Predicting the Longer-term Outcomes of Total Hip Replacement

2010 ◽  
Vol 37 (12) ◽  
pp. 2573-2577 ◽  
Author(s):  
RAJIV GANDHI ◽  
HERMAN DHOTAR ◽  
J. RODERICK DAVEY ◽  
NIZAR N. MAHOMED
Keyword(s):  
Functional Outcome ◽  
Total Hip Replacement ◽  
Hip Replacement ◽  
Short Form ◽  
Demographic Data ◽  
Medical Outcomes ◽  
Total Hip ◽  
Sf 36 ◽  
Outcome Scores ◽  
Longitudinal Regression

Objective.The objective of this study was to identify the patient-level predictors (age, sex, body mass index, mental health, and comorbidity) for a sustained functional outcome at a minimum 1 year of followup after total hip replacement (THR).Methods.We reviewed data from our registry on 636 consecutive patients from 1998 to 2005. Demographic data and the outcome scores of the Western Ontario McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and Medical Outcomes Study Short-form 36 (SF-36) scores were extracted from the database. Longitudinal regression modeling was performed to identify the predictive factors of interest. Fourteen percent of patients were missing outcomes data at 1 year of followup.Results.The mean followup in our cohort was 3.3 years (range 1–6 yrs) and there were no revisions for aseptic loosening performed during this time. Mean clinical outcome scores were found to be relatively constant for the 6 years after surgery. Older age, year of followup, and greater comorbidity were identified as negative prognostic factors for a sustained functional outcome following THR (p < 0.05).Conclusion.Understanding of longterm surgical outcomes should be appropriately used to set realistic patient expectations of surgery.

scholarly journals Total hip replacement: increasing femoral offset improves functional outcome

2016 ◽  
Vol 136 (9) ◽  
pp. 1317-1323 ◽  
Author(s):  
N. D. Clement ◽  
R. S. Patrick-Patel ◽  
D. MacDonald ◽  
S. J. Breusch
Keyword(s):  
Functional Outcome ◽  
Total Hip Replacement ◽  
Hip Replacement ◽  
Femoral Offset ◽  
Total Hip

Patient-Reported Outcome following Metal-On-Metal Resurfacing of the Hip and Total Hip Replacement

2009 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 245-250 ◽  
Author(s):  
David P. Hall ◽  
Del Srikantharajah ◽  
Raimond E. Anakwe ◽  
Paul Gaston ◽  
Colin R. Howie
Keyword(s):  
Total Hip Replacement ◽  
Hip Replacement ◽  
Short Form ◽  
Length Of Hospital Stay ◽  
Multivariate Regression Analysis ◽  
Hip Resurfacing ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Additional Patient ◽  
Total Hip ◽  
Patient Reported

Patient-reported outcome and satisfaction scores have become increasingly important in evaluating successful surgery. This case-matched control study compared patient-reported outcome and satisfaction data following hip resurfacing and total hip arthroplasty. Thirty-three consecutive patients selected for hip resurfacing were compared with 99 patients undergoing cemented total hip replacement (THR), matched for age, sex and pathology. Participants completed a Short-Form 12 Health Survey (SF-12) and Oxford Hip Score questionnaire preoperatively and 6 months post operatively with an additional patient satisfaction questionnaire. There was no difference in length of hospital stay. While both groups reported improved outcome scores, multivariate regression analysis did not demonstrate any significant benefit for one group over the other. Both groups reported high levels of satisfaction, which tended to be better in patients undergoing hip resurfacing.

scholarly journals A study to assess functional outcome of cemented and uncemented total hip replacement in a tertiary care center

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (5) ◽  
pp. 828
Author(s):  
Kunal Ajitkumar Shah ◽  
Mohan Madhav Desai
Keyword(s):  
Functional Outcome ◽  
Total Hip Replacement ◽  
Hip Replacement ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Harris Hip Score ◽  
Total Hip ◽  
Vas Score ◽  
Group A ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Group B

<p class="abstract"><strong>Background:</strong> Total hip replacement (THR) is the most successful and cost effective treatment with aim of pain relief and functional rehabilitation for hip disorders. As the implant designs of THR have evolved over time, the functional outcome and survivorship has improved. Even after so many advancements, it remains unclear that which implants are better, uncemented or cemented. Hence, we took up this study to analyze which of the uncemented or cemented THR have better functional outcome.</p><p class="abstract"><strong>Methods:</strong> This was a longitudinal study conducted during 2014 to 2018. Hundred cases were randomized into groups of 50 each. All patients with age between 55-80 years in whom THR was indicated were included in the study. Uncemented THR was done in Group A and cemented THR was done in Group B. Patients were followed up at 12 weeks, 6 months, 12 months, and 3 years. At follow-up, functional examination in terms of visual analogue scale (VAS) score and Harris hip score (HHS) was done.<strong></strong></p><p class="abstract"><strong>Results:</strong> The mean age of patients in Group A (uncemented) and Group B (cemented) was 62.5 years and 60 years respectively. We found that the difference of VAS score and HHS between Group A and B was statistically significant at 12 weeks and 6 months. The difference of VAS and HHS scores between Group A and B at 12 months and 3 years was not significant.</p><p class="abstract"><strong>Conclusions:</strong> We conclude that cemented THR has better functional outcome at short term. They are cost effective option at age ≥55-60 years.</p>

The Problem of ‘Noise’ in Monitoring Patient-Based Outcomes: Generic, Disease-Specific and Site-Specific Instruments for Total Hip Replacement

1996 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 224-231 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jill Dawson ◽  
Ray Fitzpatrick ◽  
David Murray ◽  
Andrew Carr
Keyword(s):  
Health Status ◽  
Total Hip Replacement ◽  
Hip Replacement ◽  
Site Specific ◽  
Change Scores ◽  
Total Hip ◽  
Sf 36 ◽  
Oxford Hip Score ◽  
Disease Specific

Objectives: To compare the performance of three types of patient-based health status instrument — generic, disease-specific and site-specific — in assessing changes resulting from total hip replacement (THR). Methods: A two-stage prospective study of patients undergoing surgery for THR involving an assessment at a pre-surgical clinic and a follow-up clinic at 6 months. 173 patients with a diagnosis of arthritis and being admitted for unilateral THR were recruited in the outpatient departments of a specialist orthopaedic hospital and peripheral clinics within Oxfordshire. Patients’ health status was assessed using the 12-item Oxford Hip Score, the Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales (AIMS) and SF-36 general health questionnaire together with their surgeons’ assessment using Charnley hip score obtained before and 6 months after surgery. Results: Effect sizes, used to compare change scores, revealed that pain and function domains changed most following THR on both the AIMS and the SF-36. 71 patients (41%) were assessed as having symptoms or problems currently affecting lower limb joints other than the hip recently replaced. Change scores were compared between these patients and all other patients who reported no current problems with other joints. The Oxford Hip Score found no significant difference between change scores for these two groups of patients while both AIMS and SF-36 physical and pain dimensions recorded significant differences of similar magnitude (physical P < 0.01, pain P < 0.05). Likely reasons for this were apparent on closer inspection of the item content of each instrument. Conclusions: Assessment of outcomes in THR is necessarily long-term. Within studies of this kind, a hip-specific instrument (Oxford Hip Score) is likely to be more able to distinguish between symptoms and functional impairment produced by the index joint, as compared with other joints and conditions, than either a disease-specific instrument (AIMS) or a generic health status measure (SF-36). This is important given the high probability of existing and subsequent co-morbidity affecting such populations of patients. This consideration is likely to be relevant to any long-term assessment programme following treatment for a condition which threatens bilateral expression over time.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document