Literature DB >> 24052164

The natural history of unexplained early poor function following total hip replacement.

Bruce S Watson1, Paul J Jenkins, James A Ballantyne.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The majority of patients experience a significant improvement in quality of life and function after total hip replacement (THR). It has recently been shown that age and good pre-operative function are the best predictors of postoperative function. When patients fail to achieve a satisfactory outcome, a cause is often identified. Where there is no identifiable cause, advice, follow-up and management is not clear. The aim of this study was to determine the long-term outcome of patients who had early poor function, but no identifiable cause.
METHODS: From a regional database, we identified 1,564 patients who underwent unilateral THR between 1998 and 2004 and who were without complication or subsequent bilateral procedure at six months. These patients were divided into two groups according to their Harris hip score (HHS) at this stage: group A consisted of 270 patients with a 'poor' result (HHS less than 70). Group B consisted of 1,294 patients with a 'good' or 'excellent' result (HHS 70 or above). The patients were reviewed at five years. One hundred and ten patients from group A and 980 from group B completed five-year follow-up without further identifiable complication.
RESULTS: Those with poor or fair function at six months were at an increased risk of developing an identified complication by five years including dislocation (OR 5.7, 95% CI 1.8-18.2), deep infection (OR 9.8, 95%CI 2.9-37.7) and death (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.1-2.3). There was a greater rate of revision in group A versus group B (OR 5.7, 95% CI 2.9-11). The overall function measured by the Harris hip score significantly improved in group A, but never reached that of those with good or excellent function at six months (HHS 76.2 versus 90.3, P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Patients with poor function at six months, but no obvious cause, are at higher risk of developing complications by five years. This group may benefit from more regular arthroplasty review and intervention.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24052164      PMCID: PMC3890124          DOI: 10.1007/s00264-013-2099-7

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int Orthop        ISSN: 0341-2695            Impact factor:   3.075


  19 in total

1.  Monitoring the one year postoperative infection rate after primary total hip replacement.

Authors:  David J Biau; Philippe Leclerc; Simon Marmor; Valerie Zeller; Wilfrid Graff; Luc Lhotellier; Philippe Leonard; Patrick Mamoudy
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2011-12-30       Impact factor: 3.075

2.  Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. An end-result study using a new method of result evaluation.

Authors:  W H Harris
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  1969-06       Impact factor: 5.284

3.  Radiologic diagnosis of loosening and infection in hip prostheses.

Authors:  R G Dussault; A B Goldman; B Ghelman
Journal:  J Can Assoc Radiol       Date:  1977-06

4.  Function after total hip replacement for primary osteoarthritis.

Authors:  R Johnsson; K G Thorngren
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  1989       Impact factor: 3.075

5.  Functional problems and treatment solutions after total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Anil Bhave; David R Marker; Thorsten M Seyler; Slif D Ulrich; Johannes F Plate; Michael A Mont
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2007-07-26       Impact factor: 4.757

6.  The importance of range of motion after total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Kenneth E Davis; Merrill A Ritter; Michael E Berend; John B Meding
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2007-12       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  Pain after total hip arthroplasty: a psychiatric point of view.

Authors:  V Pacault-Legendre; P Anract; M Mathieu; J P Courpied
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2007-10-30       Impact factor: 3.075

8.  Physical functioning before and after total hip arthroplasty: perception and performance.

Authors:  Inge van den Akker-Scheek; Wiebren Zijlstra; Johan W Groothoff; Sjoerd K Bulstra; Martin Stevens
Journal:  Phys Ther       Date:  2008-04-10

9.  Total hip arthroplasties: what are the reasons for revision?

Authors:  Slif D Ulrich; Thorsten M Seyler; Derek Bennett; Ronald E Delanois; Khaled J Saleh; Issada Thongtrangan; Michael Kuskowski; Edward Y Cheng; Peter F Sharkey; Javad Parvizi; James B Stiehl; Michael A Mont
Journal:  Int Orthop       Date:  2007-04-19       Impact factor: 3.075

10.  What proportion of patients report long-term pain after total hip or knee replacement for osteoarthritis? A systematic review of prospective studies in unselected patients.

Authors:  Andrew David Beswick; Vikki Wylde; Rachael Gooberman-Hill; Ashley Blom; Paul Dieppe
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2012-02-22       Impact factor: 2.692

View more
  1 in total

1.  Joint perception and patient perceived satisfaction after total hip and knee arthroplasty in the American population.

Authors:  Matthew Varacallo; Rajit Chakravarty; Kevin Denehy; Andrew Star
Journal:  J Orthop       Date:  2018-03-30
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.