Literature DB >> 23076552

Patients report improvement in quality of life and satisfaction after hip resurfacing arthroplasty.

Wael A Rahman1, Nelson V Greidanus, Alexander Siegmeth, Bassam A Masri, Clive P Duncan, Donald S Garbuz.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A number of reconstructive procedures are available for the management of hip osteoarthritis. Hip resurfacing arthroplasty is now an accepted procedure, with implant survivorship comparable to THA at up to 10 years' followup in certain series. Most reports focus on implant survivorship, surgeon-derived results, or complications. Fewer data pertain to patient-reported results, including validated measures of quality of life (QoL) and satisfaction and baseline measures from which to determine magnitude of improvement. Validated patient-reported results are essential to guide patients and surgeons in the current era of informed and shared decision making. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We determined whether patients reported improvement in disease-specific, joint-specific, and generic QoL after hip resurfacing arthroplasty; whether patients were satisfied with the results of the procedure; and latest activity level and return to sport.
METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed 127 patients (100 men, 27 women) who underwent 143 hip resurfacing procedures between 2002 and 2006. Mean patient age was 52 years. Patients completed the WOMAC, Oxford Hip Score, and SF-12 at baseline and again at minimum 2-year followup (mean, 2.5 years; range, 2-6 years). At latest followup, patients completed a validated satisfaction questionnaire and UCLA activity score.
RESULTS: All QoL scores improved (normalized to a 0-100 scale, where 100 = best health state). WOMAC improved from 46 to 95, Oxford Hip Score from 42 to 95, SF-12 (physical) from 34 to 54, and SF-12 (mental) from 46 to 56. Patient satisfaction score was 96. UCLA activity score was 8.
CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients reported improvement in QoL, were very satisfied with their outcome, and returned to a high level of activity after hip resurfacing arthroplasty. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, therapeutic study. See the Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23076552      PMCID: PMC3549167          DOI: 10.1007/s11999-012-2645-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res        ISSN: 0009-921X            Impact factor:   4.176


  70 in total

1.  Stability of the Birmingham hip resurfacing arthroplasty at two years. A radiostereophotogrammetric analysis study.

Authors:  R Itayem; A Arndt; L Nistor; D McMinn; A Lundberg
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2005-02

2.  Modern metal-on-metal hip resurfacing: important observations from the first ten years.

Authors:  Michael A Mont; Thomas P Schmalzried
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 5.284

3.  [Femoral offset restauration and clinical function after total hip arthroplasty and surface replacement of the hip: a randomized study].

Authors:  J Girard; P A Vendittoli; A G Roy; M Lavigne
Journal:  Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot       Date:  2008-02-20

4.  In vivo wear of three types of metal on metal hip prostheses during two decades of use.

Authors:  H McKellop; S H Park; R Chiesa; P Doorn; B Lu; P Normand; P Grigoris; H Amstutz
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1996-08       Impact factor: 4.176

5.  Early results of primary Birmingham hip resurfacings. An independent prospective study of the first 230 hips.

Authors:  D L Back; R Dalziel; D Young; A Shimmin
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2005-03

6.  Metal on metal surface replacement of the hip. Experience of the McMinn prothesis.

Authors:  D McMinn; R Treacy; K Lin; P Pynsent
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  1996-08       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  Comparison of patient-reported outcomes between hip resurfacing and total hip replacement.

Authors:  E A Lingard; K Muthumayandi; J P Holland
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2009-12

8.  Pseudotumours associated with metal-on-metal hip resurfacings.

Authors:  H Pandit; S Glyn-Jones; P McLardy-Smith; R Gundle; D Whitwell; C L M Gibbons; S Ostlere; N Athanasou; H S Gill; D W Murray
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2008-07

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

Review 10.  The clinical and radiological outcomes of hip resurfacing versus total hip arthroplasty: a meta-analysis and systematic review.

Authors:  Toby O Smith; Rachel Nichols; Simon T Donell; Caroline B Hing
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2010-11-11       Impact factor: 3.717

View more
  3 in total

1.  Validation of the HOOS, JR: A Short-form Hip Replacement Survey.

Authors:  Stephen Lyman; Yuo-Yu Lee; Patricia D Franklin; Wenjun Li; David J Mayman; Douglas E Padgett
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2016-02-29       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 2.  Racial/Ethnic Disparity in Rates and Outcomes of Total Joint Arthroplasty.

Authors:  Hania Shahid; Jasvinder A Singh
Journal:  Curr Rheumatol Rep       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 4.592

3.  Current indications for hip resurfacing arthroplasty in 2016.

Authors:  Robert Sershon; Rishi Balkissoon; Craig J Della Valle
Journal:  Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med       Date:  2016-03
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.