Literature DB >> 21905257

Recovery expectations of hip resurfacing compared to total hip arthroplasty: a matched pairs study.

Hassan M K Ghomrawi1, Mark M Dolan, John Rutledge, Michael M Alexiades.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Expectations of higher activity levels associated with hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) may be driving better outcomes in this group compared to total hip arthroplasty (THA). Previous studies evaluated patient expectations before consulting with the surgeon, although these expectations were likely unrealistic and would change after the consultation. We compared HRA and THA patient expectations after consultation with the surgeon.
METHODS: In a prospective registry setting, patients awaiting HRA were matched to THA patients by age, sex, and a preoperative Lower Extremity Activity Scale score (range 1-18, with 18 indicating levels of highest activity). Patients completed preoperatively a validated 18-item expectations survey. Mean overall expectation scores were first compared. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was then performed to determine if the grouping of individual expectations items represented meaningfully different underlying factors in the 2 groups.
RESULTS: We matched 123 pairs. The mean ± SD expectation scores were similar (85.2 ± 15.5 for HRA and 87.3 ± 13.9 for THA; P = 0.249). The EFA showed that HRA and THA patients shared the common expectations of pain relief and improvement in daily activities (9 items) and eliminating pain medications, the need for a cane, and improving sexual activity (3 items). THA patients perceived the remaining 6 items as an overall third expectation of participation in higher-level activities. However, HRA patients perceived a fourth expectation of normal range of motion (2 items) independent of the other higher-level activities (4 items).
CONCLUSION: Even after consulting with a surgeon, patients' expectations differed between HRA and THA patients regarding higher-level activities. More counseling for patients seeking hip arthroplasty is therefore needed.
Copyright © 2011 by the American College of Rheumatology.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21905257      PMCID: PMC3227755          DOI: 10.1002/acr.20626

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken)        ISSN: 2151-464X            Impact factor:   4.794


  16 in total

1.  Treatment of the young active patient with osteoarthritis of the hip. A five- to seven-year comparison of hybrid total hip arthroplasty and metal-on-metal resurfacing.

Authors:  T C B Pollard; R P Baker; S J Eastaugh-Waring; G C Bannister
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2006-05

2.  Patients' expectations and satisfaction with total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  C A Mancuso; E A Salvati; N A Johanson; M G Peterson; M E Charlson
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  1997-06       Impact factor: 4.757

3.  Patient requests and expectations. Definitions and clinical applications.

Authors:  R F Uhlmann; T S Inui; W B Carter
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1984-07       Impact factor: 2.983

4.  The John Insall Award: Patient expectations affect satisfaction with total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Philip C Noble; Michael A Conditt; Karon F Cook; Kenneth B Mathis
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 5.  Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing: advantages and disadvantages.

Authors:  Mario J Quesada; David R Marker; Michael A Mont
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 4.757

6.  Patients' perceptions of hip resurfacing arthroplasty.

Authors:  Todd P Murphy; Robert T Trousdale; Mark W Pagnano; Tad M Mabry; Rafael J Sierra
Journal:  Orthopedics       Date:  2009-10       Impact factor: 1.390

7.  Randomized trials to modify patients' preoperative expectations of hip and knee arthroplasties.

Authors:  Carol A Mancuso; Suzanne Graziano; Lisa M Briskie; Margaret G E Peterson; Paul M Pellicci; Eduardo A Salvati; Thomas P Sculco
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2008-01-10       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 8.  Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty.

Authors:  Andrew Shimmin; Paul E Beaulé; Pat Campbell
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 5.284

9.  A prospective randomized clinical trial comparing metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty and metal-on-metal total hip resurfacing in patients less than 65 years old.

Authors:  P-A Vendittoli; M Lavigne; A-G Roy; D Lusignan
Journal:  Hip Int       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 1.756

10.  Functional improvement after total knee arthroplasty revision: new observations on the dimensional nature of outcome.

Authors:  Kevin J Mulhall; Hassan M Ghomrawi; Boris Bershadsky; Khaled J Saleh
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2007-12-07       Impact factor: 2.359

View more
  4 in total

1.  Preoperative gluteus medius muscle atrophy as a predictor of walking ability after total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Manabu Nankaku; Tadao Tsuboyama; Tomoki Aoyama; Yutaka Kuroda; Ryosuke Ikeguchi; Shuichi Matsuda
Journal:  Phys Ther Res       Date:  2016-07-14

2.  A Crosswalk Between UCLA and Lower Extremity Activity Scales.

Authors:  Hassan M K Ghomrawi; Yuo-Yu Lee; Christina Herrero; Amethia Joseph; Douglas Padgett; Geoffrey Westrich; Michael Parks; Stephen Lyman
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2016-10-26       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  What Are the Benefits of Hip Resurfacing in Appropriate Patients? A Retrospective, Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

Authors:  Alexander S McLawhorn; Leonard T Buller; Jason L Blevins; Yuo Yu Lee; Edwin P Su
Journal:  HSS J       Date:  2019-12-04

4.  Overstretching Expectations May Endanger the Success of the "Millennium Surgery".

Authors:  Alwina Bender; Philipp Damm; Hagen Hommel; Georg N Duda
Journal:  Front Bioeng Biotechnol       Date:  2022-02-14
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.