Creating A Method For Assessing Recovery From Orthopedic Knee Treatment

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

DATELINE: October 8, 2021 Lake Forest California

A recent study by researchers from the University of Seville and the University of Cadiz in  Spain indicates that there is currently no standardized methodology for qualitative and quantitative for assessing the recovery of patients who have undergone orthopedic knee treatment. The study looked at close to 350,000 records and determined that there were no scales of high quality according to both the current QUADAS-2 and COSMIN-RB systems. The data showed there is a strong need for improving the validation
quality for future scales that can complement the existing ones in order to provide patients with more objective progression diagnostics and provides physicians a standard of comparison when considering treatment for their patients.

PFD/iOrthopedics is currently working to try and establish such a standard of diagnostic analysis for its efforts in creating protocols for its upcoming IRB Clinical Trial Studies for its iKnee Orthopedic Device.

Announced today by Robert Pryke, PFD Capital Partners, LLC Co-founder, Director, CTO, and PFDMOF3001 Co-manager.
PFD is a lead investor through the PFDMOF3001 in Cassderma RX.

Assessing knee functionality:

Systematic review of validated outcome
measures

Researchers from the Department of Physiotherapy at the University of Seville, the Department of Nursing and Physiotherapy at the University of Cadiz, and the Department of Nursing from the University San Juan de Dios in Seville, Spain, performed an in-depth study to evaluate the current methods used to document and quantify alterations and progression of the recovery processes of knee functionality post operative treatment.

BACKGROUND:

Functional rating scales allow clinicians to document and quantify alterations and progression of recovery processes. There is neither awareness of numerous knee scales nor are they easy to find or compare to select the most suitable.

OBJECTIVES:

We aimed to compile validated knee functional rating tools and analyze the methodological quality of their validation studies. Also, we aimed to provide an operational document of the outcome measures addressing descriptions of parameters, implementations, instructions, interpretations and languages, to identify the most appropriate for future interventions.

METHODS:

A systematic review involved a search of PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Scopus, and Dialnet databases from inception through September 2020. The main inclusion criteria were available functional rating scales/questionnaires/indexes for knees and validation studies. Methodological quality was analyzed with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) and COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments Risk of Bias (COSMIN-RB).

RESULTS

We selected 73 studies. The studies investigated 41 knee rating tools (general, 46%, and specific, 54%) and 71 validations, including 29,742 individuals with knee disorders. QUADAS-2 obtained the best results in patient selection and index test (applicability section). COSMIN-RB showed the highest quality in construct validity (most analyzed metric property). The specific tools were mainly designed for prosthesis and patellofemoral and anterior cruciate ligament injuries. More considered issues were specific function (93%), especially gait, pain/sensitivity (81%), and physical activity/sports (56%).

CONCLUSIONS and IMPLICATIONS:

We conducted a necessary, useful, unlimited-by-time, and feasible compilation of validated tools for assessing knee functional recovery. The methodological quality of the validations was limited. The best validations were for the Copenhagen Knee Range of Motion Scale in osteoarthritis and arthroplasties, Knee Outcome Survey Activities of Daily Living and Lysholm Knee Score for general knee disorders, and the Tegner Activity Score for anterior cruciate ligament injuries. The operational document for the scales provides the necessary data to identify the most appropriate. In summary, the overall results on methodological quality showed that no scale was at high quality according to both QUADAS-2 and COSMIN-RB. Thus, the best scores for the 2 evaluations were, according to QUADAS-2, the CKRS for osteoarthritis and arthroplasties and KOS-ADL and Lysholm Knee Score for knee disorders in general, and according to COSMIN-RB, the TAS for ACL injuries. Moreover, the Lysholm Knee Score was associated with more validations, and the KOS-ADL covered more content. The 4 scales, which are self-administered, are currently used for disorders in general. Kettelkamps Knee Scoring Scale (version I and II) and VISA-P were the worst tools according to QUADAS and COSMIN-RB.

The study was published in the Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine by Elsevier Publications, one of the largest publishers of scholarly journals in the world.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877065721001251https://www.thestreet.com/csuiteadvisors/health-and-wellness/daniel-rastein-csa-world-health-organization-says-were-in-aa-wound-pandemic