Literature DB >> 16595456

Predictors of functional outcome two years following revision hip arthroplasty.

Aileen M Davis1, Zoe Agnidis, Elizabeth Badley, Alex Kiss, James P Waddell, Allan E Gross.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Little is known about factors that might predict functional outcome following revision hip arthroplasty. The purpose of this study was to identify predictors of pain and physical function at two years following revision total hip arthroplasty and to evaluate whether the time that the patient waited for the surgery and whether the patient had complications were significant predictors of outcome.
METHODS: One hundred and twenty-six patients (126 hips) were entered prospectively into the study when their name was placed on the waiting list for surgery. Baseline measures included demographic factors, comorbidities, and the responses to the Short Form-36 (SF-36) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) questionnaires. Follow-up was carried out at six-month intervals while the patient was waiting for the surgery; within one week prior to the surgery; and at six, twelve, and twenty-four months after the surgery. Patient age and gender, the preoperative WOMAC pain and function scores, the physical and mental component scores of the SF-36, comorbidities, the number of revisions, bilateral joint replacement, and the severity of the revision were evaluated as possible predictors of ultimate pain and function as measured with the WOMAC instrument.
RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 68.6 years. Improvement in WOMAC pain and function scores plateaued at six months. The mean pain score (and standard deviation) improved from 9.4 +/- 4.1 points preoperatively to 3.9 +/- 3.9 points at six months postoperatively, and the mean function score improved from 35.4 +/- 14.1 to 19.1 +/- 13.2 points. Preoperative pain (p = 0.002) and comorbidity (p = 0.02) were significant predictors of pain at two years. There was a trend toward preoperative function predicting function at twenty-four months (p = 0.07). There was no significant deterioration in the WOMAC pain or function score while the patients waited for surgery. Twenty-eight patients had complications. When the time that the patient waited for the surgery and complications were added to the models, only complications were found to be predictive of outcome (p = 0.04 for pain and p = 0.05 for function). Four patients required repeat revision during the follow-up period.
CONCLUSIONS: Patients with better preoperative pain scores and fewer comorbidities have better outcomes following revision total hip arthroplasty. Although the time that the patient waited for the revision was not predictive of the ultimate WOMAC pain and function scores, we believe that performing revision arthroplasty before the patient has substantial functional compromise potentially improves the outcome.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16595456     DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.E.00150

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am        ISSN: 0021-9355            Impact factor:   5.284


  28 in total

1.  Why revision total hip arthroplasty fails.

Authors:  Bryan D Springer; Thomas K Fehring; William L Griffin; Susan M Odum; John L Masonis
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2008-10-31       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  [Comorbidity from the patient perspective - does it work? Validity of a questionnaire on self-estimation of comorbidity (SCQ-D)].

Authors:  M Streibelt; C Schmidt; M Brünger; K Spyra
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 1.087

3.  Course of pain after total hip arthroplasty within a standardized pain management concept: a prospective study examining influence, correlation, and outcome of postoperative pain on 103 consecutive patients.

Authors:  Felix Greimel; Gregor Dittrich; Timo Schwarz; Moritz Kaiser; Bernd Krieg; Florian Zeman; Joachim Grifka; Achim Benditz
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2018-07-31       Impact factor: 3.067

4.  Complications Are Not Increased With Acetabular Revision of Metal-on-metal Total Hip Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Colin T Penrose; Thorsten M Seyler; Samuel S Wellman; Michael P Bolognesi; Paul F Lachiewicz
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  Does age or bilateral disease influence the value of hip arthroplasty?

Authors:  Bryan M Lawless; Meridith Greene; James Slover; Young-Min Kwon; Henrik Malchau
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  Patient-level clinically meaningful improvements in activities of daily living and pain after total hip arthroplasty: data from a large US institutional registry.

Authors:  Jasvinder A Singh; David G Lewallen
Journal:  Rheumatology (Oxford)       Date:  2013-02-04       Impact factor: 7.580

7.  Outcomes of isolated acetabular revision.

Authors:  Bryan M Lawless; William L Healy; Sanjeev Sharma; Richard Iorio
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2010-02       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  Factors influencing inpatient rehabilitation length of stay following revision hip replacements: a retrospective study.

Authors:  So-Mei Teresa Yeung; Aileen M Davis; Rajka Soric
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2010-10-28       Impact factor: 2.362

9.  Responsiveness and minimal important differences after revision total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Hon-Yi Shi; Je-Ken Chang; Chi-Yin Wong; Jun-Wen Wang; Yuan-Kun Tu; Herng-Chia Chiu; King-Teh Lee
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2010-11-12       Impact factor: 2.362

10.  Waiting for hip revision surgery: the impact on patient disability.

Authors:  Aileen M Davis; Zoe Agnidis; Elizabeth Badley; J Roderick Davey; Amiram Gafni; Jeffrey Gollish; Nizar N Mahomed; Khaled J Saleh; Emil H Schemitsch; John Paul Szalai; James P Waddell; Allan E Gross
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 2.089

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.