BACKGROUND: No published studies have explored the relationship between commonly reported clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction after hip arthroscopy. PURPOSE: To compare the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) with patient satisfaction in a prospective study over a 2-year period. STUDY DESIGN: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: We reviewed our institutional database for prospectively collected mHHS and patient satisfaction data from 697 patients. Patients were evaluated preoperatively and at 1 and 2 years after surgery. RESULTS: The mHHS correlated with patient satisfaction at 1 year (P < .001, Pearson R = 0.451) and at 2 years (P < .001, Pearson R = .454). Considering scores from excellent to good as positive results and from fair to poor as negative results, sensitivity was 73% at 1 year and 77% at 2 years. Respectively, the specificity was 64% and 73%, positive predictive value 86% and 91%, negative predictive value 45% and 46%, and accuracy 71% and 76%. At 1- and 2-year follow-up, a respective 55% and 54% of patients with fair to poor mHHS were satisfied with the outcome of hip arthroscopy. In contrast, for those patients with an excellent to good mHHS at 1 and 2 years after surgery, 14% and 9%, respectively, were dissatisfied with their outcome. CONCLUSION: Our results show a correlation between patient satisfaction and the mHHS but also demonstrate a limitation of the mHHS as an outcome measure in the prediction of patient satisfaction. Further investigation is required to assess factors beyond current standard orthopaedic clinical outcome measures that may influence patient satisfaction after hip arthroscopy.
BACKGROUND: No published studies have explored the relationship between commonly reported clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction after hip arthroscopy. PURPOSE: To compare the modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) with patient satisfaction in a prospective study over a 2-year period. STUDY DESIGN: Case series; Level of evidence, 4. METHODS: We reviewed our institutional database for prospectively collected mHHS and patient satisfaction data from 697 patients. Patients were evaluated preoperatively and at 1 and 2 years after surgery. RESULTS: The mHHS correlated with patient satisfaction at 1 year (P < .001, Pearson R = 0.451) and at 2 years (P < .001, Pearson R = .454). Considering scores from excellent to good as positive results and from fair to poor as negative results, sensitivity was 73% at 1 year and 77% at 2 years. Respectively, the specificity was 64% and 73%, positive predictive value 86% and 91%, negative predictive value 45% and 46%, and accuracy 71% and 76%. At 1- and 2-year follow-up, a respective 55% and 54% of patients with fair to poor mHHS were satisfied with the outcome of hip arthroscopy. In contrast, for those patients with an excellent to good mHHS at 1 and 2 years after surgery, 14% and 9%, respectively, were dissatisfied with their outcome. CONCLUSION: Our results show a correlation between patient satisfaction and the mHHS but also demonstrate a limitation of the mHHS as an outcome measure in the prediction of patient satisfaction. Further investigation is required to assess factors beyond current standard orthopaedic clinical outcome measures that may influence patient satisfaction after hip arthroscopy.
Authors: Michael Q Potter; James D Wylie; Grant S Sun; James T Beckmann; Stephen K Aoki Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2014-02-27 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Man Hung; Shirley D Hon; Christine Cheng; Jeremy D Franklin; Stephen K Aoki; Mike B Anderson; Ashley L Kapron; Christopher L Peters; Christopher E Pelt Journal: Orthop J Sports Med Date: 2014-12-19