Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 7, 2025
In Vitro Application of a Wireless Sensor in Flexion-Extension Gap Balance of Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty
Published on: May 5, 2023
Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: Minimal Important Difference and Patient Acceptable Symptom State for the
Umile Giuseppe Longo1, Sergio De Salvatore1, Vincenzo Candela1
1Department of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery, Campus Bio-Medico University, Via Alvaro del Portillo, 200, Trigoria, 00128 Rome, Italy.
Abstract:
Background and Objectives: Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is a valid alternative to total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) in selected cases. After surgery, patients' experience and satisfaction were traditionally evaluated by pre- and postsurgical scores and Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs). Otherwise, a statistically significant change does not necessarily correlate to a clinically meaningful improvement when measured using PROMs. To evaluate the real effect of a specific treatment and understand the difference between groups in a clinical trial, it is necessary to use a meaningful quantum of change on the score assessed. The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and the Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) can provide this meaningful change. This paper aimed to calculate the MCID and the PASS of the Forgotten Joint Score (FJS-12) after UKA. Materials and Methods: A total of 40 patients with a mean age 72.5 ± 6.4 years undergoing UKA were assessed preoperatively and six months postsurgery using the FJS-12 and the Oxford Knee Score (OKS). The baseline and 6-month postoperative scores were compared using the Wilcoxon signed ranks test. The correlation was calculated with Spearman's rho. Both distribution-based approaches and anchor approaches were used to estimate MCID for the FJS-12. The 75th percentile and the Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve methods were used to calculate the PASS of FJS-12. Results: MCID estimates for normalized FJS-12 for UKA ranged from 5.68 to 19.82. The threshold of the FJS-12 with ROC method was 72.92 (AUC = 0.76). The cut-off value computed with the 75th percentile approach was 92.71. Conclusions: The MCID and PASS represent valid tools to assess the real perception of clinical improvement in patients who underwent UKA. The MCID value of FJS-12 was 12.5 for patients who underwent UKA. The value of the PASS for the FJS-12 in patients who underwent UKA was 72.92.
