Literature DB >> 23456189

Oxford hip scores at 6 months and 5 years are associated with total hip revision within the subsequent 2 years.

Peter Devane1, Geoffrey Horne, Daniel J Gehling.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The Oxford hip score (OHS) is commonly reported in research studies as a reflection of pain and function but it is unclear whether it predicts subsequent prosthesis failure. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We determined whether OHS obtained at 6 months and 5 years after surgery predicts risk of revision within the subsequent 2 years.
METHODS: We reviewed data from the New Zealand Joint Registry between January 1999 and December 2010. OHS at 6 months was available for 17,831 total hip patients. Patients were separated into four categories based on their OHS: 10,458 (59%) scored 42-48, 4726 (26%) scored 34-41, 1592 (9%) scored 27-33, and 1028 (6%) scored 0-26. Five-year OHSs were available for 3665 patients. Of these patients, 2619 (72%) scored 42-48, 657 (18%) scored 34-41, 225 (6%) scored 27-33, and 164 (4%) scored 0-26.
RESULTS: For patients with a 6-month OHS, revision risk within 2 years was 0.4% in the 42-48 group, 1.0% in the 34-41 group, 1.7% in the 27-33 group, and 6.2% in the 0-27 group. For patients with 5-year OHS, revision risk within 2 years was 0.3%, 1.1%, 3.6%, and 6.1%, respectively. Increase in revision risk for the 0-27 versus the 42-48 OHS group was 15-fold at 6 months and 18-fold at 5 years.
CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest patients with an OHS of 42-48 at 6 months need a 5-year postoperative appointment. Those patients with a 5-year OHS of 42-48 need not be followed up for a further 5 years.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23456189      PMCID: PMC3825899          DOI: 10.1007/s11999-013-2880-3

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


  21 in total

Review 1.  Issues in the reporting of epidemiological studies: a survey of recent practice.

Authors:  Stuart J Pocock; Timothy J Collier; Kimberley J Dandreo; Bianca L de Stavola; Marlene B Goldman; Leslie A Kalish; Linda E Kasten; Valerie A McCormack
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-10-06

2.  Routine follow-up office visits after total joint replacement: do asymptomatic patients wish to comply?

Authors:  V Sethuraman; J McGuigan; W J Hozack; P F Sharkey; R H Rothman
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 4.757

3.  Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total hip replacement.

Authors:  J Dawson; R Fitzpatrick; A Carr; D Murray
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  1996-03

4.  Determinants of 6-12 month postoperative functional status and pain after elective total hip replacement.

Authors:  A M Braeken; J A Lochhaas-Gerlach; J D Gollish; J D Myles; T A Mackenzie
Journal:  Int J Qual Health Care       Date:  1997-12       Impact factor: 2.038

5.  Outcomes of total hip and knee replacement: preoperative functional status predicts outcomes at six months after surgery.

Authors:  P R Fortin; A E Clarke; L Joseph; M H Liang; M Tanzer; D Ferland; C Phillips; A J Partridge; P Bélisle; A H Fossel; N Mahomed; C B Sledge; J N Katz
Journal:  Arthritis Rheum       Date:  1999-08

6.  Total hip arthroplasty surveillance: when do we see our patients postoperatively?

Authors:  Jay R Lieberman; Robin R Leger; Jeanette C Tao; John C Clohisy; R Michael Meneghini
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2011-07-28       Impact factor: 4.757

7.  The Oxford hip scores for primary and revision hip replacement.

Authors:  R E Field; M D Cronin; P J Singh
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Br       Date:  2005-05

8.  Differences between patients' and physicians' evaluations of outcome after total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  J R Lieberman; F Dorey; P Shekelle; L Schumacher; B J Thomas; D J Kilgus; G A Finerman
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1996-06       Impact factor: 5.284

9.  Patient-related risk factors that predict poor outcome after total hip replacement.

Authors:  C H MacWilliam; M U Yood; J J Verner; B D McCarthy; R E Ward
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  1996-12       Impact factor: 3.402

10.  Predictors of patient relevant outcome after total hip replacement for osteoarthritis: a prospective study.

Authors:  A-K Nilsdotter; I F Petersson; E M Roos; L S Lohmander
Journal:  Ann Rheum Dis       Date:  2003-10       Impact factor: 19.103

View more
  11 in total

1.  Symposium: 2012 International Hip Society Proceedings.

Authors:  Michael Leunig; Reinhold Ganz
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Clinical improvement and satisfaction after total joint replacement: a prospective 12-month evaluation on the patients' perspective.

Authors:  Florian D Naal; Franco M Impellizzeri; Ulrich Lenze; Vanessa Wellauer; Rüdiger von Eisenhart-Rothe; Michael Leunig
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2015-06-12       Impact factor: 4.147

3.  Can patient-reported outcomes predict re-operations after total hip replacement?

Authors:  Ted Eneqvist; Szilárd Nemes; Erik Bülow; Maziar Mohaddes; Ola Rolfson
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2018-01-03       Impact factor: 3.075

4.  Poor Knee-specific and Generic Patient-reported Outcome Measure Scores at 6 Months Are Associated With Early Revision Knee Arthroplasty: A Study From the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry.

Authors:  Ilana N Ackerman; Ian A Harris; Kara Cashman; Neville Rowden; Michelle Lorimer; Stephen E Graves
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2022-06-30       Impact factor: 4.755

5.  How often is the office visit needed? Predicting total knee arthroplasty revision risk using pain/function scores.

Authors:  Charles D Hightower; Lisa S Hightower; Penny J Tatman; Patrick M Morgan; Terence Gioe; Jasvinder A Singh
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2016-08-24       Impact factor: 2.655

6.  Total Joint Arthroplasty in HIV-Positive Patients in Malawi: Outcomes from the National Arthroplasty Registry of the Malawi Orthopaedic Association.

Authors:  Simon Matthew Graham; Luke Render; Chipiliro Moffat; Nicholas Lubega; Nyengo Mkandawire; Sven Young; William J Harrison
Journal:  JB JS Open Access       Date:  2021-11-04

7.  Perioperative predictability of unsatisfactory functional outcomes 6 months after hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Axel Jakuscheit; Johannes Weth; Gregor Lichtner; Konstantin Horas; Benno Rehberg-Klug; Falk von Dincklage
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2021-02-13

8.  Patient-reported outcome measures in arthroplasty registries Report of the Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Working Group of the International Society of Arthroplasty Registries Part II. Recommendations for selection, administration, and analysis.

Authors:  Ola Rolfson; Eric Bohm; Patricia Franklin; Stephen Lyman; Geke Denissen; Jill Dawson; Jennifer Dunn; Kate Eresian Chenok; Michael Dunbar; Søren Overgaard; Göran Garellick; Anne Lübbeke
Journal:  Acta Orthop       Date:  2016-05-26       Impact factor: 3.717

9.  Total Hip Arthroplasty in a Low-Income Country: Ten-Year Outcomes from the National Joint Registry of the Malawi Orthopaedic Association.

Authors:  Simon Matthew Graham; Nicholas Howard; Chipiliro Moffat; Nicholas Lubega; Nyengo Mkandawire; William J Harrison
Journal:  JB JS Open Access       Date:  2019-12-05

10.  Single postoperative infusion of zoledronic acid to improve patient-reported outcome after hip or knee replacement: study protocol for a randomised, controlled, double-blinded clinical trial.

Authors:  Jonathan Brandt; Håkan Ledin; Jonas Ranstam; Ewa Roos; Per Aspenberg; Jörg Schilcher
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2020-09-30       Impact factor: 2.692

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.