Literature DB >> 25245530

Are younger patients undergoing THA appropriately characterized as active?

James A Keeney1, Ryan M Nunley, Geneva R Baca, John C Clohisy.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Surgeons perform THA to address a variety of conditions in younger patients, including osteoarthritis (OA), osteonecrosis, inflammatory arthritis, and congenital deformities. Younger patients aged 50 years or younger have been characterized as active in the literature, but a direct relationship between age and activity level has not been well substantiated. Younger patients with OA may engage in higher activity levels; however, associated medical conditions in patients with other surgical indications may not support a generalization that age is a surrogate for activity level. We recently evaluated these issues in younger patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and noted that the majority would not be considered active. Given this observation, we considered whether younger patients undergoing THA are characterized by high activity levels, which is relevant to understanding the long-term risk of wear-related failures. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Do demographic features of younger patients undergoing THA support high activity expectations? (2) Do preoperative or postoperative functional activity measures support projections that younger patients are active after THA?
METHODS: We retrospectively compared demographic characteristics and functional activity profiles (as determined by preoperative and postoperative UCLA activity scores, Harris hip scores [HHS], and SF-12 and WOMAC physical function subscores) of 704 patients who had undergone THA and were aged younger than 50 years (822 hips) with those of 484 patients (516 hips) aged between 65 and 75 years, who had undergone THA, with a minimum followup at 1 year after surgery (range, 12-160 months).
RESULTS: Compared with patients aged 65 to 75 years, younger patients undergoing THA were more often men (51%, 95% confidence interval [CI], 48.8%-53.2% versus 40%, 95% CI, 37.1%-42.9% women; p < 0.01) or had undergone surgery for osteonecrosis (29% versus 4%; 95% CI, 2.8%-5.2%; p < 0.001). Postoperative HHS, SF-12, and WOMAC scores were not appreciably different between the two patient groups. Compared with older patients, younger patients with OA had higher preoperative (5.0 ± 2.5 versus 3.9 ± 2.0, p < 0.001) and postoperative UCLA activity scores (6.8 ± 2.1 versus 5.3 ± 1.9, p < 0.001). Younger patients with diagnoses other than OA had slightly higher mean postoperative UCLA activity scores than older patients (6.0 ± 2.3 versus 5.3 ± 1.9; p < 0.001). Two hundred fifty-nine of 704 younger patients undergoing THA (37%; 95% CI, 34.9%-39.1%) returned to impact activity compared with 75 of 484 older patients undergoing THA (15.5%; 95% CI, 13.3%-17.7%) (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Younger patients with OA are likely to return to high levels of activity after surgery, which may impact long-term wear-related implant survivorship. High activity levels are less common among younger patients with diagnoses other than OA. Age is not the ideal surrogate for activity level in patients considering THA; instead, specific activity-level measures should be used when discussing patient expectations pertaining to postoperative activity levels after arthroplasty. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25245530      PMCID: PMC4317460          DOI: 10.1007/s11999-014-3952-8

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


  35 in total

1.  The outcome of the Birmingham Hip Resurfacing in patients aged < 50 years up to 14 years post-operatively.

Authors:  G S Matharu; C W McBryde; W B Pynsent; P B Pynsent; R B C Treacy
Journal:  Bone Joint J       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 5.082

2.  Durability of second-generation extensively porous-coated stems in patients age 50 and younger.

Authors:  Jennifer A Moyer; Catherine M Metz; John J Callaghan; David W Hennessy; Steve S Liu
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2009-09-01       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  Total hip arthroplasty using highly cross-linked polyethylene in patients younger than 50 years with minimum 10-year follow-up.

Authors:  Nikola Babovic; Robert T Trousdale
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2013-03-15       Impact factor: 4.757

4.  What are young patients doing after hip reconstruction?

Authors:  Lawrence A Delasotta; Ashwin V Rangavajjula; Manny D Porat; Michael L Frank; Fabio R Orozco; Alvin C Ong
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2012-04-17       Impact factor: 4.757

5.  Cementless total hip arthroplasty in patients fifty years of age or younger: a minimum ten-year follow-up.

Authors:  Ryan K Takenaga; John J Callaghan; Nicholas A Bedard; Steve S Liu; Alison L Klaassen; Douglas R Pedersen
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2012-12-05       Impact factor: 5.284

6.  Factors influencing revision risk following 15 740 single-brand hybrid hip arthroplasties: a cohort study from a National Joint Registry.

Authors:  Simon S Jameson; James M Mason; Paul N Baker; Prithee Jettoo; David J Deehan; Mike R Reed
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2013-03-22       Impact factor: 4.757

7.  Clinical and radiological outcome of the cemented Contemporary acetabular component in patients < 50 years of age.

Authors:  M W J L Schmitz; C Timmer; W H C Rijnen; J W M Gardeniers; B W Schreurs
Journal:  Bone Joint J       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 5.082

8.  Which functional assessments predict long-term wear after total hip arthroplasty?

Authors:  Ryan K Takenaga; John J Callaghan; Nicholas A Bedard; Steve S Liu; Yubo Gao
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2013-04-09       Impact factor: 4.176

9.  Are younger patients undergoing TKAs appropriately characterized as active?

Authors:  James A Keeney; Ryan M Nunley; Rick W Wright; Robert L Barrack; John C Clohisy
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2013-11-19       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 10.  Risk factors for revision of primary total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review.

Authors:  Julian Jz Prokopetz; Elena Losina; Robin L Bliss; John Wright; John A Baron; Jeffrey N Katz
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2012-12-15       Impact factor: 2.362

View more
  9 in total

1.  CORR Insights®: The 2018 Mark Coventry, MD Award: Does a Ceramic Bearing Improve Pain, Function, Wear, or Survivorship of TKA in Patients Younger Than 55 Years of Age? A Randomized Trial.

Authors:  Michael A Mont
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2019-01       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 2.  [Postoperative outcomes and survival rates after aseptic revision total hip arthroplasty : What can patients expect from revision surgery?]

Authors:  Manuela Hoffmann; Johannes C Reichert; Anastasia Rakow; Janosch Schoon; Georgi I Wassilew
Journal:  Orthopadie (Heidelb)       Date:  2022-06-23

3.  Evaluation of Electrospun PCL-PLGA for Sustained Delivery of Kartogenin.

Authors:  Steven Elder; John Graham Roberson; James Warren; Robert Lawson; Daniel Young; Sean Stokes; Matthew K Ross
Journal:  Molecules       Date:  2022-06-10       Impact factor: 4.927

4.  Hip abductor strength and fatigue are associated with activity levels more than 1 year after total hip replacement.

Authors:  Kharma C Foucher; Christopher C Cinnamon; Colleen A Ryan; Samuel J Chmell; Kris Dapiton
Journal:  J Orthop Res       Date:  2017-11-28       Impact factor: 3.494

Review 5.  Nontraumatic Osteonecrosis of the Femoral Head: Where Do We Stand Today?: A 5-Year Update.

Authors:  Michael A Mont; Hytham S Salem; Nicolas S Piuzzi; Stuart B Goodman; Lynne C Jones
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2020-06-17       Impact factor: 6.558

6.  Recommendations for return to sports after total hip arthroplasty are becoming less restrictive as implants improve.

Authors:  T Vu-Han; S Hardt; R Ascherl; C Gwinner; C Perka
Journal:  Arch Orthop Trauma Surg       Date:  2020-12-01       Impact factor: 3.067

7.  Amount and type of physical activity and sports from one year forward after hip or knee arthroplasty-A systematic review.

Authors:  Yvet Mooiweer; Inge van den Akker-Scheek; Martin Stevens
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-12-28       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Cementless femoral neck endoprosthesis SPIRON in men in aspects of clinical status and quality of life in an average 7-year follow-up.

Authors:  Tomasz Stołtny; Bogdan Dugiełło; Michał Pyda; Jarosław Pasek; Dominika Rokicka; Marta Wróbel; Aleksander Augustyn; Daniel Spyrka; Michał Białek; Krzysztof Strojek; Bogdan Koczy
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2022-08-03       Impact factor: 2.562

9.  A Patient and Public Involvement Study to Explore the Need for Further Research into the Experience of Younger Patients Undergoing Total Hip Arthroplasty.

Authors:  L Mew; V Heaslip; T Immins; T W Wainwright
Journal:  J Patient Exp       Date:  2022-03-04
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.