukizawa, M., Kuriyama, S., Nakamura, S., & Matsuda, S. (2015). Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Japanese version of the new Knee Society Scoring System for osteoarthritic knee with total knee arthroplasty. Journal of Orthopaedic Science, 20(5), 849-853. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00776-015-0736-2
11. Hossain, F. S., Konan, S., Patel, S., Rodriguez-Merchan, E. C., Haddad, F. S. (2015). The assessment of outcome after total knee arthroplasty: are we there yet? Bone Joint J, 97-B(1), 3-9. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.97B1.34434 .
12. Insall, J. N., Dorr, L. D., Scott, R. D., & Scott, W. N. (1989). Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system. Clin Orthop Relat Res, 248(248), 13-14.
13. Juniper, E. F. (1996). How to develop and validate a new health-related quality of life instrument. Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials içinde (ss.49-56) (2nd ed.) Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven Publishers.
14. Kayaalp, M. E., Keller, T., Fitz, W., Scuderi, G. R., & Becker, R. (2019). Translation and validation of the German new knee society scoring system. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 477(2), 383. https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000000555
15. Kim, S. J., Basur, M. S., Park, C. K., Chong, S., Kang, Y. G., Kim, M. J., Jeong, J. S., & Kim, T. K. (2017). Crosscultural adaptation and validation of the Korean version of the New Knee Society Knee Scoring System. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 475, 1629-1639. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-017-5307-8
16. Koçyiğit, H., Aydemir, Ö., Fişek, G., Ölmez, N., & Memiş, A. (1995). The reliability and validity of Turkish version of Short form 36 (SF 36). J Drug Treat, 12, 102-106.
17. Liu, D., He, X., Zheng, W., Zhang, Y., Li, D., Wang, W., Li, J., & Xu, W. (2015). Translation and validation of the simplified Chinese new Knee Society Scoring System. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 16(1), 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-015-0854-1
18. Maltenfort, M. (2017). CORR Insights: What is the responsiveness and respondent burden of the new knee society score? Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 475, 2228-2229. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-017-5352-3
19. Maniar, R. N., Maniar, P. R., Chanda, D., Gajbhare, D., & Chouhan, T. (2017). What is the responsiveness and respondent burden of the New Knee Society Score? Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 475, 2218-2227. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-017-5338-1
20. Maniar, R. N., Maniar, P. R., Chanda, D., Gajbhare, D., & Chouhan, T. (2021). Short-Form New Knee Society Score: What Is Its Responsiveness and Convergent Validity with Other Scores? The Journal of Knee Surgery, 34(11), 1182-1188. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1702190
21. Nishitani, K., Yamamoto, Y., Furu, M., Kuriyama, S., Nakamura, S., Ito, H., Fukuhara, S., & Matsuda, S. (2019). The minimum clinically important difference for the Japanese version of the new Knee Society Score (2011KSS) after total knee arthroplasty. Journal of Orthopaedic Science, 24(6), 1053-1057. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jos.2019.09.001
22. Noble, P. C., Scuderi, G. R., Brekke, A. C., Sikorskii, A., Benjamin, J. B., Lonner, J. H., Chadha, P., Daylamani, D. A., Scott, W. N., & Bourne, R. B. (2012). Development of a new Knee Society scoring system. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 470, 20-32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-011-2152-z
23. Özden, F., Tuğay, N., Tuğay, B. U., & Kılınç, C. Y. (2019). Psychometrical properties of the Turkish translation of the new knee society scoring system. Acta Orthopaedica et Traumatologica Turcica, 53(3), 184-188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aott.2019.03.003
24. Özden, F., & Tümtürk, İ. (2022). Performance-Based Outcome Measures in Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review. Physical & Occupational Therapy In Geriatrics, 40(3), 241-260. https://doi.org/10.1080/02703181.2021.2015048
25. Portney, L. G., & Watkins, M. P. (2009). Foundations of clinical research: applications to practice (Vol. 892). Pearson/Prentice Hall Upper Saddle River, NJ.
26. Ramkumar, P., Harris, J. D., & Noble, P. (2015). Patient-reported outcome measures after total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review. Bone & Joint Research, 4(7), 120-127. https://doi.org/10.1302/2046-3758.47.2000380
27. Scuderi, G. R., Bourne, R. B., Noble, P. C., Benjamin, J. B., Lonner, J. H., & Scott, W. (2012). The new knee society knee scoring system. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 470, 3-19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-011-2135-0
28. Scuderi, G. R., Sikorskii, A., Bourne, R. B., Lonner, J. H., Benjamin, J. B., & Noble, P. C. (2016). The knee society short form reduces respondent burden in the assessment of patient-reported outcomes. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 474, 134-142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-015-4370-2
29. Senden, R., Grimm, B., Meijer, K., Savelberg, H., & Heyligers, I. C. (2011). The importance to including objective functional outcomes in the clinical follow up of total knee arthroplasty patients. The Knee, 18(5), 306–311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2010.07.008
30. Silva, A. L. P., Croci, A. T., Gobbi, R. G., Hinckel, B. B., Pecora, J. R., & Demange, M. K. (2017). Translation and validation of the new version of the Knee Society Score-The 2011 KS Score-into Brazilian Portuguese. Revista Brasileira de Ortopedia, 52, 506-510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rboe.2016.08.020
31. Terwee, C. B., Bot, S. D., de Boer, M. R., van der Windt, D. A., Knol, D. L., Dekker, J., Bouter, L. M., & de Vet, H. C. (2007). Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60(1), 34-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012
32. Tüzün, E., Eker, L., Aytar, A., Daşkapan, A., & Bayramoğlu, M. (2005). Acceptability, reliability, validity and responsiveness of the Turkish version of WOMAC osteoarthritis index. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage, 13(1), 28-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2004.10.010
33. Van Der Straeten, C., Witvrouw, E., Willems, T., Bellemans, J., & Victor, J. (2013). Translation and validation of the Dutch new knee society scoring system. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, 471, 3565-3571. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-013-3149-6