header advert
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

Knee

CAN FORGOTTEN JOINT SCORE IDENTIFY PATIENTS LIKELY TO BE DISSATISFIED FOLLOWING TOTAL KNEE ARTHROPLASTY?

The Knee Society (TKS) 2020 Members Meeting, held online, 10–12 September 2020.



Abstract

Introduction

Our study aimed to correlate Forgotten Joint Socre(FJS) preoperatively(Preop-FJS) and postoperatively(Postop-FJS), hypothesis being that patients with high Preop-FJS had more likelihood of poor Postop-FJS.

Material & Methods

We retrospectively identified 212 patients, having undergone uniform primary TKA by a single surgeon over 20 months, with complete data of FJS and New Knee Society Score (NKSS), recorded preoperatively and postoperatively(1year±1month). Mean age was 66.3 years, with 167 female and 45 males.

We correlated Preop-FJS to Postop-FJS using Spearmans correlation test. For our hypothesis, we studied patients using two cutoffs for Preop-FJS, first set with median Preop-FJS cutoff of 35 and second set with median Preop-FJS cutoff of 40. We applied Mann Whitney U test to compare Postop-FJS. SPSS software V15.0 was used.

Results

Median Preop-FJS was 14.1(Range=0–81.3;IQR=6.3,25). Median Postop-FJS was 55.9(Range=2.1–100;IQR=42.2,78.6). Spearman Correlation Coefficient(rho) between them was(−)0.04, statistically not significant(p=0.53) but suggesting an inverse association.

On studying Preop-FJS cutoff of 35, 20 patients having Preop-FJS>35 showed corresponding Postop-FJS of 50; remaining 192 patients with Preop-FJS≤35 showed corresponding Postop-FJS of 56.8. The difference in Postop-FJS was not statistically significant(p= 0.16). On studying Preop-FJS cutoff of 40, 11patients having Preop-FJS>40 showed corresponding Postop-FJS of 43.7; remaining 201 patients with Preop-FJS≤40 showed corresponding Postop-FJS of 56.8; the difference in Postop-FJS being statistically significant(p= 0.04). On comparison, patients with Preop-FJS≤40 showed significant improvement(p=0.001) in Postop-FJS, while patients with Preop-FJS>40 showed no improvement(p=0.2).

Discussion and Conclusion

So far no study establishes the relationship between preoperative and postoperative FJS. Our hypothesis was confirmed that if Preop-FJS was high, i.e. patient perceived his arthritic joint as normal in daily activities, then he was likely to have a poor Postop-FJS, consequently unable to accept the artificial joint as normal. In clinical practice, to avoid dissatisfaction we now additionally counsel patients with Preop-FJS>40.