Background: The WOMAC score is a validated outcome measure for use in patients undergoing TKA. Defining meaningful changes in the WOMAC score is important for sample-size calculations in clinical research and for interpreting published studies. However, inconsistencies among published studies regarding key definitions for changes in the WOMAC score after TKA potentially could result in incorrectly powered studies and the misinterpretation of clinical research results. Questions/purposes: (1) To identify the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) for the total WOMAC score and its components 1 year after TKA using an anchor-based methodology. (2) To define the minimum important change (MIC) and the minimum detectable change with 95% confidence (MDC95) for the total WOMAC score and its components 1 year after TKA. Methods: Between 2003 and 2013, 3641 patients underwent primary TKA at one center. Of those, 460 patients (13%) were excluded from this retrospective study for prespecified reasons (mainly secondary OA and bilateral surgery), and 592 patients (16%) were either lost to followup or could not be included because of incomplete questionnaires. WOMAC scores were recorded preoperatively and at 1 year postoperatively. Patient demographics and preoperative Short Form-12 and WOMAC scores were no different for the 16% of patients who were lost to followup or failed to complete 1-year questionnaires and the study cohort (n = 2589). At 1 year, patients were asked “How much did the knee replacement surgery improve the quality of your life?” Their responses were recorded as: a great improvement, moderate improvement, little improvement, no improvement at all, or the quality of my life is worse. The MCID was defined as the difference in the mean change in the WOMAC score between patients with no improvement compared with those with little improvement according to the anchor question. The MIC was defined as the change in the WOMAC score relative to the baseline score for patients who reported a little improvement in their quality of life. The MDC is the smallest change for an individual who is likely to be beyond the measurement error of the scoring tool and represents true change rather than variability in the scoring measure; we report it with 95% confidence bounds defining real change rather than variability in the scoring measure (MDC95). We calculated this with distribution-based methods for the whole cohort. Patients recording a little improvement (n = 211) and no improvement (n = 115) were used as anchor responses to calculate the MCID (using regression analysis to adjust for potential confounding variables such as age, gender, BMI and preoperative Short Form-12 or WOMAC scores) and the MIC (using receiver operative characteristics curves). Results: After adjusting for confounding variables such as age, gender, BMI as well as preoperative Short Form-12 and WOMAC scores, the MCID was 11 for pain, 9 for function, 8 for stiffness and 10 for the total WOMAC score. The MIC was 21 for pain, 16 for function, 13 for stiffness and 17 for the total WOMAC score. The MDC95 was 23 for pain, 11 for function, 27 for stiffness and 12 for the total WOMAC score. Conclusions: The MCID and MIC for the WOMAC score represent the smallest meaningful effect sizes when comparing the outcome of two groups (difference in mean change between the groups) or when assessing a cohort (a change in score for the group) after TKA, respectively, helping the reader to distinguish between a clinically important effect size and a mere statistical difference. We determined that the error in measurement (based on the MDC95) for the function component and total WOMAC scores were less than the MIC, which suggests changes beyond the MIC are clinically real and not due to uncertainty in the score. These parameters are essential to interpret TKA outcomes research and to ensure clinical research studies are amply powered to detect meaningful differences. Future studies using the WOMAC score to assess TKA outcomes should report not only the statistical significance (a p value) but also the clinical importance using the reported MCID and MIC values. Level of Evidence: Level III, diagnostic study.

Aims: The aim of this study was to identify the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), minimal important change (MIC), minimal detectable change (MDC), and patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) threshold in the Forgotten Joint Score (FJS) according to patient satisfaction six months following total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods: During a one-year period 484 patients underwent a primary TKA and completed preoperative and six-month FJS and OKS. At six months patients were asked, “How satisfied are you with your operated knee?” Their response was recorded as: very satisfied, satisfied, neutral, dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied. The difference between patients recording neutral (n = 44) and satisfied (n = 153) was used to define the MCID. MIC for a cohort was defined as the change in the FJS for those patients declaring their outcome as satisfied, whereas receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to determine the MIC for an individual and the PASS threshold. Distribution-based methodology was used to calculate the MDC. Results: Using satisfaction as the anchor question, the MCID for the FJS was 16.6 (95% confidence interval (CIs) 8.9 to 24.3; p < 0.001) and when adjusting for confounding this decreased to 13.7 points (95% CI 4.8 to 22.5; p < 0.001). The MIC for the FJS for a cohort of patients was 17.7 points and for an individual patient was 10 points. The MDC90 for the FGS was 12 points; where 90% of patients scoring more than this will have experienced a real change that is beyond measurement error. The PASS was defined as 22 points or more in the postoperative FJS. Conclusion: The estimates for MCID and MIC can be used to assess whether there is clinical difference between two groups and whether a cohort/patient has had a meaningful change in their FJS, respectively. The MDC90 of 12 points suggests a value lower than this may fall within measurement error. A postoperative FJS of 22 or more was predictive of achieving PASS. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(5):846–854.

Primary arthroplasty may be denied to very elderly patients based upon the perceived outcome and risks associated with surgery. This prospective study compared the outcome, complications, and mortality of total hip (TKR) and total knee replacement (TKR) in a prospectively selected group of patients aged ≥ 80 years with that of a control group aged between 65 and 74 years. There were 171 and 495 THRs and 185 and 492 TKRs performed in the older and control groups, respectively. No significant difference was observed in the mean improvement of Oxford hip and knee scores between the groups at 12 months (0.98, (95% confidence interval (CI) −0.66 to 2.95), p = 0.34 and 1.15 (95% CI −0.65 to 2.94), p = 0.16, respectively). The control group had a significantly (p = 0.02 and p = 0.04, respectively) greater improvement in the physical well being component of their SF-12 score, but the older group was more satisfied with their THR (p = 0.047). The older group had a longer hospital stay for both THR (5.9 versus 9.0 days, p < 0.0001) and TKR (6.2 versus 8.3 days, p < 0.0001). The rates of post-operative complications and mortality were increased in the older group.

This prospective study assessed the effect of social deprivation on the Oxford hip score at one year after total hip replacement. An analysis of 1312 patients undergoing 1359 primary total hip replacements for symptomatic osteoarthritis was performed over a 35-month period. Social deprivation was assessed using the Carstairs index. Those patients who were most deprived underwent surgery at an earlier age (p = 0.04), had more comorbidities (p = 0.02), increased severity of symptoms at presentation (p = 0.001), and were not as satisfied with their outcome (p = 0.03) compared with more affluent patients. There was a significant improvement in Oxford scores at 12 months relative to pre-operative scores for all socioeconomic categories (p < 0.001). Social deprivation was a significant independent predictor of mean improvement in Oxford scores at 12 months, after adjusting for confounding variables (p = 0.001). Deprivation was also associated with an increased risk of dislocation (odds ratio 5.3, p < 0.001) and mortality at 90 days (odds ratio 3.2, p = 0.02). Outcome, risk of dislocation and early mortality after a total hip replacement are affected by the socioeconomic status of the patient

Aims: The aim of this study was to report the meaningful values of the EuroQol five-dimension three-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L) and EuroQol visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS) in patients undergoing primary knee arthroplasty (KA). Methods: This is a retrospective study of patients undergoing primary KA for osteoarthritis in a university teaching hospital (Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh) (1 January 2013 to 31 December 2019). Pre- and postoperative (one-year) data were prospectively collected for 3,181 patients (median age 69.9 years (interquartile range (IQR) 64.2 to 76.1); females, n = 1,745 (54.9%); median BMI 30.1 kg/m² (IQR 26.6 to 34.2)). The reliability of the EQ-5D-3L was measured using Cronbach’s alpha. Responsiveness was determined by calculating the anchor-based minimal clinically important difference (MCID), the minimal important change (MIC) (cohort and individual), the patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) predictive of satisfaction, and the minimal detectable change at 90% confidence intervals (MDC-90). Results: The EQ-5D-3L demonstrated good internal consistency with an overall Cronbach alpha of 0.75 (preoperative) and 0.88 (postoperative), respectively. The MCID for the Index score was 0.085 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.042 to 0.127) and EQ-VAS was 6.41 (95% CI 3.497 to 9.323). The MIC_COHORT was 0.289 for the EQ-5D and 5.27 for the EQ-VAS. However, the MIC_INDIVIDUAL for both the EQ-5D-3L Index (0.105) and EQ-VAS (-1) demonstrated poor-to-acceptable reliability. The MDC-90 was 0.023 for the EQ-5D-3L Index and 1.0 for the EQ-VAS. The PASS for the postoperative EQ-5D-3L Index and EQ-VAS scores predictive of patient satisfaction were 0.708 and 77.0, respectively. Conclusion: The meaningful values of the EQ-5D-3L Index and EQ-VAS scores can be used to measure clinically relevant changes in health-related quality of life in patients undergoing primary KA. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2022;11(9):619–628.