Choice between implants in knee replacement: protocol for a Bayesian network meta-analysis, analysis of joint registries and economic decision model to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of knee implants for NHS patients-The KNee Implant Prostheses Study (KNIPS). BMJ open INTRODUCTION:Knee replacements are highly successful for many people, but if a knee replacement fails, revision surgery is generally required. Surgeons and patients may choose from a range of implant components and combinations that make up knee replacement constructs, all with potential implications for how long a knee replacement will last. To inform surgeon and patient decisions, a comprehensive synthesis of data from randomised controlled trials is needed to evaluate the effects of different knee replacement implants on overall construct survival. Due to limited follow-up in trials, joint registry analyses are also needed to assess the long-term survival of constructs. Finally, economic modelling can identify cost-effective knee replacement constructs for different patient groups. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:In this protocol, we describe systematic reviews and network meta-analyses to synthesise evidence on the effectiveness of knee replacement constructs used in total and unicompartmental knee replacement and analyses of two national joint registries to assess long-term outcomes. Knee replacement constructs are defined by bearing materials and mobility, constraint, fixation and patella resurfacing. For men and women in different age groups, we will compare the lifetime cost-effectiveness of knee replacement constructs. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Systematic reviews are secondary analyses of published data with no ethical approval required. We will design a common joint registry analysis plan and provide registry representatives with information for submission to research or ethics committees. The project has been assessed by the National Health Service (NHS) REC committee and does not require ethical review.Study findings will be disseminated to clinicians, researchers and administrators through open access articles, presentations and websites. Specific UK-based groups will be informed of results including National Institute for Health Research and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, as well as international orthopaedic associations and charities. Effective dissemination to patients will be guided by our patient-public involvement group and include written lay summaries and infographics. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42019134059 and CRD42019138015. 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-040205

Performance of the HOOS-12 and KOOS-12 instruments for evaluating outcomes from joint replacement surgery. Ackerman I N,Soh S-E,Harris I A,Cashman K,Heath E,Lorimer M,Graves S E Osteoarthritis and cartilage OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the psychometric properties of the 12-item Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS-12) and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS-12) for use in evaluating outcomes after joint replacement for osteoarthritis. DESIGN:Patient-reported outcomes data collected by the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry were used for this analysis. HOOS-12 and KOOS-12 domain (pain, function, quality of life) and summary impact data were available. The Oxford Hip Score (OHS), Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and EQ-5D-5L were used as comparators. Instruments were administered pre-operatively and at 6 months post-operatively. Internal consistency reliability, floor and ceiling effects, convergent validity, known groups validity, and responsiveness were evaluated using standard psychometric techniques. RESULTS:Baseline HOOS-12 and KOOS-12 data were available for 3,023 patients undergoing primary total hip replacement and 4,010 patients undergoing primary total knee replacement. At baseline, high internal consistency was demonstrated for all domains and summary scores (Cronbach's alpha: HOOS-12 = 0.81-0.93; KOOS-12 = 0.82-0.92). Post-operative ceiling effects (>15% of patients scoring the best possible score) were identified for the HOOS-12 pain (46%), function (39%) and quality of life domains (26%) and summary score (17%), and for the KOOS-12 pain (21%) and function domains (18%). The HOOS-12 and KOOS-12 could differentiate between two known groups (lowest/highest OHS or OKS quartiles post-operatively; p < 0.001) and were highly responsive to change (effect sizes for HOOS-12: 2.20-2.83; KOOS-12: 1.82-2.35). CONCLUSION:The HOOS-12 and KOOS-12 have good psychometric properties for capturing joint replacement outcomes including excellent responsiveness, although ceiling effects may limit monitoring of post-operative improvement. 10.1016/j.joca.2021.03.003