The Journal of arthroplasty · 2020
The Short Form KOOS, JR Is Valid for Revision Knee Arthroplasty.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Buller Leonard T, McLawhorn Alexander S, Lee Yuo-Yu, Cross Michael, Haas Steven, Lyman Stephen
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The Knee Injury Osteoarthritis Outcome Survey, Joint Replacement (KOOS, JR) is a reliable, responsive, and validated patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) of knee health in patients with knee osteoarthritis undergoing unilateral primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The validity of the KOOS, JR for revision TKA remains unknown.
METHODS: We identified 314 patients who underwent revision TKA and had completed preoperative and 2-year postoperative PROMs. Validation included assessment of local dependence, unidimensionality, internal consistency, external construct validity, responsiveness, and floor effects preoperatively and ceiling effects at 2 years postoperatively.
RESULTS: Among patients undergoing revision TKA, the KOOS, JR demonstrated an absence of residual item correlation, adequate unidimensionality, high internal consistency (Person Separation Index: 0.897), and high external construct validity with existing validated PROMs, including KOOS Pain (Spearman's correlation coefficient 0.89) and KOOS activities of daily living (0.90) domains. The KOOS, JR was more responsive (standardized response means: 1.14) to revision TKA than other common knee PROMs. Three percent of revision TKA patients were at the floor (lowest score) preoperatively and 9% reached the ceiling (highest possible score) postoperatively.
CONCLUSIONS: KOOS, JR performs well in revision TKA patients with regard to internal consistency, external validity, responsiveness, and floor and ceiling effects. Our results support extending its use to revision TKA in both clinical and research settings.
METHODS: We identified 314 patients who underwent revision TKA and had completed preoperative and 2-year postoperative PROMs. Validation included assessment of local dependence, unidimensionality, internal consistency, external construct validity, responsiveness, and floor effects preoperatively and ceiling effects at 2 years postoperatively.
RESULTS: Among patients undergoing revision TKA, the KOOS, JR demonstrated an absence of residual item correlation, adequate unidimensionality, high internal consistency (Person Separation Index: 0.897), and high external construct validity with existing validated PROMs, including KOOS Pain (Spearman's correlation coefficient 0.89) and KOOS activities of daily living (0.90) domains. The KOOS, JR was more responsive (standardized response means: 1.14) to revision TKA than other common knee PROMs. Three percent of revision TKA patients were at the floor (lowest score) preoperatively and 9% reached the ceiling (highest possible score) postoperatively.
CONCLUSIONS: KOOS, JR performs well in revision TKA patients with regard to internal consistency, external validity, responsiveness, and floor and ceiling effects. Our results support extending its use to revision TKA in both clinical and research settings.