ABSTRACT
Objective
Central sensitization (CS) is associated with quality of life (QOL) after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, how CS changes after TKA and whether these changes have clinical relevance remain unclear. Therefore, this study was conducted to identify changes in CS after TKA and to assess the clinical significance of these changes.
Methods
This retrospective study was conducted on 92 patients between January 2021 and May 2023. CS severity was quantified using the Central Sensitization Inventory (CSI). One year after TKA, the patients were divided into groups based on whether CS severity improved by ≥ 1 level (improved group) or did not improve (non‐improved group). The differences in preoperative and postoperative characteristics of patients in the two groups were analyzed. These characteristics included demographics, underlying diseases, physical examinations, and the Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) knee score. QOL improvement was compared based on two different minimal clinically important changes (MIC) in the Short‐Form Health Survey (SF‐36). Continuous variables were compared using Student's t‐test or the Mann–Whitney U‐test. The chi‐squared test was used to compare categorical variables.
Results
The postoperative CS severity in patients was significantly lower compared to preoperative levels (p < 0.001). The improved group exhibited a lower HSS knee pain score (p < 0.001). Out of the eight SF‐36 scales, five showed significantly greater improvement in the improved group compared to the non‐improved group. The mean postoperative increases in scores for all eight SF‐36 scales exceeded the MIC in the improved group, whereas half of the scales fell below the MIC in the non‐improved group.
Conclusions
CS showed improvement after TKA, particularly in patients with more severe preoperative pain. This improvement appears to be correlated with the improvement in QOL after TKA.
Keywords: central sensitization, pain, quality of life, total knee arthroplasty
This study revealed that patients who experienced more severe pain before surgery showed improvement after total knee arthroplasty. This improvement was found to be correlated with enhanced postoperative quality of life in patients. Therefore, patients with significant preoperative knee pain, even at rest, can expect better outcomes after surgery.
1. Introduction
Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is the most common surgical procedure performed for knee osteoarthritis (OA) [1]. TKA is a cost‐effective surgical method and has excellent patient satisfaction and outcomes [2, 3, 4]. However, 8.0%–26.5% of patients are still dissatisfied with the postoperative outcomes [5, 6, 7]. A growing body of evidence suggests that psychological factors contribute to these unexpected negative surgical outcomes [8]. In particular, the presence of central sensitization (CS) has been shown to adversely affect postoperative quality of life (QOL) in many recent studies [9, 10, 11].
CS refers to pain enhancement triggered by modulation of the central nervous system, which occurs when the same stimulus is continued several times over a long period of time [9, 12]. In this pathological condition, neurons in the central nervous system respond to subthreshold stimuli or amplify pain stimuli, causing allodynia or hyperalgesia [13, 14, 15]. It has been reported that 20%–40% of end‐stage knee OA patients scheduled to undergo primary TKA are associated with CS preoperatively [16, 17]. The diagnostic tools used to identify CS are classified into two types: provocation tests using pain‐related stimuli or self‐reported questionnaires [8, 18, 19]. Of these two, diagnosis using questionnaires is simpler and more efficient at predicting postoperative outcomes [8]. The most frequently used questionnaires for diagnosing CS are the Central Sensitization Inventory (CSI) and PainDETECT [20, 21]. Although studies have shown that PainDETECT can be useful for predicting postoperative results, many recent studies using the CSI have also been reported [10, 22, 23].
Despite the extensive research on preoperative CS, there is a noticeable gap in understanding postoperative CS. Previous studies have generally overlooked the investigation of changes in CS after surgery in relation to clinical outcomes. This study aims to fill this gap by examining both preoperative CS levels and postoperative CS changes, and their impacts on QOL and clinical outcomes following TKA.
The primary objectives of this study are as follows: (i) To determine the extent of changes in CS following surgery and identify common patient characteristics associated with improved CS after TKA. (ii) To explore whether these changes in CS correlate with enhanced patient QOL and improved clinical outcomes. By addressing these objectives, this study aims to provide valuable insights into the role of CS in postoperative recovery after TKA and inform future interventions aimed at improving patient outcomes in this context.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Participants
We retrospectively reviewed 115 patients who underwent primary unilateral TKA between January 2021 and May 2023 after obtaining approval from our institutional review board. We only included patients with Kellgren–Lawrence Grade IV knee OA between the ages of 50 and 90 years in our study. All participants were followed up for at least 1 year postoperatively and completed all examinations related to outcome measurements. The following patients were excluded: [1] those diagnosed with secondary knee OA (n = 3), [2] those who needed rehospitalization or reoperation due to periprosthetic joint infection (n = 2), [3] those who underwent additional surgery within 1 year after TKA for other reasons (n = 4, one patient had a periprosthetic fracture, and the other underwent TKA on the opposite knee), [4] those who were diagnosed with any psychiatric disorder (n = 3), and [5] those with a history of drug abuse (n = 0). In addition, we excluded 11 patients with a history of central sensitivity syndromes (fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, irritable bowel syndrome, chronic low back pain, tension‐type headaches, temporomandibular disorders, myofascial pain syndrome, and restless legs syndrome) and complex regional pain syndrome (Figure 1) [24]. Finally, 92 patients were enrolled in the study (male: 11; female: 81).
FIGURE 1.
Flowchart of patient inclusion and exclusion.
2.2. Outcome Measures
All participants were admitted to the hospital 1 day before surgery. After admission, demographic data including age, sex, weight, and body mass index were collected, and plain radiographs of the knee were taken. We used three scoring systems to evaluate the patients: the CSI, Hospital for Special Surgery (HSS) knee score, and the Short Form Health Survey (SF‐36). These three scoring systems help provide a comprehensive understanding of the patient by evaluating overall health related to pain, the local condition of the knee, and QOL. Therefore, we applied these scoring systems to all patients undergoing surgery. All questionnaires were completed in a self‐reported manner, except for objective examinations to determine the HSS knee score. Physical examinations and analyses of plain radiographs were performed by a clinical researcher, including measurements of flexion contracture, range of motion (ROM), and mechanical axis alignment.
The CSI was used to quantify the CS severity of participants [25]. This questionnaire consists of 25 questions, and the result is an integer between 0 and 100 [26]. Based on the CSI score, CS severity was classified as follows: subclinical, 0–29; mild, 30–39; moderate, 40–49; severe, 50–59; and extreme, 60–100 [27]. The HSS knee score was used to assess the overall condition of the knee. This scoring system is divided into a subjective score that evaluates pain and function and an objective score [28]. We recorded the total score of the HSS knee score in addition to the pain score and function score, which are subscores of the HSS subjective score. The maximum scores possible for the pain score and the function score are 30 and 22, respectively. Higher scores indicate better outcomes. The SF‐36 was used to evaluate QOL. The SF‐36 includes 36 questions and eight health scales: limitations of physical functioning (PF), role‐functioning physical (RP), bodily pain (BP), general health (GH), vitality (V), social functioning (SF), role functioning emotional (RE), and mental health (MH). Each score ranges from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better conditions [29].
2.3. Perioperative Pain Control
All patients received 5 mg of transdermal buprenorphine via patch (sustained release of 5 μg/h) 12 h before surgery, 200 mg of celecoxib 1 h before surgery, and 10 mg of intravenous dexamethasone at the beginning of surgery. All surgeries were performed at our institution by the senior author under general anesthesia using standard procedures and the same posterior‐stabilized–type implant system (Persona; Zimmer‐Biomet, Warsaw, IN, USA). After surgery, all patients received intravenous patient‐controlled analgesia (PCA). PCA was adjusted to be administered at 2 mL/h and was prepared by mixing 700 μg of fentanyl in 100 mL of normal saline. Two hundred milligrams of celecoxib and 10 mg of intravenous dexamethasone were administered at 8:00 a.m. on postoperative Day 1. After that, 200 mg of celecoxib was maintained until 4 weeks after surgery. To control breakthrough pain, 50 mg of intravenous tramadol was administered at 6‐h intervals only to patients experiencing breakthrough pain with a pain score of 5 or higher on a 10‐point visual analogue scale, for 1 week after surgery. In all other cases, tramadol was not administered.
2.4. Patient Follow‐up
All patients were followed up clinically at 1, 3, 6, and 9 months. At 1 year after TKA, the same plain radiographs acquired at the time of admission were taken again. In addition, the questionnaires described above were completed. All physical examinations and analyses of plain radiographs were performed by the same clinical researcher.
2.5. Changes in CS After Surgery and Related Patient Characteristics
We compared the CSI scores before and 1 year after surgery. The number and proportion of patients with and without an improvement in CS severity of ≥ 1 level at 1 year after surgery were determined (improved and non‐improved groups, respectively). In addition, the distribution of CS severity levels was compared pre‐ and post‐TKA.
To determine whether there were any predictive variables for patients who may have an improved postoperative CS severity, we analyzed whether there were any preoperative variables showing a statistically significant difference between the two groups. These variables included demographic data and underlying conditions that may affect QOL such as diabetes mellitus, coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular accident, and kidney disease, as well as preoperative flexion contracture, ROM, mechanical axis alignment, and HSS knee score. To determine the clinical usefulness of the variables showing a statistically significant difference between the two groups, we analyzed whether there were threshold values for these variables that could distinguish the two groups using the receiver‐operating characteristic (ROC) curve and the area under the ROC curve (AUC). Furthermore, the relationship between these variables and the extent of change in CSI score after TKA was analyzed using two different methods. First, the Pearson correlation coefficient between the change in CSI score and each variable was calculated. Second, to investigate the relationship with changes in CS severity levels, patients were divided into three groups: those with no change (non‐improved group, as previously defined), those with an increase of one level (moderately improved group), and those with an increase of two or more levels (highly improved group). The differences in the means of each variable among these groups were then assessed.
2.6. Changes in CS After Surgery and Its Relationship with Patients' QOL
We investigated whether changes in CS were related to patient QOL. The change in SF‐36 scores before and after surgery in the improved and non‐improved groups was compared. We determined whether the mean postoperative changes in the eight scales of SF‐36 for each group achieved the minimal clinically important changes (MIC). Moreover, to determine if the improvement in CS severity level is associated with improvements in SF‐36, we compared the number of SF‐36 scales that achieved the MIC among patients in the non‐improved, moderately improved, and highly improved groups. The MIC values were taken from two previous studies on primary unilateral TKA [30, 31].
2.7. Statistical Analysis
Continuous variables were compared using Student's t‐test or the Mann–Whitney U‐test. The chi‐squared test was used to compare categorical variables. For comparisons between multiple groups, one‐way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used for continuous variables. All analyses were performed with R software (Version 4.2.1; R Development Core Team, Vienna, Austria), and the level of statistical significance was set to p < 0.05.
3. Results
3.1. Changes in CS After Surgery
Demographic data for all participants are shown in Table 1. The mean CSI was 36.5 ± 9.79 before surgery and 24.2 ± 13.2 at 1 year thereafter (p < 0.001) (Figure 2). At 1 year after TKA, the number of patients with subclinical CS increased by more than twofold, whereas the number of patients in the other CS severity categories decreased (Figure 3). Postoperative CS severity was statistically significantly lower than before surgery (p < 0.001). In total, 57 patients (62.0%) belonged to the improved group and 35 (38.0%) to the non‐improved group.
TABLE 1.
Preoperative characteristics of all participants.
| Variables | |
|---|---|
| Demographic data | |
| Age (years) a | 70.3 (6.29) |
| Female sex b | 81 (88.0) |
| Weight (kg) a | 64.9 (10.4) |
| BMI (kg/m2) a | 27.0 (3.24) |
| Underlying disease | |
| Diabetes b | 19 (20.7) |
| Coronary artery disease b | 13 (14.1) |
| Cerebrovascular accident b | 15 (16.3) |
| Kidney disease b | 4 (4.35) |
| Objective examination data | |
| Flexion contracture (°) a | 6.22 (5.56) |
| Range of motion (°) a | 121 (14.3) |
| Mechanical axis alignment (°) a | 9.67 (5.46) |
| HSS knee score | |
| Pain a | 8.59 (5.77) |
| Function a | 11.1 (3.90) |
| Objective a | 40.3 (3.86) |
| Total a | 59.9 (8.70) |
| SF‐36 | |
| PF a | 39.7 (21.8) |
| RP a | 44.9 (24.0) |
| BP a | 40.5 (19.7) |
| GH a | 43.5 (16.7) |
| V a | 41.6 (13.9) |
| SF a | 61.4 (23.6) |
| RE a | 51.0 (26.4) |
| MH a | 51.9 (16.1) |
Abbreviations: BP, bodily pain; GH, general health; HSS, hospital for special surgery; MH, mental health; PF, physical functioning; RE, role‐functioning emotional; RP, role‐functioning physical; SF, social functioning; V, vitality.
Data are presented as the mean ± standard.
Data are presented as the number (percentage) of patients.
FIGURE 2.
Central Sensitization Inventory (CSI) scores before and 1 year after total knee arthroplasty (TKA).
FIGURE 3.
The distribution of central sensitization (CS) severity before and after total knee arthroplasty (TKA).
3.2. Common Patient Characteristics Associated with Improved CS After Surgery
There were no differences in preoperative characteristics between the two groups (Table 2). However, there were significant differences in preoperative pain and total HSS knee scores between the two groups, and these differences disappeared after surgery (Table 3). The optimal HSS knee pain score for distinguishing the two groups was 7.5 (sensitivity: 82.9%; specificity: 54.4%) according to ROC analysis. The AUC value was 0.744, exceeding the reliable threshold of 0.7 [32]. In addition, the optimal HSS knee total score for distinguishing the two groups was 58.8 (sensitivity: 85.7%; specificity: 57.9%) (Figure 4). The AUC value was 0.719, exceeding the accepted threshold [32]. The Pearson correlation coefficient between the HSS knee pain score and the amount of change in CSI after TKA was 0.321 (95% CI: [0.125–0.494]; p = 0.002; r 2 = 0.103). Meanwhile, the Pearson correlation coefficient between the HSS knee total score and the amount of change in CSI after TKA was 0.140 (95% CI: [−0.067 to 0.335]; p = 0.186; r 2 = 0.019). Therefore, only the pain score showed a correlation with the change in CSI [33]. In addition, the greater the improvement in CS severity level after surgery, the lower the preoperative HSS pain score (Table 4).
TABLE 2.
Comparison of preoperative characteristics between the improved group and the non‐improved group.
| Improved group | Non‐improved group | p | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Variables | (n = 57) | (n = 35) | |
| Demographic data | |||
| Age (years) a | 69.7 (6.29) | 71.3 (6.50) | 0.252 |
| Female sex b | 52 (91.2) | 29 (82.9) | 0.230 |
| Weight (kg) a | 65.1 (10.4) | 64.6 (11.4) | 0.828 |
| BMI (kg/m2) a | 27.2 (3.24) | 26.8 (3.52) | 0.597 |
| Underlying disease | |||
| Diabetes b | 13 (22.8) | 6 (17.1) | 0.515 |
| Coronary artery disease b | 8 (14.0) | 5 (14.3) | 0.973 |
| Cerebrovascular accident b | 10 (17.5) | 5 (14.3) | 0.169 |
| Kidney disease b | 2 (3.51) | 2 (5.71) | 0.254 |
| Objective examination data | |||
| Flexion contracture (°) a | 6.95 (4.54) | 5.03 (4.54) | 0.239 |
| Range of motion (°) a | 120 (14.9) | 124 (12.9) | 0.120 |
| Mechanical axis alignment (°) a | 10.1 (5.46) | 9.05 (4.24) | 0.352 |
Abbreviation: BMI, body mass index.
Data are presented as the mean ± standard.
Data are presented as the number (percentage) of patients.
TABLE 3.
Comparison of the Hospital for Special Surgery knee scores of the improved and non‐improved groups.
| Preoperative | Postoperative | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Improved group | Non‐improved group | p | Improved group | Non‐improved group | p | |
| Variables | (n = 57) | (n = 35) | (n = 57) | (n = 35) | ||
| HSS knee score | ||||||
| Pain | 6.67 (5.77) | 11.7 (4.69) | < 0.001 | 24.8 (4.81) | 25.7 (4.05) | 0.364 |
| Function | 11.0 (3.90) | 11.1 (3.87) | 0.908 | 16.8 (2.91) | 17.1 (3.07) | 0.676 |
| Objective | 39.8 (3.86) | 41.1 (3.96) | 0.148 | 45.5 (1.42) | 45.4 (1.60) | 0.739 |
| Total | 57.5 (8.70) | 63.9 (7.36) | < 0.001 | 87.1 (6.37) | 88.1 (6.45) | 0.448 |
Note: Data are presented as the mean ± standard.
Abbreviation: HSS, hospital for special surgery.
FIGURE 4.
Receiver‐operating characteristic curve for distinguishing the improved and non‐improved groups based on the Hospital for Special Surgery knee pain score (blue line) and total score (red line).
TABLE 4.
Preoperative pain and total HSS knee scores according to changes in CS severity after surgery.
| Changes in CS severity | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Highly improved group | Moderately improved group | Non‐improved group | p | |
| Variables | (n = 19) | (n = 38) | (n = 35) | |
| HSS knee score | ||||
| Pain | 5.79 (5.84) | 7.11 (5.77) | 11.7 (4.69) | < 0.001 |
| Total | 56.7 (9.62) | 57.8 (8.32) | 63.9 (7.36) | 0.002 |
Note: Data are presented as the mean ± standard.
Abbreviations: CS, central sensitization; HSS, hospital for special surgery.
3.3. Postoperative Changes in CS and Their Association with Patients' QOL
The preoperative SF‐36 scores were significantly lower in the improved group compared to the non‐improved group. However, similar to the lack of a significant difference in postoperative HSS knee scores between the two groups, there were no differences in postoperative SF‐36 scores between the groups. Specifically, SF scores increased significantly in the improved group, surpassing those in the non‐improved group. Consequently, the mean postoperative increases in the scores for all eight SF‐36 scales were greater in the improved group than in the non‐improved group, and significance was observed for the PF, RP, BP, SF, and MH. The mean postoperative increases in the scores for all eight SF‐36 scales exceeded the MIC in the improved group. However, in the non‐improved group, the mean postoperative increases in PF, RP, and SF were below the MIC suggested by Clement et al. and Escobar et al. In addition, the values for V were lower than the MIC suggested by Escobar et al. [30, 31] (Table 5). Moreover, the number of SF‐36 scales that achieved the MIC increased as CS severity improved more significantly in each patient (Figure 5).
TABLE 5.
Comparison of the Short‐Form Health Survey scale scores of the improved and non‐improved groups.
| Variables | Before TKA | 1 year after TKA | Changes 1 year after TKA (1 year after TKA − before TKA) | MIC | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Improved group | Non‐improved group | p | Improved group | Non‐improved group | p | Improved group | Non‐improved group | p | By Clement et al. | By Escobar et al. | |
| (n = 57) | (n = 35) | (n = 57) | (n = 35) | (n = 57) | (n = 35) | ||||||
| SF‐36 | |||||||||||
| PF | 34.5 ± 20.6 | 48.3 ± 21.2 | 0.003 | 58.0 ± 23.6 | 58.4 ± 17.7 | 0.924 | 23.5 ± 28.1 | 10.1 ± 24.0 | 0.022 | 13.5 | 11.57 |
| RP | 37.3 ± 22.4 | 57.3 ± 21.5 | < 0.001 | 70.0 ± 25.0 | 67.5 ± 21.8 | 0.632 | 32.7 ± 30.8 | 10.2 ± 25.8 | < 0.001 | 11.5 | 11.69 |
| BP | 36.6 ± 19.9 | 46.9 ± 17.8 | 0.013 | 68.2 ± 19.7 | 66.6 ± 19.9 | 0.694 | 31.7 ± 27.1 | 19.6 ± 24.8 | 0.035 | 11.0 | 16.86 |
| GH | 40.0 ± 15.5 | 49.1 ± 17.3 | 0.010 | 54.4 ± 18.3 | 59.3 ± 21.1 | 0.241 | 14.4 ± 20.9 | 10.2 ± 26.1 | 0.400 | 0.0 | 0.85 |
| V | 37.9 ± 13.6 | 47.7 ± 12.3 | 0.001 | 51.8 ± 14.3 | 56.9 ± 15.9 | 0.121 | 13.9 ± 18.8 | 9.14 ± 16.7 | 0.219 | 5.2 | 11.66 |
| SF | 58.6 ± 25.0 | 66.1 ± 20.7 | 0.139 | 79.4 ± 19.8 | 69.3 ± 21.5 | 0.024 | 20.8 ± 26.1 | 3.21 ± 26.1 | 0.002 | 12.8 | 7.65 |
| RE | 46.1 ± 26.3 | 59.0 ± 24.9 | 0.021 | 70.0 ± 27.7 | 68.6 ± 23.8 | 0.797 | 24.0 ± 40.2 | 9.52 ± 32.2 | 0.075 | 4.2 | 3.86 |
| MH | 47.8 ± 16.9 | 59.5 ± 12.2 | 0.002 | 62.9 ± 14.1 | 62.2 ± 14.2 | 0.798 | 15.2 ± 21.7 | 3.66 ± 17.4 | 0.005 | 0.0 | −0.32 |
Abbreviations: BP, bodily pain; GH, general health; MH, mental health; MIC, minimal clinically important change; PF, physical functioning; RE, role‐functioning emotional; RP, role‐functioning physical; SF, social functioning; SF‐36, Short‐Form Health Survey; TKA, total knee arthroplasty; V, vitality.
FIGURE 5.
Number of Short‐Form Health Survey (SF‐36) scales exceeding the minimal clinically important changes (MIC) proposed by Clement et al. (blue) and Escobar et al. (red).
4. Discussion
4.1. Key Findings of This Study and Their Implications
This study investigated whether CS changes 1 year after TKA, and assessed the clinical significance of such changes. About two‐thirds of our patients showed a clinically significant improvement in CS after TKA. These patients (the improved group) had more severe preoperative pain than the non‐improved group. Furthermore, the improved group showed a more significant improvement in SF‐36 scores after TKA than the non‐improved group. This improvement appeared to be clinically relevant. Taken together, these results indicate that patients with severe preoperative pain are more likely to show clinically meaningful improvement in CS and QOL postoperatively. This study may provide another perspective, namely that the improvement in QOL after TKA is not only due to the resolution of local knee problems but may also be related to an improvement in CS, which is associated with the deterioration of multiple parts of the body.
4.2. Extent of Changes in CS After Surgery
Few studies have investigated the changes that occur in CS after TKA using the CSI score, and conflicting results have been reported. Koh et al. found that CS in patients did not change after TKA [34]. However, Sasaki et al. reported that 47.5% of patients were diagnosed with CS before surgery, which decreased to 10.0% after TKA [6]. In a study by Fitzsimmons et al., using other diagnostic tools for neuropathic pain, 35.5% of patients showed neuropathic pain before surgery, and 23.6% of patients showed neurogenic pain 6 months after TKA [35]. It is difficult to identify the cause of these conflicting conclusions drawn from the results of previous studies. Since the prevalence of fibromyalgia, which is highly related to CS, is higher in patients with a lower socioeconomic status, the results of studies on CS in patients with knee OA may also differ depending on the location or situation of the institution where the study was conducted [36, 37]. Therefore, a larger‐scale study involving multiple regions will be needed to reach a clear conclusion.
4.3. Common Patient Characteristics Associated with Improved CS After Surgery: Preoperative Pain as a Key Factor
In this study, patients who showed improvement in CS severity after surgery had more severe preoperative pain. The optimal preoperative HSS knee pain score for discriminating between the improved and non‐improved groups was 7.5, where higher scores indicate less severe pain. Scores of < 10 indicate that the pain is severe when resting, walking, or both. Therefore, patients experiencing severe pain at rest or while walking were more likely to show an improvement in CS after TKA. This finding can be explained by the fact that persistent activation of peripheral nociceptors is the cause of CS [14]. The results of our study can be interpreted as indicating that CS severity improved in part because the strong peripheral pain that caused CS was eliminated after TKA. Of course, there are limitations to this explanation. The Pearson correlation coefficient between the amount of improvement in CSI score and the preoperative pain score was 0.321, which is a weak correlation. In addition, since the r 2 for this correlation coefficient was 0.103, only about 10.3% of the variability in changes in CSI can be explained by the preoperative HSS knee pain score. Moreover, while the specificity was high (82.9%), the sensitivity was low (54.4%), such that some patients with a pain score above the threshold value were included in the improved group. Thus, even patients with less severe preoperative pain may show improvements in CS. Nevertheless, we believe that the results of this study are sufficient to conclude that the level of pain before TKA is one of several factors associated with changes in CS severity after TKA. There was also a significant group difference in the preoperative HSS knee total scores between the two groups. However, as there were no significant differences between the groups in subscores of the HSS knee score other than the pain score, this seemed to be entirely attributable to differences in pain scores.
4.4. Postoperative Changes in CS and Their Association with Patients' QOL with Clinical Implications
Patients in the improved group, who reported more severe pain before surgery, had lower preoperative QOL as assessed by SF‐36 compared to the non‐improved group. However, 1 year after surgery, their SF‐36 scores showed a significant increase compared to the non‐improved group, reaching a level of recovery that was similar to or even higher than the non‐improved group. Thus, more severe pain before surgery may predict a greater improvement in QOL as well as CS after TKA. Since postoperative QOL appears to be related to postoperative satisfaction [38], these results may explain the finding in previous studies that the more severe the preoperative pain, the higher the patient's satisfaction after TKA [39, 40]. However, definitive conclusions cannot be drawn based on our results because we did not analyze the relationship between changes in CS severity and patient satisfaction after TKA. The improved group exhibited particularly significant improvements in the PF, RP, and SF scales of the SF‐36 compared to the non‐improved group. These scales are indicators related to the patients' social well‐being [29]. Therefore, the observed enhancement in QOL in the improved group may be related to the improvement in physical function, which had previously been limited by knee issues, thereby leading to better social well‐being after TKA. However, further detailed studies are needed to specify which aspects of QOL the patients in the improved group benefited from.
Based on our findings, patients with HSS knee pain scores below 7.5, indicating severe pain during walking or at rest before surgery, tend to experience significant improvement in CS severity levels. This improvement correlates with enhanced postoperative QOL. Therefore, accurately assessing preoperative pain may greatly contribute to achieving favorable postoperative outcomes. Evaluating preoperative pain does not require extensive effort or time but may significantly influence surgical outcomes. Hence, meticulous assessment of pain in preoperative patients is crucial.
4.5. The Impact of Gender Bias in the Study on the Interpretation of Findings
In this study, there was a predominance of women, which could potentially bias the study results. This outcome arises because in the area where this study was conducted, the incidence of women undergoing TKA is nearly five to ten times higher than that of men [41]. The female predominance among TKA patients is a characteristic observed in most Asian countries and has also been noted in Western countries, where women undergo TKA at more than twice the rate of men [42, 43]. Therefore, when selecting TKA patients as the study population, there will always be a female‐biased group, making studies that strive to balance the gender ratio actually fail to adequately reflect the characteristics of the population. Consequently, studies related to TKA patients with CS often show a female bias. However, these findings are still accepted as scientific results, taking into account the potential limitations in interpretation [6, 7, 34]. Hence, while our study may have a female bias, it might still be generalizable to populations in other regions. However, as the female predominance among TKA patients may vary by region, caution is required when interpreting the results of this study.
4.6. Limitations and Strengths
Our study had several limitations. First, we used the HSS knee score for pain assessment, which is less commonly applied than certain other diagnostic instruments. However, the HSS knee score has been validated and exhibits sufficient sensitivity for pain assessment [44, 45]. Second, there is no consensus on the MIC for the SF‐36, as the MIC varies among populations [46]. Therefore, we referred to studies that calculated the MIC specifically for patients who underwent primary unilateral TKA. Despite the aforementioned limitations, our study has strengths in its focus on changes in CS after surgery and in identifying these changes, as well as recognizing their impact on postoperative outcomes. Furthermore, the study offers specific guidelines for patient selection prior to surgery aimed at improving patients' QOL.
5. Conclusion
In conclusion, 1 year after TKA, our patients experienced an improvement in CS, particularly those with more severe preoperative pain. In addition, this improvement appeared to be related to an improvement in postoperative QOL. Before deciding whether to perform TKA on a given patient, pain at rest or during walking should be assessed, as patients with severe preoperative pain are more likely to benefit from TKA in terms of CS and QOL.
Author Contributions
Y.H.C. and H.S.K.: contributed to the conceptualization. Y.C.K. and Y.H.C.: contributed to the methodology and formal analysis. M.H.K. and D.J.P.: contributed to the investigation. M.H.K.: contributed to the resources and visualization. H.S.K. and Y.C.K.: contributed to writing the original draft. Y.H.C. and D.J.P.: contributed to the review and editing of the manuscript. Y.H.C.: contributed to supervision. Y.C.K.: contributed to funding acquisition.
Ethics Statement
This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of St. Vincent's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea (Study No. VC22RISI0142).
Consent
Because this was a retrospective study, the need for informed consent was waived with the approval of our Institutional Review Board for the following reasons: The study involved no more than minimal risk. The waiver of informed consent was not considered to adversely affect the rights and welfare of the subjects. It was not practical to conduct the study without the waiver or alterations to the study design. Whenever appropriate, participants were provided with additional pertinent information after their participation.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Acknowledgments
The authors have nothing to report.
Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.
Since Hae Seok Koh and Yoon‐Chung Kim contributed equally as Co‐first authors.
Data Availability Statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
References
- 1. Kurtz S., Ong K., Lau E., Mowat F., and Halpern M., “Projections of Primary and Revision Hip and Knee Arthroplasty in the United States From 2005 To 2030,” Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American Volume 89, no. 4 (2007): 780–785, 10.2106/jbjs.F.00222. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Li C. Y., Ng Cheong Chung K. J., Ali O. M. E., Chung N. D. H., and Li C. H., “Literature Review of the Causes of Pain Following Total Knee Replacement Surgery: Prosthesis, Inflammation and Arthrofibrosis,” EFORT open reviews 5, no. 9 (2020): 534–543, 10.1302/2058-5241.5.200031. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Ritter M. A., Keating E. M., Sueyoshi T., Davis K. E., Barrington J. W., and Emerson R. H., “Twenty‐Five‐Years and Greater, Results After Nonmodular Cemented Total Knee Arthroplasty,” Journal of Arthroplasty 31, no. 10 (2016): 2199–2202, 10.1016/j.arth.2016.01.043. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Kahlenberg C. A., Nwachukwu B. U., McLawhorn A. S., Cross M. B., Cornell C. N., and Padgett D. E., “Patient Satisfaction After Total Knee Replacement: A Systematic Review,” HSS journal: the musculoskeletal journal of Hospital for Special Surgery 14, no. 2 (2018): 192–201, 10.1007/s11420-018-9614-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Johnson D. J., Castle J. P., Hartwell M. J., D'Heurle A. M., and Manning D. W., “Risk Factors for Greater Than 24‐Hour Length of Stay After Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty,” Journal of arthroplasty 35, no. 3 (2020): 633–637, 10.1016/j.arth.2019.10.037. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Sasaki E., Kasai T., Araki R., et al., “Central Sensitization and Postoperative Improvement of Quality of Life in Total Knee and Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Prospective Observational Study,” Progress in Rehabilitation Medicine 7 (2022): 20220009, 10.2490/prm.20220009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Beswick A. D., Wylde V., Gooberman‐Hill R., Blom A., and Dieppe P., “What Proportion of Patients Report Long‐Term Pain After Total Hip or Knee Replacement for Osteoarthritis? A Systematic Review of Prospective Studies in Unselected Patients,” BMJ Open 2, no. 1 (2012): e000435, 10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000435. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Kazarian G. S., Anthony C. A., Lawrie C. M., and Barrack R. L., “The Impact of Psychological Factors and Their Treatment on the Results of Total Knee Arthroplasty,” Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American Volume 103, no. 18 (2021): 1744–1756, 10.2106/jbjs.20.01479. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Koh H. S., Choi Y. H., Park D., and Jeong M. G., “Association Between Pain Catastrophizing and Central Sensitization Among Patients With Severe Knee Osteoarthritis Awaiting Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty,” Orthopedics 45 (2022): 197–202, 10.3928/01477447-20220401-06. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Koh I. J., Kim M. S., Sohn S., Song K. Y., Choi N. Y., and In Y., “Duloxetine Reduces Pain and Improves Quality of Recovery Following Total Knee Arthroplasty in Centrally Sensitized Patients: A Prospective, Randomized Controlled Study,” Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American Volume 101, no. 1 (2019): 64–73, 10.2106/jbjs.18.00347. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Wylde V., Sayers A., Odutola A., Gooberman‐Hill R., Dieppe P., and Blom A. W., “Central Sensitization as a Determinant of Patients' Benefit From Total Hip and Knee Replacement,” European journal of pain (London, England) 21, no. 2 (2017): 357–365, 10.1002/ejp.929. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Otis J. D., “Flor, H., & Turk, DC (2011) Chronic Pain: An Integrated Biobehavioral Approach Seattle: IASP Press,” Cognitive and Behavioral Practice 20, no. 1 (2013): 117–118, 10.1016/j.cbpra.2012.10.001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Jensen T. S. and Finnerup N. B., “Allodynia and Hyperalgesia in Neuropathic Pain: Clinical Manifestations and Mechanisms,” Lancet Neurology 13, no. 9 (2014): 924–935, 10.1016/s1474-4422(14)70102-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Latremoliere A. and Woolf C. J., “Central Sensitization: A Generator of Pain Hypersensitivity by Central Neural Plasticity,” Journal of Pain 10, no. 9 (2009): 895–926, 10.1016/j.jpain.2009.06.012. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Woolf C. J., “Central Sensitization: Uncovering the Relation Between Pain and Plasticity,” Anesthesiology 106, no. 4 (2007): 864–867, 10.1097/01.anes.0000264769.87038.55. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Ohtori S., Orita S., Yamashita M., et al., “Existence of A Neuropathic Pain Component in Patients With Osteoarthritis of the Knee,” Yonsei Medical Journal 53, no. 4 (2012): 801–805, 10.3349/ymj.2012.53.4.801. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Valdes A. M., Suokas A. K., Doherty S. A., Jenkins W., and Doherty M., “History of Knee Surgery Is Associated With Higher Prevalence Of Neuropathic Pain‐Like Symptoms in Patients With Severe Osteoarthritis of the Knee,” Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism 43, no. 5 (2014): 588–592, 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2013.10.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Graven‐Nielsen T., Wodehouse T., Langford R. M., Arendt‐Nielsen L., and Kidd B. L., “Normalization of Widespread Hyperesthesia and Facilitated Spatial Summation of Deep‐Tissue Pain in Knee Osteoarthritis Patients After Knee Replacement,” Arthritis and Rheumatism 64, no. 9 (2012): 2907–2916, 10.1002/art.34466. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Fingleton C., Smart K., Moloney N., Fullen B. M., and Doody C., “Pain Sensitization in People With Knee Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis,” Osteoarthritis and Cartilage 23, no. 7 (2015): 1043–1056, 10.1016/j.joca.2015.02.163. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Neblett R., Cohen H., Choi Y., et al., “The Central Sensitization Inventory (CSI): establishing clinically significant values for identifying central sensitivity syndromes in an outpatient chronic pain sample,” Journal of Pain 14, no. 5 (2013): 438–445, 10.1016/j.jpain.2012.11.012. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Freynhagen R., Baron R., Gockel U., and Tölle T. R., “Paindetect: A New Screening Questionnaire to Identify Neuropathic Components in Patients With Back Pain,” Current Medical Research and Opinion 22, no. 10 (2006): 1911–1920, 10.1185/030079906x132488. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Kurien T., Arendt‐Nielsen L., Petersen K. K., Graven‐Nielsen T., and Scammell B. E., “Preoperative Neuropathic Pain‐like Symptoms and Central Pain Mechanisms in Knee Osteoarthritis Predicts Poor Outcome 6 Months After Total Knee Replacement Surgery,” Journal of Pain 19, no. 11 (2018): 1329–1341, 10.1016/j.jpain.2018.05.011. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Kim S. H., Yoon K. B., Yoon D. M., Yoo J. H., and Ahn K. R., “Influence of Centrally Mediated Symptoms on Postoperative Pain in Osteoarthritis Patients Undergoing Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Prospective Observational Evaluation,” Pain Practice: the Official Journal of World Institute of Pain 15, no. 6 (2015): E46–E53, 10.1111/papr.12311. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Yunus M. B., “Central Sensitivity Syndromes: A New Paradigm and Group Nosology for Fibromyalgia and Overlapping Conditions, and the Related Issue of Disease Versus Illness,” Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism 37, no. 6 (2008): 339–352, 10.1016/j.semarthrit.2007.09.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Scerbo T., Colasurdo J., Dunn S., Unger J., Nijs J., and Cook C., “Measurement Properties of the Central Sensitization Inventory: A Systematic Review,” Pain Practice: the Official Journal of World Institute of Pain 18, no. 4 (2018): 544–554, 10.1111/papr.12636. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Mayer T. G., Neblett R., Cohen H., et al., “The Development and Psychometric Validation of the Central Sensitization Inventory,” Pain Practice: the Official Journal Of World Institute Of Pain 12, no. 4 (2012): 276–285, 10.1111/j.1533-2500.2011.00493.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Neblett R., Hartzell M. M., Mayer T. G., Cohen H., and Gatchel R. J., “Establishing Clinically Relevant Severity Levels for the Central Sensitization Inventory,” Pain practice: the official journal of World Institute of Pain 17, no. 2 (2017): 166–175, 10.1111/papr.12440. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Irrgang J. J. and Anderson A. F., “Development and Validation of Health‐Related Quality of Life Measures for the Knee,” Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 402 (2002): 95–109, 10.1097/00003086-200209000-00009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. J. E. Ware, Jr. and Sherbourne C. D., “The MOS 36‐item Short‐Form Health Survey (SF‐36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection,” Medical Care 30, no. 6 (1992): 473–483. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Escobar A., Quintana J. M., Bilbao A., Aróstegui I., Lafuente I., and Vidaurreta I., “Responsiveness and Clinically Important Differences For the WOMAC and SF‐36 After Total Knee Replacement,” Osteoarthritis and Cartilage 15, no. 3 (2007): 273–280, 10.1016/j.joca.2006.09.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Clement N. D., Weir D., and Deehan D., “Meaningful Values in the Short Form Health Survey‐36 After Total Knee Arthroplasty ‐ An Alternative to the Euroqol Five‐Dimension Index as a Measure for Health‐Related Quality of Life: Minimal Clinically Important Difference, Minimal Important Change, Patient‐Acceptable Symptom State Thresholds, and Responsiveness,” Bone & Joint Research 11, no. 7 (2022): 477–483, 10.1302/2046-3758.117.Bjr-2021-0493.R1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Safari S., Baratloo A., Elfil M., and Negida A., “Evidence Based Emergency Medicine; Part 5 Receiver Operating Curve and Area under the Curve,” Emergency (Tehran, Iran) 4 (2016): 111–113. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33. Schober P., Boer C., and Schwarte L. A., “Correlation Coefficients: Appropriate Use and Interpretation,” Anesthesia and Analgesia 126, no. 5 (2018): 1763–1768, 10.1213/ane.0000000000002864. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34. Koh I. J., Kang B. M., Kim M. S., Choi K. Y., Sohn S., and In Y., “How Does Preoperative Central Sensitization Affect Quality of Life Following Total Knee Arthroplasty?,” Journal of Arthroplasty 35, no. 8 (2020): 2044–2049, 10.1016/j.arth.2020.04.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35. Fitzsimmons M., Carr E., Woodhouse L., and Bostick G. P., “Development and Persistence of Suspected Neuropathic Pain After Total Knee Arthroplasty in Individuals With Osteoarthritis,” PM & R: the Journal of Injury, Function, and Rehabilitation 10, no. 9 (2018): 903–909, 10.1016/j.pmrj.2018.01.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36. Assumpção A., Cavalcante A. B., Capela C. E., et al., “Prevalence of fibromyalgia in a low socioeconomic status population,” BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders 10 (2009): 64, 10.1186/1471-2474-10-64. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37. Hazra S., Venkataraman S., Handa G., et al., “A Cross‐Sectional Study on Central Sensitization and Autonomic Changes in Fibromyalgia,” Frontiers in Neuroscience 14 (2020): 788, 10.3389/fnins.2020.00788. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38. Becker R., Döring C., Denecke A., and Brosz M., “Expectation, Satisfaction and Clinical Outcome of Patients After Total Knee Arthroplasty,” Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy: Official Journal of the ESSKA 19, no. 9 (2011): 1433–1441, 10.1007/s00167-011-1621-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39. Maratt J. D., Lee Y. Y., Lyman S., and Westrich G. H., “Predictors of Satisfaction Following Total Knee Arthroplasty,” Journal of Arthroplasty 30, no. 7 (2015): 1142–1145, 10.1016/j.arth.2015.01.039. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40. Van Onsem S., Van Der Straeten C., Arnout N., Deprez P., Van Damme G., and Victor J., “A New Prediction Model for Patient Satisfaction After Total Knee Arthroplasty,” Journal of arthroplasty 31, no. 12 (2016): 2660–2667, 10.1016/j.arth.2016.06.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41. Koh I. J., Kim T. K., Chang C. B., Cho H. J., and In Y., “Trends in use of total knee arthroplasty in Korea from 2001 to 2010,” Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 471, no. 5 (2013): 1441–1450, 10.1007/s11999-012-2622-y. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42. Yan C. H., Chiu K. Y., and Ng F. Y., “Total Knee Arthroplasty for Primary Knee Osteoarthritis: Changing Pattern Over the Past 10 Years,” Hong Kong medical journal = Xianggang yi xue za zhi 17, no. 1 (2011): 20–25. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43. Whitlock K. G., Piponov H. I., Shah S. H., Wang O. J., and Gonzalez M. H., “Gender Role in Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Retrospective Analysis of Perioperative Outcomes in US Patients,” Journal of Arthroplasty 31, no. 12 (2016): 2736–2740, 10.1016/j.arth.2016.05.041. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44. Słupik A. and Białoszewski D., “A Comparative Analysis of the Clinical Utility of the Staffelstein‐Score and the Hospital for Special Surgery Knee Score (Hss) in Monitoring Physiotherapy of Total Knee Replacement Patients – Preliminary Study,” Ortopedia, Traumatologia, Rehabilitacja 11, no. 1 (2009): 37–45. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45. Zhang Y. and Liu H., “Safety of Total Knee Arthroplasty in the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis and Its Effect on Postoperative Pain and Quality of Life of Patients,” Contrast Media & Molecular Imaging 2021 (2021): 6951578, 10.1155/2021/6951578. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46. Molino J., Harrington J., Racine‐Avila J., and Aaron R., “Deconstructing the Minimum Clinically Important Difference (MCID),” Orthopedic Research and Reviews 14 (2022): 35–42, 10.2147/orr.S349268. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.