Individuals With Knee Osteoarthritis and Symmetrical Total Joint Moment Exhibit Bilateral Gait Characteristics Associated With Osteoarthritis.

Introduction Modest effect sizes of clinical pain intervention studies have caused a need for evaluation of the applied methodology, including identification of treatment response indicators. Comparing two measurement instruments helps to identify the underlying constructs, which is important in interpreting the results appropriately, in research as well as in practice. This study aimed at assessing the agreement between a performance measure (walking task including pain assessment) and a patient reported outcome (the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score), in a population of patients with knee osteoarthritis. Materials and methods Cross-sectional data from 143 patients with knee osteoarthritis included in a prospective weight loss study were analysed. All participants completed the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score within one week prior to rating their target knee pain on a 100 mm visual analogue scale after walking 150–200 m at a self-selected pace in a gait laboratory. The Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score pain subscale and item 5 of the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score pain subscale (“amount of knee pain experienced during walking on a flat surface in the the last week”) were selected for analysis. Distributions of visual analogue scale scores within the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score pain subscale 05 response categories were described and compared using Spearman correlation. Agreement was estimated using Limits of Agreement. Results There was a moderate correlation between visual analogue scale and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score pain subscale 05 (r = 0.5, p < 0.001), with a wide range of visual analogue scale scores within the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score response categories. Generally, higher pain scores were reported with the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score pain subscale than with the performance test, with a mean difference of 18.8 (SD 16.6), and Limits of Agreement from –13.6 to 51.3. Conclusion Disagreement between the performance measure and the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score pain subscale, together with the moderate correlation of visual analogue scale and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score pain subscale 05 scores, suggests a difference in the underlying constructs of pain.

Background: The “initial graft tension” applied at the time of graft fixation during anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction surgery modulates joint contact mechanics, which in turn may promote posttraumatic osteoarthritis (OA). Purpose/Hypotheses: The study objectives were to compare clinical, functional, patient-reported, and OA imaging outcomes between 2 different initial laxity-based graft tension cohorts and a matched uninjured control group as well as to evaluate the effects of laxity-based graft tension on OA development at 84-month follow-up. The 2 laxity-based tension protocols were (1) to restore normal anteroposterior (AP) laxity at the time of surgery relative to the contralateral uninjured knee (low-tension group) or (2) to overconstrain AP laxity by 2 mm relative to the contralateral uninjured knee (high-tension group). The hypotheses were that (1) the high-tension group would have improved outcomes and decreased OA compared with the low-tension group after 84 months, and (2) the outcomes for the high-tension group would be equivalent to those for an age-, sex-, race-, and activity-matched group of control participants with uninjured knees. Study Design: Randomized controlled trial; Level of evidence, 1. Methods: Patients had their ACLs reconstructed with either a bone–patellar tendon–bone or 4-stranded hamstring autograft, and outcomes were compared with a matched control group. Outcomes were evaluated preoperatively and at 60 and 84 months postoperatively and included clinical (KT-1000 arthrometer AP laxity measurement and International Knee Documentation Committee [IKDC] examination score), functional (1-legged hop for distance and knee extensor torque), patient-reported (Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [KOOS], Short Form–36 [SF-36], and patient satisfaction survey), and OA imaging (measurement of joint space width [JSW], Osteoarthritis Research Society International [OARSI] radiographic score, and Whole-Organ Magnetic Resonance Imaging Score [WORMS]) components. Repeated-measures analyses of variance were used to evaluate differences in outcomes between the treatment groups and the control group. Results: There were significant differences between the 2 tension groups in 1 of 5 KOOS subscales (sports and recreation; P = .04) and 2 of 8 SF-36 subscales (vitality, mental health; P < .04) at 84 and 60 months, respectively. Both tension groups scored significantly worse than the control group in the IKDC examination (P < .001), 1-legged hop (P ≤ .017), KOOS quality of life and symptoms subscales (P < .03), and OARSI radiographic score (P ≤ .02) at 84 months. The low-tension group performed significantly worse than the control group on the KOOS pain subscale (P = .03), SF-36 general health and social functioning (P < .04), OARSI radiographic score (P < .001), and WORMS (P = .001), while the high-tension group had statistically different results than the control group in AP knee laxity (P < .001), radiographic JSW (P = .003), and OARSI radiographic score (P = .02) as well as significantly more subsequent knee injuries (P = .02) at 84 months. Conclusion: The results do not support the hypotheses that the high-tension group would have improved outcomes when compared with the low-tension group after 84 months of healing or that the outcomes for the high-tension group would be equivalent to those for the matched control group. While there were minor differences in patient-reported outcomes between the 2 laxity-based tension groups, all other outcomes were similar. Registration: NCT00434837

The association of comorbid conditions with patient reported outcomes in osteoarthritis

Body mass index is known to contribute to outcomes for patients with knee osteoarthritis. Furthermore, body mass index influences the protein expression of orthobiologic treatments like platelet-rich plasma and microfragmented adipose tissue. We performed a secondary analysis of the association of body mass index with patient-reported outcomes for patients with knee osteoarthritis who received either platelet-rich plasma or microfragmented adipose tissue injections. Seventy-one patients with knee osteoarthritis were randomized to receive a single ultrasound-guided injection of platelet-rich plasma or microfragmented adipose tissue. Platelet-rich plasma was created from 180 cc of anticoagulated blood and processed using a double-spin, buffy-coat concentration system. Microfragmented adipose tissue was created using autologous lipoaspirate that was processed according to minimal manipulation guidelines. Patient-reported outcomes and osteoarthritis outcome scores (Knee Osteoarthritis and injury Outcome Score) were tracked for 12 mos. Forty-nine patients (platelet-rich plasma = 23, microfragmented adipose tissue = 26) completed 12-mo follow-up. Knee Osteoarthritis and injury Outcome Score quality of life and activity of daily living subscores were inversely correlated (both P < 0.05) with body mass index in the microfragmented adipose tissue but not platelet-rich plasmagroup. Knee Osteoarthritis and injury Outcome Score pain and sport subscores showed a trend toward inverse correlation with body mass index in the microfragmented adipose tissue group ( P = 0.07 and P = 0.06, respectively), but not platelet-rich plasma. Body mass index was negatively associated with patient-reported outcomes in patients who received microfragmented adipose tissue injections for knee osteoarthritis, but not for patients receiving platelet-rich plasma.

PMS29 Qualitative Study to Understand the Patient Experience of Knee Osteoarthritis (OA) and Assess the Content Validity of the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) and HIP Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS) Measures

Background of the study: Osteoarthritis knee is the most common joint disease that affects the aged people and result in long term disability. Osteoarthritis knee cause degenerative joint disease, wear and tear changes occurring in old age due to weight bearing and loss of articular cartilage. It occurs in 12.1% population approximately. Increased BMI is a well-recognized risk factor for radiographic knee osteoarthritis however, the contributions from joint mobility also have an impact on subjects with knee osteoarthritis. The objective of the study is to find out the correlation of knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS) with anthropometric measures and flexibility in subjects with Knee OA. Methodology: This is an observational study of analytical type, total of 100 subjects. 47 male and 53 female subjects aged above 55years with pre-diagnosed knee osteoarthitis were included for the study. Subjects with knee pain for last 3 months will be included in this study by convenient sampling method. Visual Analogue scale, knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS) questionnaire were used as an outcome measure, weighing scale, goniometer were the tools used for this study. The study was carried out at old aged home for 3 months. Result: A Positive Association and correlation between Knee ROM and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) with Pearson value is 0.573 indicates an increase in KOOS score decreases knee range of motion in subjects with knee osteoarthritis. Conclusion: The study concluded that there is significant correlation with Knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (KOOS) and anthropometric measures in subjects with knee osteoarthritis.

No difference between home-based strength training and home-based balance training on pain in patients with knee osteoarthritis: a randomised trial

What's New in Orthopaedic Rehabilitation.

BackgroundDespite an extensive literature on treatment interventions for patients with knee osteoarthritis, studies comparing the efficacy of different exercise interventions and living the life as usual on quality of life, cartilage quality and cost-effectiveness are lacking. The aim of the present study is to compare the efficacy of two different exercise programs compared to a control group in individuals with established radiographic and symptomatic knee osteoarthritis on self-reported knee-related quality of life, knee pain, physical function, and cartilage quality.Methods/DesignA three-armed randomized controlled trial involving two exercise interventions and a control group of individuals doing as they usually do is described. The patients will have mild to moderate radiographic osteoarthritis according to the Kellgren and Lawrence classification (grade 2–3), and fulfill the American College of Rheumatology clinical criteria, be aged between 45 and 65 years, and have no other serious physical or mental illnesses. The patients will be randomly allocated to a strength exercise group; a cycling group, or a control group. The primary outcome is the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score knee-related quality of life subscale. Secondary outcomes include all five Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score subscales, morphological evaluation of cartilage including focal thickness, subchondral bone marrow edema, proteoglycan content and collagen degradation (measured using magnetic resonance imaging clinical sequences, T2 mapping and T1ρ), specific serum biomarkers, isokinetic muscle strength, maximal oxygen uptake, quality of life (EuroQol 5D), and self-efficacy (Arthritis Self-Efficacy Scale). A sample size calculation on the primary outcome showed that 207 individuals, 69 in each group, is needed to detect a clinically relevant difference of 10 points with 80% power and a significance level of 5%. Assessments will be conducted at baseline, 14 weeks, 1 year and 2 years post-randomization. The interventions will be a 14 weeks exercise program.DiscussionAlthough exercise therapy has been found to be effective in knee osteoarthritis, the knowledge of the underlying mechanisms for why exercise works is lacking. This study will contribute with knowledge on the efficacy of strength exercise versus cycling on patient-reported outcomes, cartilage quality and cost-effectiveness.Trial registrationClinicaltrial.gov Identifier: NCT01682980.

Changes in biomechanical risk factors for knee osteoarthritis and their association with 5-year clinically important improvement after limb realignment surgery.

Objective: Knee osteoarthritis significantly impacts the quality of life, particularly in advanced stages. Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a common treatment, but 20-30% of patients remain dissatisfied despite clinical improvements. This study evaluates TKA outcomes using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in a low-middle-income country context. Methodology: A prospective cohort study from Aga Khan University Hospital of 70 patients with end-stage knee osteoarthritis undergoing TKA was conducted from May, 2023 to December, 2023, Improvement in Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS-42) at three months post-TKA was assessed. The secondary objectives were to evaluate the correlation between patient expectations and outcomes, a comparison of unilateral and bilateral TKA, and the effects of patellar resurfacing and home-based physiotherapy. Data were analyzed using Stata 17.0. Results: Significant improvements in KOOS scores were observed three months post-TKA (mean 71.0 ± 7.3, P&lt;0.001) compared to preoperative scores (26.3 [21.6-30]). Patient expectations were higher than actual postoperative outcomes (P&lt;0.001). The pre-operative functional score and Patellar resurfacing improved symptom scores (P=0.003), while other factors like unilateral vs. bilateral TKA and home-based physiotherapy showed no significant impact on overall KOOS scores. Conclusion: TKA significantly improves patient-reported outcomes, but a gap remains between expectations and actual outcomes. Tailored patient education is crucial to manage expectations and enhance satisfaction, especially in resource-limited settings. These findings support the need for patient-centered care approaches in TKA. Abbreviation: TKA: Total Knee Arthroplasty. KOOS: Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score. PROMs: Patient-Reported Outcome Measures. KOOS PES: Knee Injury and osteoarthritis (Patient expectations score). LMICs: Low- and Middle-Income Countries. BMI: Body Mass Index. ERC: Ethical Review Committee. GEE: Generalized Estimating Equation. QOL: Quality of Life. OA: Osteoarthritis. HB: Hemoglobin. HCT: Hematocrit.

Psychometric properties of the French translation of the reduced KOOS and HOOS (KOOS-PS and HOOS-PS)

Is impaired knee confidence related to worse kinesiophobia, symptoms, and physical function in people with knee osteoarthritis after anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction?

BackgroundThe Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) is an extension of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthrtis Index (WOMAC), the most commonly used outcome instrument for assessment of patient-relevant treatment effects in osteoarthritis. KOOS was developed for younger and/or more active patients with knee injury and knee osteoarthritis and has in previous studies on these groups been the more responsive instrument compared to the WOMAC. Some patients eligible for total knee replacement have expectations of more demanding physical functions than required for daily living. This encouraged us to study the use of the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) to assess the outcome of total knee replacement.MethodsWe studied the test-retest reliability, validity and responsiveness of the Swedish version LK 1.0 of the KOOS when used to prospectively evaluate the outcome of 105 patients (mean age 71.3, 66 women) after total knee replacement. The follow-up rates at 6 and 12 months were 92% and 86%, respectively.ResultsThe intraclass correlation coefficients were over 0.75 for all subscales indicating sufficient test-retest reliability. Bland-Altman plots confirmed this finding. Over 90% of the patients regarded improvement in the subscales Pain, Symptoms, Activities of Daily Living, and knee-related Quality of Life to be extremely or very important when deciding to have their knee operated on indicating good content validity. The correlations found in comparison to the SF-36 indicated the KOOS measured expected constructs. The most responsive subscale was knee-related Quality of Life. The effect sizes of the five KOOS subscales at 12 months ranged from 1.08 to 3.54 and for the WOMAC from 1.65 to 2.56.ConclusionThe Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) is a valid, reliable, and responsive outcome measure in total joint replacement. In comparison to the WOMAC, the KOOS improved validity and may be at least as responsive as the WOMAC.

Beyond knee pain itself, the fear of movement, also known as kinesiophobia, recently has been proposed as a potential factor contributing to disability and functional limitation in patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA). Nevertheless, the available evidence on the association of kinesiophobia with patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in knee OA remains limited. Among patients with nonoperatively treated knee OA, we asked: (1) Is kinesiophobia associated with decreased quality of life (QoL), functional outcomes, and physical activity? (2) What are the patient disease and psychosocial demographic factors associated with kinesiophobia? This was a multicenter, cross-sectional study of 406 general orthopaedic patients from two urban, referral-based tertiary hospitals in Singapore under a single healthcare group who received nonoperative treatment for knee OA. Between July 2020 and January 2022, a total of 1541 patients were treated for knee OA nonoperatively. Based on that, 60% (923) of patients were rejected due to refusal to participate in the study, 3% (52) of patients were enrolled but did not show up for their appointments for data collection, and a further 10% (160) had incomplete data sets, leaving 26% (406) for this study's analysis. The mean age of patients was 64 ± 8 years, 69% were women, and 81% were Chinese. The level of kinesiophobia in patients was measured using the Brief Fear of Movement scale, a validated 6-item questionnaire ranging from a score of 6 to 24 to measure kinesiophobia in OA, with higher scores representing higher levels of kinesiophobia. In terms of PROMs, the QoL and functional level of patients were measured using the QoL and activities of daily living (ADL) components of the widely validated 12-item Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS-12). The KOOS-12 is a questionnaire consisting of 12 items encompassing three domains (QoL, ADL, and pain), with each item ranging from 0 to 4 and higher scores representing worse outcomes. The University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Activity Scale was used to measure the level of physical activity in patients. The UCLA score is a descriptive 10-level activity scale ranging from a score of 1 to 10, with higher scores representing greater physical activity levels. A directed acyclic graph, which is a relationship map used to depict and visualize the confounders between the studied variables, was used to identify the confounders between kinesiophobia and PROMs (QoL, function, and physical activity). An ordinal regression model was used to explore: (1) the association between kinesiophobia (as measured using the Brief Fear of Movement scale) and PROMs (as measured using KOOS QoL, KOOS ADL, and the UCLA Activity Scale), adjusting for key confounders such as age, gender, pain, side of arthritis, OA duration/severity, and psychosocial factors (for example, depression, anxiety, and education levels), and (2) the association between kinesiophobia (Brief Fear of Movement scale) and various patient disease and psychosocial demographic factors. After accounting for confounders, greater kinesiophobia (higher Brief Fear of Movement scores) was associated with lower QoL (KOOS QoL score adjusted IQR OR 0.69 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 0.90]; p = 0.007) and lower physical activity (UCLA score adjusted IQR OR 0.68 [95% CI 0.52 to 0.90]; p = 0.007); however, there was no association between kinesiophobia and function (KOOS ADL score adjusted IQR OR 0.90 [95% CI 0.70 to 1.17]; p = 0.45). After adjusting for age, gender, OA duration, pain, and BMI, higher levels of anxiety (Patient Health Questionnaire 2 [PHQ-2] anxiety score adjusted OR 2.49 [95% CI 1.36 to 4.58]; p = 0.003) and depression (PHQ-2 depression score adjusted OR 3.38 [95% CI 1.73 to 6.62]; p < 0.001) were associated with higher levels of kinesiophobia. Education level, OA disease severity, side of arthritis (unilateral versus bilateral), and history of previous injury or surgery on the knee were not associated with kinesiophobia. Clinicians should assess for kinesiophobia and other psychological comorbidities such as depression and anxiety at the point of initial evaluation and subsequent follow-up of knee OA with simple validated tools like the Brief Fear of Movement scale (kinesiophobia) in the clinic. This allows for clinicians to identify high-risk individuals and offer evidence-based treatment such as cognitive behavioral therapies with a multidisciplinary team, including a physical therapist and psychologist, to manage these psychological comorbidities and improve outcomes in patients with knee OA. While kinesiophobia was found to be associated with poorer QoL and physical activity, future studies including larger observational cohort studies should be conducted to determine causal and prognostic relationships between kinesiophobia and outcomes in knee OA. Level III, prognostic study.