Literature DB >> 10158596

Comparison of measures to assess outcomes in total hip replacement surgery.

J Dawson1, R Fitzpatrick, D Murray, A Carr.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To compare the performance of a disease specific and a general health questionnaire in assessing changes resulting from total hip replacement.
DESIGN: Two stage prospective study of patients undergoing total hip replacement surgery involving an assessment at a clinic before and six months after surgery. 60(32%) patients were followed up by post.
SETTING: Outpatient departments at a specialist orthopaedic hospital and peripheral clinics within Oxfordshire. PATIENTS: 188 patients admitted for unilateral total hip replacement between February and mid-August 1994. MAIN MEASURES: Patients' self assessed scores with the 12 item Oxford hip score and SF-36 general health questionnaire together with surgeons' assessment with Charnley hip score obtained before and again at six months after surgery.
RESULTS: 186 patients were followed up six months after total hip replacement; a subsample (n=60) by post. Of the 60 postal patients, 59(98.3%) fully completed the Oxford hip score compared with 44(73.3%) who fully completed the SF-36. For the followup sample as a whole, post operative changes in scores produced a large effect size of 2.75 on the Oxford hip score, compared with -1.89 physical function (SF-36), -2.13 pain (SF-36). With the exception of physical function and role (physical), postoperative SF-36 scores were shown to be similar to or better than those found by two population surveys on patients of comparable age. The responsiveness of a disease specific questionnaire, the Oxford hip score, and relevant sections of a general questionnaire, SF-36, were found to be similar as assessed by three different criteria.
CONCLUSIONS: A disease specific questionnaire, the Oxford hip score, and a general state of health questionnaire, SF-36, performed similarly in assessing outcomes of total hip replacement except that the disease specific questionnaire resulted in a higher completion rate and greater responsiveness in some sections. On the other hand the general health questionnaire drew attention to broader problems of physical function not considered by the Oxford hip score. The health questionnaires examined here offer a valid and practical means of monitoring outcomes of hip replacement surgery.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 10158596      PMCID: PMC1055370          DOI: 10.1136/qshc.5.2.81

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Qual Health Care        ISSN: 0963-8172


  38 in total

Review 1.  Generic and disease-specific measures in assessing health status and quality of life.

Authors:  D L Patrick; R A Deyo
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1989-03       Impact factor: 2.983

2.  Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total hip replacement.

Authors:  J Dawson; R Fitzpatrick; A Carr; D Murray
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  1996-03

3.  Measuring change over time: assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments.

Authors:  G Guyatt; S Walter; G Norman
Journal:  J Chronic Dis       Date:  1987

4.  Comparative measurement efficiency and sensitivity of five health status instruments for arthritis research.

Authors:  M H Liang; M G Larson; K E Cullen; J A Schwartz
Journal:  Arthritis Rheum       Date:  1985-05

5.  Total hip replacement of failed surface arthroplasty.

Authors:  R A Steele; D Dempster; M A Smith
Journal:  Acta Orthop Scand       Date:  1985-04

6.  A new clinical taxonomy for rating change in functional activities of patients with angina pectoris.

Authors:  A R Feinstein; C K Wells
Journal:  Am Heart J       Date:  1977-02       Impact factor: 4.749

7.  Comparisons of five health status instruments for orthopedic evaluation.

Authors:  M H Liang; A H Fossel; M G Larson
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1990-07       Impact factor: 2.983

8.  Toward clinical applications of health status measures: sensitivity of scales to clinically important changes.

Authors:  R A Deyo; T S Inui
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  1984-08       Impact factor: 3.402

9.  Hip arthroplasty: patient satisfaction.

Authors:  A Kay; B Davison; E Badley; S Wagstaff
Journal:  Br J Rheumatol       Date:  1983-11

10.  The arthritis impact measurement scales. Further investigations of a health status measure.

Authors:  R F Meenan; P M Gertman; J H Mason; R Dunaif
Journal:  Arthritis Rheum       Date:  1982-09
View more
  40 in total

1.  A comparison of Rasch with Likert scoring to discriminate between patients' evaluations of total hip replacement surgery.

Authors:  R Fitzpatrick; J M Norquist; C Jenkinson; B C Reeves; R W Morris; D W Murray; P J Gregg
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 2.  Use of patient-reported outcomes in the context of different levels of data.

Authors:  Ola Rolfson; Alastair Rothwell; Art Sedrakyan; Kate Eresian Chenok; Eric Bohm; Kevin J Bozic; Göran Garellick
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2011-12-21       Impact factor: 5.284

3.  Clinical assessment after total hip arthroplasty using the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Hip-Disease Evaluation Questionnaire.

Authors:  Kiyokazu Fukui; Ayumi Kaneuji; Tanzo Sugimori; Toru Ichiseki; Tadami Matsumoto; Yoshimitsu Hiejima
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2015-02-21

4.  Transstyloid, transscaphoid, transcapitate fracture: a variant of scaphocapitate fractures.

Authors:  Neil G Burke; Ciaran H Cosgrave; Barry James O'Neill; Eamonn P Kelly
Journal:  BMJ Case Rep       Date:  2014-03-31

5.  THA with the ABG I prosthesis at 15 years. Excellent survival with minimal osteolysis.

Authors:  P N Baker; I A McMurtry; G Chuter; A Port; J Anderson
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  Femoral revision hip arthroplasty: a comparison of two stem designs.

Authors:  Corey J Richards; Clive P Duncan; Bassam A Masri; Donald S Garbuz
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  Reverse-total shoulder arthroplasty cost-effectiveness: A quality-adjusted life years comparison with total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Daniel Bachman; John Nyland; Ryan Krupp
Journal:  World J Orthop       Date:  2016-02-18

8.  Physical activity and experience of total knee replacement in patients one to four years postsurgery in the dominican republic: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Derek S Stenquist; Scott A Elman; Aileen M Davis; Laura M Bogart; Sarah A Brownlee; Edward S Sanchez; Adianez Santiago; Roya Ghazinouri; Jeffrey N Katz
Journal:  Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken)       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 4.794

9.  Cerebral microembolization during primary total hip arthroplasty and neuropsychologic outcome: a pilot study.

Authors:  Rahul V Patel; Jan Stygall; Jane Harrington; Stanton P Newman; Fares S Haddad
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2009-10-17       Impact factor: 4.176

10.  601 metal-on-metal total hip replacements with 36 mm heads a 5 minimum year follow up: Levels of ARMD remain low despite a comprehensive screening program.

Authors:  Amit Atrey; Alister Hart; Nasir Hussain; Jonathon Waite; Andrew J Shepherd; Steve Young
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2016-10-31
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.