Denis Nam1, Ryan M Nunley1, Michael E Berend2, Keith R Berend3, Adolph V Lombardi3, Robert L Barrack1. 1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Barnes-Jewish Hospital, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri. 2. Center for Hip and Knee Surgery, St. Francis Hospital, Mooresville, Indiana. 3. Joint Implant Surgeons, New Albany, Ohio.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Whether patient-reported symptoms and function after total hip and surface replacement arthroplasty in young, active patients compare favorably to those without known hip pathology has not been investigated. METHODS: A retrospective, multicenter study was designed in which 5 centers contributed patients aged <60 years with a presymptomatic University of California at Los Angeles score ≥6 undergoing hip arthroplasty. Data were collected by an independent, third-party survey center that administered a questionnaire assessing patient satisfaction and function. A "control" population with no prior hip interventions or hip pathology limiting their activity, that met the age and activity criteria, was identified for comparison using multivariate regression analyses. RESULTS: Eight-hundred six hip arthroplasties (682 total hip arthroplasty, 124 surface replacement arthroplasty) and 158 controls were included. A greater percentage of hip arthroplasty patients were male and aged >50 years which was controlled during multivariate regression analyses. Control patients reported the presence of a limp (15%), stiffness (11%), and pain in the hip (8%), but to a lesser degree than hip arthroplasty patients. Control patients were less likely to report pain in the hip (odds ratio [OR] = 0.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.2-0.7, P = .006), stiffness in the hip (OR = 0.5, 95% CI = 0.3-0.8, P = .02), and a limp (OR = 0.5, 95% CI = 0.3-0.8, P < .001) vs patients undergoing hip arthroplasty. CONCLUSION: When interviewed by an independent third party, a substantial portion of control patients did note the presence of hip symptoms, but to a lesser degree than young, active patients undergoing hip arthroplasty.
BACKGROUND: Whether patient-reported symptoms and function after total hip and surface replacement arthroplasty in young, active patients compare favorably to those without known hip pathology has not been investigated. METHODS: A retrospective, multicenter study was designed in which 5 centers contributed patients aged <60 years with a presymptomatic University of California at Los Angeles score ≥6 undergoing hip arthroplasty. Data were collected by an independent, third-party survey center that administered a questionnaire assessing patient satisfaction and function. A "control" population with no prior hip interventions or hip pathology limiting their activity, that met the age and activity criteria, was identified for comparison using multivariate regression analyses. RESULTS: Eight-hundred six hip arthroplasties (682 total hip arthroplasty, 124 surface replacement arthroplasty) and 158 controls were included. A greater percentage of hip arthroplastypatients were male and aged >50 years which was controlled during multivariate regression analyses. Control patients reported the presence of a limp (15%), stiffness (11%), and pain in the hip (8%), but to a lesser degree than hip arthroplastypatients. Control patients were less likely to report pain in the hip (odds ratio [OR] = 0.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.2-0.7, P = .006), stiffness in the hip (OR = 0.5, 95% CI = 0.3-0.8, P = .02), and a limp (OR = 0.5, 95% CI = 0.3-0.8, P < .001) vs patients undergoing hip arthroplasty. CONCLUSION: When interviewed by an independent third party, a substantial portion of control patients did note the presence of hip symptoms, but to a lesser degree than young, active patients undergoing hip arthroplasty.