S A A N Bolink1, E Lenguerrand2, L R Brunton2, V Wylde2, R Gooberman-Hill2, I C Heyligers3, A W Blom2, B Grimm3. 1. AHORSE Foundation, Dept Orthopaedics, Atrium Medical Center Heerlen, The Netherlands. Electronic address: stijn.bolink@mail.com. 2. Musculoskeletal Research Unit, School of Clinical Sciences, University of Bristol, Southmead Hospital, Bristol, United Kingdom. 3. AHORSE Foundation, Dept Orthopaedics, Atrium Medical Center Heerlen, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Functional outcome assessment after total hip arthroplasty often involves subjective patient-reported outcome measures whereas analysis of gait is more objective. The study's aims were to compare subjective and objective functional outcomes after total hip arthroplasty between patients with low and high self-reported levels of pre-operative physical function. METHODS: Patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (n=36; m/f=18/18; mean age=63.9; SD=9.8 years; BMI=26.3; SD=3.5) were divided into a low and high function subgroup, and prospective measures of WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index) function score and gait were compared at baseline and 3 and 12 months post-operatively. FINDINGS: WOMAC function scores significantly improved in both low and high function subgroups at 3 months post-operatively whereas gait parameters only improved in patients with a low pre-operative function. Between 3 and 12 months post-operatively, WOMAC function scores had not significantly further improved whereas several gait parameters significantly improved in the low function group. WOMAC function scores and gait parameters were only moderately correlated (Spearman's r=0.33-0.51). INTERPRETATION: In a cohort of patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty, pre-operative differences in mean WOMAC function scores and gait parameters between low and high function subgroups disappeared by 3 months post-operatively. Gait parameters only improved significantly during the first 3 post-operative months in patients with a low pre-operative function, highlighting the importance of investigating relative changes rather than the absolute changes and the need to consider patients with high and low functions separately.
BACKGROUND: Functional outcome assessment after total hip arthroplasty often involves subjective patient-reported outcome measures whereas analysis of gait is more objective. The study's aims were to compare subjective and objective functional outcomes after total hip arthroplasty between patients with low and high self-reported levels of pre-operative physical function. METHODS:Patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (n=36; m/f=18/18; mean age=63.9; SD=9.8 years; BMI=26.3; SD=3.5) were divided into a low and high function subgroup, and prospective measures of WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index) function score and gait were compared at baseline and 3 and 12 months post-operatively. FINDINGS: WOMAC function scores significantly improved in both low and high function subgroups at 3 months post-operatively whereas gait parameters only improved in patients with a low pre-operative function. Between 3 and 12 months post-operatively, WOMAC function scores had not significantly further improved whereas several gait parameters significantly improved in the low function group. WOMAC function scores and gait parameters were only moderately correlated (Spearman's r=0.33-0.51). INTERPRETATION: In a cohort of patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty, pre-operative differences in mean WOMAC function scores and gait parameters between low and high function subgroups disappeared by 3 months post-operatively. Gait parameters only improved significantly during the first 3 post-operative months in patients with a low pre-operative function, highlighting the importance of investigating relative changes rather than the absolute changes and the need to consider patients with high and low functions separately.
Authors: R Barrois; Th Gregory; L Oudre; Th Moreau; Ch Truong; A Aram Pulini; A Vienne; Ch Labourdette; N Vayatis; S Buffat; A Yelnik; C de Waele; S Laporte; P P Vidal; D Ricard Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-10-24 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Sabrina Grant; A W Blom; Michael R Whitehouse; Ian Craddock; Andrew Judge; Emma L Tonkin; Rachael Gooberman-Hill Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-07-28 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Wolfgang Teufl; Bertram Taetz; Markus Miezal; Michael Lorenz; Juliane Pietschmann; Thomas Jöllenbeck; Michael Fröhlich; Gabriele Bleser Journal: Sensors (Basel) Date: 2019-11-16 Impact factor: 3.576
Authors: Jaap J Tolk; Rob P A Janssen; C Sanna A C Prinsen; M Marieke C van der Steen; Sita M A Bierma Zeinstra; Max Reijman Journal: Acta Orthop Date: 2018-11-19 Impact factor: 3.717