Torres-González R, Pérez-Correa J, Gaytán-Morales L

Language: Spanish
References: 13
Page: 343-349
PDF size: 70.52 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Background: We undertook this study to develop a grading scale to assess knee osteoarthritis using the Bristol Score. Methods: Between August and November 2004, a clinimetrical, prospective, group-controlled, observational, cross-sectional and analytical study was done. The study sample was comprised of 55 patients, 35 years old and over, with clinical-radiographic diagnosis of knee osteoarthritis following the American Academy of Rheumatology criteria. The Bristol Score was used in 25 patients by two standardized orthopedic surgeons. Sensitivity, consistency and validity of the Bristol Score were determined. The new grading scale to assess osteoarthritis Magdalena de las Salinas H-1(MSH1) was used in 30 patients. Sensitivity, consistency and validity of the MSH1 were also determined. Both indexes were compared in these terms. An osteoarthritis radiographic score was developed to assess the validity of the MSH1.
Results: Inter-observer intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for the Bristol Score in its categories was total 0.62, function 0.84, pain 0.40 and movement 0.89. Inter-observer ICC for MSH1 in its categories was total 0.91, function 0.92, pain 0.79 and movement 0.86 (p ‹ 0.0001). Inter-observer weighed kappa of the Bristol Score was 0.51 (p = 0.002), with 80% agreement. The weighed kappa for the MSH1 was 0.81 (p ‹ 0.0001) with 90% agreement. Correlation between the Bristol Score and the osteoarthritis radiographic score was -0.29 (p = 0.049). Correlation between the MSH1 and the radiographic score of osteoarthritis was -0.62 (p ‹ 0.01).
Conclusions: MSH1 achieved better validity than the Bristol Score and can be considered a reliable instrument to assess knee osteoarthritis.

REFERENCES

1. Zhang W, Jones A, Doherty M. Does paracetamol (acetaminophen) reduce the pain of osteoarthritis? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Ann Rheum Dis 2004;63:901-907.

2. 2.Mackinnon J, Young S, Baily RAJ. The St Georg sledge for unicompartmental replacement of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1988; 70:217-222.

3. Leif R, Johan K, Peter A. Knee scoring system in gonarthrosis. Acta Orthop Scand 1997;68:41-45.

4. Kreibich DN, Bourne RB, Rorabeck CH, Kim P, Hardie R, Kramer J, et al. What is the best way of assessing outcome after total knee replacement? Clin Orthop 1996;331:221-225.

5. Bach CM, Nogler M, Steingruber IE, Ogon M, Wimer C, Gobel G, et al. Scoring systems in total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop 2002;399:184-196.

6. Altman R, Asch E, Bloch D, Bole G, Borenstein D, Brandt K, et al. The American College of Rheumatology criteria for the classification and reporting of osteoarthritis of the knee. Arthritis Rheum 1986;29:1039-1049.

7. Kellgren JH, Lawrence JS. Radiological assessment of osteo-arthrosis. Ann Rheum Dis 1957;16:494-502.

8. 8.Liow RY, Walker K, Wajid MA, Bedi G, Lennox CM. Functional rating for knee arthroplasty: comparison of three scoring systems. Orthopedics 2003;26:143-149.

9. Pynset PB, Fairbank JCT, Carr AJ. Medición de los Resultados en Ortopedia. Barcelona: Masson;1996. pp. 19-32, 255-276.

10. Feinstein AR. Clinimetrics. New Haven: Yale University Press;1987.

11. 11.Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health Measurement Scales. Oxford: Oxford University Press;1995.

12. Ferrán MH. SPSS para Windows. Análisis estadístico. México: Mc-GrawHill;2001.

13. Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social. Diagnóstico epidemiológico ortopédico 1998-2002. México: DIMAC/SUI-10;2002.