Conclusion Based on the small number of studies with appropriate statistical analysis , we are unable to reach a clear conclusion in the clinical performance of medial stabilized knee replacement construct .
Background Medial stabilized  total knee joint replacement ( TKJR ) construct is design ed to closely replicate the kinematics of the knee .
Little is known regarding comparison of clinical functional outcomes of patients utilising vali date d patient reported outcome measures ( PROM ) after medial stabilized TKJR and other construct design s. Purpose To perform a systematic review of the available literature related to the assessment of clinical functional outcomes following a  TKJR  employing a medial stabilized construct design .
Responsiveness and clinically important differences for the WOMAC and SF-36 after total knee replacement.
OBJECTIVES To study responsiveness and establish the minimal clinical ly important differences ( MCIDs ) and minimal detectable change ( MDC ) in patients undergoing total knee replacement ( TKR ) using the Short Form 36 ( SF-36 ) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index ( WOMAC ) . METHODS Prospect i ve observational study in three public hospitals of all consecutive patients on waiting lists to undergo TKR intervention with diagnosis of knee osteoarthritis ( OA ) . Patients were asked to complete before the intervention and at 6 months and 2 years afterward the  SF-36 and the WOMAC health-related quality of life question naires ( HRQoL ) , and additional transition questions which measured the changes in their joint at 6 months . In both question naires the possible range of values is from 0 to 100 points . RESULTS In WOMAC improvement at 6 months after a TKR was between 27 ( stiffness ) and 31 points ( pain ) . The SF-36 showed improvements between the 28.3 points of role physical and 2.79 of general health . From 6 months to 2 years , WOMAC improvements were between 2 and 6 points . The MCID ranged from 14.52 ( stiffness ) to 22.87 ( pain ) on the WOMAC and in the physical domains of SF-36 from 11.56 ( physical function ) to 16.86 ( bodily pain ) . On the WOMAC , the MDC ranged from 13.11 ( function ) to 29.12 ( stiffness ) , and on SF-36 from 19.50 ( physical function ) to 41.23 ( social functioning ) . CONCLUSIONS The MCID for TKR is around 15 on WOMAC , while with the SF-36 of at least 10 points . These values should not be considered as absolute thresholds
Conclusion Based on the small number of studies with appropriate statistical analysis , we are unable to reach a clear conclusion in the clinical performance of medial stabilized knee replacement construct .
Background Medial stabilized  total knee joint replacement ( TKJR ) construct is design ed to closely replicate the kinematics of the knee .
Little is known regarding comparison of clinical functional outcomes of patients utilising vali date d patient reported outcome measures ( PROM ) after medial stabilized TKJR and other construct design s. Purpose To perform a systematic review of the available literature related to the assessment of clinical functional outcomes following a  TKJR  employing a medial stabilized construct design .