Limitations of the knee society score in kinematically aligned total knee arthroplasty
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Purpose: The Knee Society Scoring System (KSS) is a frequently used outcome score which quantifies functional patients' outcomes before and after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Several problems arise when trying to implement KSS for obtaining postoperative outcomes after more personalised aligned TKAs. Scoring for valgus femorotibial angle (FTA) intervals outside moderate ranges is often poorly explained, the specific version of KSS used for outcome collection is frequently unclear and the exact measuring methods are typically not described in the literature. The aims of this systematic review were to investigate the latest user practice, the application of KSS and its limitations after kinematically aligned (KA) TKA. Methods: A systematic literature search following PRISMA guidelines was conducted on PubMed, Embase, Medline and Scopus to identify potentially relevant articles for this review, published from the beginning of January 2013 until the end of January 2023. Broad Mesh terms such as 'kinematic alignment', 'total knee arthroplasty' and 'knee society score' were used for building search strategy in each database accordingly. Articles reporting postoperative values of the objective surgeon-assessed KSS after KA TKA or KA and mechanically aligned TKA were included. For assessing included randomised control trials (RCTs), an Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's design-specific scale for assessing RCTs was used. The non-RCTs were assessed by using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tool. The Ottawa-Newcastle Score system was also used. Studies were additionally evaluated for their radiological methodology by using a five-question checklist (Radiological Assessment Qualit criteria). Results: The initial search identified 167 studies, of which 129 were considered for screening. Ten studies reporting outcomes after KA TKA did not use the objective surgeon-assessed part of KSS for clinical outcome measurement, and 30 studies reporting outcomes after KA TKA did not use KSS at all for clinical and/or functional outcomes. From the 10 included studies, only six have used the latest KSS score (2011), the rest using its 1989 variant; and out of these six studies, only two presented values of the FTA, which is needed for calculating the KSS's 'alignment' subcomponent, the rest presenting hip-knee-ankle angle (HKA) values. Additionally, when converting these HKA values to FTA intervals, the authors of this systematic review found that KA TKA FTA intervals display limits, which tend to be outside the 'well-scored' KSS anatomical alignment interval. Conclusion: The inconsistent and nonstandardised use of the surgeon-assessed KSS across studies reviewed compromises assessment reliability and patient outcome scores. To enhance precision and comparability, it is crucial to standardise the KSS application, incorporating personalised alignment strategies for more accurate patient evaluations. Level of Evidence: Level III.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,093 | 0,239 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,005 | 0,006 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,009 | 0,012 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».