Limitations of the knee society score in kinematically aligned total knee arthroplasty

Abstract

AbstractPurposeThe 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.MethodsA 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).ResultsThe 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.ConclusionThe 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 EvidenceLevel III.