Literature DB >> 22159857

Responsiveness of the SF-36 and WOMAC following periacetabular osteotomy for acetabular dysplasia.

Darin Davidson1, Yi-Meng Yen, Alan M Jette, Sippy Olarsch, Young-Jo Kim.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Periacetabular osteotomy is a relatively common reconstructive procedure for the adolescent or young adult with acetabular dysplasia. Although several measures have been used to characterize the outcome, the responsiveness of these measures in this population has not been determined. The purpose of this study was to estimate the responsiveness of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and the Short Form-36 (SF-36) in patients with acetabular dysplasia treated with periacetabular osteotomy.
METHODS: Eighty-three patients with acetabular dysplasia treated with periacetabular osteotomy between 2000 and 2005 completed the WOMAC and SF-36 both preoperatively and postoperatively. The scores on each domain of these outcome measures were calculated and analyzed to determine the parameters of responsiveness, including the minimal detectable change at the 90% confidence level.
RESULTS: The mean duration of follow-up was 1.9 years. Comparison of the effect size, standardized response mean, and minimal detectable change for the SF-36 and WOMAC demonstrated that the WOMAC was more sensitive to change than the SF-36 was, particularly in the physical function domain (minimal detectable change, 9.1) and the pain domain (minimal detectable change, 5.5). Only one of the eight domains of the SF-36, bodily pain, demonstrated a change in outcome that exceeded the minimal detectable change, which was 2.38.
CONCLUSIONS: Both the WOMAC and the SF-36 demonstrated adequate responsiveness to change over time in patients with acetabular dysplasia treated with periacetabular osteotomy, although the WOMAC was more sensitive to change. These results indicate that the WOMAC is sufficiently responsive to be used as a joint-specific measure for assessing changes following periacetabular osteotomy for the treatment of acetabular dysplasia.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22159857     DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.J.00687

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


  6 in total

1.  Does previous pelvic osteotomy compromise the results of periacetabular osteotomy surgery?

Authors:  Jeffrey B Stambough; John C Clohisy; Geneva R Baca; Ira Zaltz; Robert Trousdale; Michael Millis; Daniel Sucato; Young-Jo Kim; Ernest Sink; Perry L Schoenecker; Rafael Sierra; David Podeszwa; Paul Beaulé
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Survivorship of the Bernese Periacetabular Osteotomy: What Factors are Associated with Long-term Failure?

Authors:  Joel Wells; Michael Millis; Young-Jo Kim; Evgeny Bulat; Patricia Miller; Travis Matheney
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2016-05-12       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  Women demonstrate more pain and worse function before THA but comparable results 12 months after surgery.

Authors:  Anne F Mannion; Franco M Impellizzeri; Florian D Naal; Michael Leunig
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  No correlation between rotation of femoral components in the transverse plane and clinical outcome after total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Roland Becker; Katharina Bäker; Hagen Hommel; Manfred Bernard; Sebastian Kopf
Journal:  Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc       Date:  2018-05-16       Impact factor: 4.342

5.  The association the patient-reported outcomes after periacetabular osteotomy with radiographic features: a short-term retrospective study.

Authors:  Yinuo Fan; Weifeng Li; Yunlong Wu; Ruoyu Li; Guoju Hong; Zhongfeng Li; Lixin Chen; Hanjun Fang; Chi Zhou; Wei He; Zhenqiu Chen
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2021-12-19       Impact factor: 2.359

6.  Progression of health-related quality of life of patients waiting for total knee arthroplasty.

Authors:  Ki Wai Ho; Gerald Pong; Wai Chin Poon; Kwong Yin Chung; Yan-Yan Kwok; Kwok Hing Chiu
Journal:  J Eval Clin Pract       Date:  2020-03-22       Impact factor: 2.431

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.