Purpose There is a paucity of literature defining the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the Knee Society Scores (KSS) after total knee arthroplasty (TKA), and no data on the substantial clinical benefit (SCB) for KSS have been reported. The purpose of this study was to determine MCID and SCB for the KSS in patients with primary TKA. Methods The median age of patients was 71.6 (range 50-88) years, and 60.3% were females 507 patients with TKA were prospectively enrolled. Patients completed the KSS before surgery and at second postoperative year. The MCID values of the KSS were estimated using anchor-based method, distribution-based method and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis with calculation of the area under curve (AUC). SCB was estimated using ROC. ResultsThe MCID for KSS-knee score was 7.2 points by the anchor-based method, 7.2 by the distribution-based method, and using a ROC analysis the cutoff point was 8.9 points with an AUC of 0.75. For KSS-function score, the MCID values were 9.7, 6.3, and 10.3 (AUC 0.71), respectively. SCB values were 39.7 points (AUC 0.74) for the KSS-knee score, and 38.6 (AUC 0.76) for the KSS-function score. Logistic regression showed age and Charlson index to negatively affect the changes in KSS. Conclusion Different methods for MCID calculation lead to different results. With the use of ROC curve analysis, patients with an improvement of at least 9 points for KSS-knee and 10 points for KSS-function scores experience a clinically important change, whereas those who have at least an improvement of 40 points for KSS-knee and 39 points for KSS-function scores experience a substantial clinical benefit. These findings can ensure clinical improvement from the patient's perspective and also aid in interpreting results from clinical studies. Level of evidence III.

The purpose of this study was to review the long-term outcomes of a previously reported prospective series of 46 type III acromioclavicular dislocations. These were treated surgically with temporary fixation of the acromioclavicular joint with wires, repair of the acromioclavicular ligaments, and overlapped suture of the deltoid and trapezius muscles. Of the 46 patients, one had died, four could not be traced, and three declined to return for follow-up, leaving 38 patients in the study. There were 36 men and two women, with a mean age at follow-up of 57.3 years (41 to 71). The mean follow-up was 24.2 years (21 to 26). Patients were evaluated using the Imatani and University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) scoring systems. Their subjective status was assessed using the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand and Simple Shoulder Test questionnaires, and a visual analogue scale for patient satisfaction. The examination included radiographs of the shoulder. At a follow-up of 21 years, the results were satisfactory in 35 (92.1%) patients and unsatisfactory in three (7.9%). In total, 35 patients (92.1%) reported no pain, one slight pain, and two moderate pain. All except two patients had a full range of shoulder movement compared with the opposite side. Unsatisfactory results were the result of early redisplacement in two patients, and osteoarthritis without redisplacement in one. According to the Imatani and UCLA scores, there was no difference between the operated shoulder and the opposite shoulder (p > 0.05). Given the same situation, 35 (92.1%) patients would opt for the same surgical treatment again. Operative treatment of type III acromioclavicular joint injuries produces satisfactory long-term results.

IV.

This study suggests that waiting time for hip fracture surgery more than two days was not associated with higher complication or mortality rate if waiting was to stabilize patients with active comorbidities at admission, compared to stable patients at admission with early surgery. Although early surgery within two days from admission is desirable for stable patients at admission, in patients with complex comorbidities, the surgery should be performed once they are optimized. However, the patients with delayed surgery for organizational reasons had a significant higher rate of post-operative complications and one year mortality compared to the other two groups.

Background: There is controversy about the benefit of arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM) for degenerative lesions in middle-aged patients. Purpose: To compare satisfaction with APM between middle-aged patients with no or mild knee osteoarthritis (OA) and a degenerative meniscal tear and those with a traumatic tear. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 2. Methods: A comparative prospective study at 5 years of middle-aged patients (45-60 years old) with no or mild OA undergoing APM for degenerative (n = 115) or traumatic (n = 143) tears was conducted. Patient satisfaction was measured by a 5-point Likert scale and functional outcomes by the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC). Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were used to identify factors correlating with patient-reported satisfaction at 5 years postoperatively. Results: Baseline patient characteristics were not different between groups. At the 5-year evaluation, the satisfaction rate in the traumatic and degenerative groups was 68.5% versus 71.3%, respectively ( P = .365). Patient satisfaction was significantly associated with functional outcomes ( r = 0.69; P = .024). In the degenerative group, 43 patients (37.4%) had OA progression to Kellgren-Lawrence (K-L) grade 2 or 3, but only 24 patients (20.8%) had a symptomatic knee at final follow-up. Multivariate regression analysis for patient dissatisfaction at 5-year follow-up showed the following significant independent factors: female sex (odds ratio [OR], 1.6 [95% CI, 1.1-2.3]; P = .018), body mass index >30 kg/m2 (OR, 2.6 [95% CI, 1.7-4.9]; P = .035), lateral meniscal tears (OR, 0.6 [95% CI, 0.1-0.9]; P = .039), and OA progression to K-L grade ≥2 at final follow-up (OR, 1.4 [95% CI, 1.2-2.6]; P = .014). At the final evaluation, there were no significant differences between groups in pain scores ( P = .648), WOMAC scores ( P = .083), or KOOS-4 scores ( P = .187). Likewise, there were no significant differences in the KOOS subscores for Pain ( P = .144), Symptoms ( P = .097), or Sports/Recreation ( P = .150). Although the degenerative group had significantly higher subscores for Activities of Daily Living ( P = .001) and Quality of Life ( P = .004), the differences were considered not clinically meaningful. Conclusion: There were no meaningful differences in patient satisfaction or clinical outcomes between patients with traumatic and degenerative tears and no or mild OA. Predictors of dissatisfaction with APM were female sex, obesity, and lateral meniscal tears. Our findings suggested that APM was an effective medium-term option to relieve pain and recover function in middle-aged patients with degenerative meniscal tears, without obvious OA, and with failed prior physical therapy.

No abstract

The purpose of this study was to validate the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) for elderly patients who undergo total knee replacement (TKR). The validated Spanish versions of the KOOS and Medical Outcomes Study 36‐Item Short‐Form Health Survey (SF‐36) questionnaires were applied to 137 patients (mean age 72.3, SD 7.5 years). Test–retest data were collected with an intermediate period of 1–2 weeks. To evaluate the clinimetric properties of the KOOS, internal consistency (Cronbach's α), reproducibility (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]), construct validity (Spearman's correlation), responsiveness (effect sizes [ES], and standardized response mean [SRM]), and floor and ceiling effects (<15%) were assessed. As result, Cronbach's coefficients of the KOOS subscales ranged from 0.78 to 0.93, and ICC from 0.76 to 0.91. Construct validity was supported by the confirmation of the three predefined hypotheses involving expected correlations between KOOS subscale and SF‐36 physical health subscales. Spearman's correlations were strong between KOOS Pain and SF‐36 Bodily Pain (r = 0.81), KOOS Pain and SF‐36 Physical Functioning (r = 0.67), KOOS activities of daily living (ADL) and SF‐36 Bodily Pain (r = 0.69), KOOS ADL and SF‐36 Physical Functioning (r = 0.74), and KOOS Sports/Recreation and SF‐36 Physical Functioning (r = 0.76). Responsiveness at 1 year after TKR was large with the ES ranging from 0.81 to 2.12, and the SRM from 0.70 to 1.91. Floor and ceiling effects were low. In conclusion, the Spanish version of KOOS has successful psychometric characteristics and is a reliable and valid instrument for assessment of patient‐relevant outcomes in elderly patients with advanced OA who undergo TKR. © 2019 Orthopaedic Research Society. Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Orthop Res 37:2157–2162, 2019

Purpose To determine cutof values for the Knee Society Scores (KSS) indicative of a categorical scale of medium-term outcomes. Methods One hundred and ifty-ive patients who underwent primary cruciate-retaining TKA with a patellar button for osteoarthritis at a single-centre were assessed prospectively by the KSS and short-form Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) simultaneously at the 3-year follow-up. A validated categorization of the WOMAC score was used as a standard. The area under the curve (AUC) of receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) was used to assess the discriminative analysis accuracy of the, and the Youden index estimated the optimal cutof point. Results For the KSS-knee score, the cutof for an excellent outcome was 90.3 (AUC 0.75, 95% CI 0.71-0.78), 76.6 (AUC 76.6, 95% CI 0.70-076) for good, 64.8 (AUC 0.76, 95% CI 0.72-0.79) for fair, and < 64.8 (AUC 0.69, 95% CI 0.67-0.73) for poor. For the KSS-function score, the cutof values were 85.2 (AUC 0.71, 95% CI 0.69-0.75), 73.1 (AUC 0.72, 95% CI, 0.70-0.76), 55.7 (AUC 0.70, 95% CI 0.71-0.74), and < 55.7 (AUC 0.68, 95% CI 0.66-0.72), respectively. Conclusion A KSS-knee score ≥ of 90 was considered an excellent outcome, 77 good, 65 fair, and < 65 poor. For the KSSfunction, those values are 85, 73, 56 and < 56, respectively. The treatment outcome's judgement may be clearer for the surgeon concerning a particular patient when using cutof values for the scoring system employed, such as those determined in the present study. Level of evidence II.