RobRoy L Martin1, Benjamin R Kivlan2, John J Christoforetti3, Andrew B Wolff4, Shane J Nho5, John P Salvo6, Thomas J Ellis7, Geoff Van Thiel8, Dean K Matsuda9, Dominic S Carreira10. 1. Department of Physical Therapy, Rangos School of Health Sciences, Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.; University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Center for Sports Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.. Electronic address: martinr280@duq.edu. 2. Department of Physical Therapy, Rangos School of Health Sciences, Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, U.S.A. 3. Center for Athletic Hip Injury, Allegheny Health Network, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.; Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Drexel University School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.; American Hip Institute, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, U.S.A. 4. Hip Preservation and Sports Medicine, Washington Orthopaedics and Sports Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A. 5. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Division of Sports Medicine, Hip Preservation Center, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A. 6. Orthopaedic Surgery, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.; Hip Arthroscopy Program, Rothman Institute, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.A. 7. Orthopedic One, Ohio Orthopedic Surgery Institute, Dublin Methodist Hospital, Columbus, Ohio, U.S.A. 8. OrthoIllinois, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.; Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.; US National Soccer Teams, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A.; Chicago Blackhawks Medical Network, Chicago, Illinois, U.S.A. 9. Hip Arthroscopy DISC Sports and Spine Center, Marina del Rey, California, U.S.A. 10. Peachtree Orthopedics, Atlanta, Georgia, U.S.A.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To define minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) values for the 12-item International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12) in patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for intra-articular pathology. METHODS: This was a retrospective review of prospectively collected data on patients who underwent hip arthroscopy. On initial assessment and follow-up between 335 and 395 days after surgery, subjects completed the iHOT-12 and a categorical self-rating of function (severely abnormal, abnormal, nearly normal, or normal). One-half the standard deviation (SD) of the change in 1-year iHOT-12 scores was used to calculate the MCID. Receiver operator characteristic analysis was performed to determine SCB values. A change in SCB value was determined based on an improvement in the categorical rating of function. Absolute postoperative SCB scores were calculated to determine scores that would be associated with normal function ratings or with abnormal or severely abnormal function ratings. RESULTS: Of 1,034 eligible patients, 733 (71%) met the inclusion criteria. The subjects consisted of 537 female patients (73%) and 196 male patients (27%), with a mean age of 35.3 years (SD, 13 years). At a mean of 352 days (SD, 21 days) after surgery, 536 patients (73%) were in the "improved" group and 197 (27%) were in the "not improved" group. The MCID was 13 points. An SCB change score of 28 points was able to identify patients who improved with high sensitivity (0.79) and specificity (0.72). Scores of 86 points or greater and 56 points or less were the cutoff values found to identify subjects who rated their function as normal and abnormal, respectively, with high sensitivity (0.74 and 0.90, respectively) and specificity (0.82 and 0.86, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides information to help interpret iHOT-12 scores for a follow-up period ranging between 335 and 395 days with MCID and SCB values of 13 and 28 points, respectively. In addition, a vpatient who scored 86 points or better was likely to have a normal rating of function, whereas a patient with a score of 56 points or less was likely to have an abnormal rating of function. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative study.
PURPOSE: To define minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) values for the 12-item International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12) in patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for intra-articular pathology. METHODS: This was a retrospective review of prospectively collected data on patients who underwent hip arthroscopy. On initial assessment and follow-up between 335 and 395 days after surgery, subjects completed the iHOT-12 and a categorical self-rating of function (severely abnormal, abnormal, nearly normal, or normal). One-half the standard deviation (SD) of the change in 1-year iHOT-12 scores was used to calculate the MCID. Receiver operator characteristic analysis was performed to determine SCB values. A change in SCB value was determined based on an improvement in the categorical rating of function. Absolute postoperative SCB scores were calculated to determine scores that would be associated with normal function ratings or with abnormal or severely abnormal function ratings. RESULTS: Of 1,034 eligible patients, 733 (71%) met the inclusion criteria. The subjects consisted of 537 female patients (73%) and 196 male patients (27%), with a mean age of 35.3 years (SD, 13 years). At a mean of 352 days (SD, 21 days) after surgery, 536 patients (73%) were in the "improved" group and 197 (27%) were in the "not improved" group. The MCID was 13 points. An SCB change score of 28 points was able to identify patients who improved with high sensitivity (0.79) and specificity (0.72). Scores of 86 points or greater and 56 points or less were the cutoff values found to identify subjects who rated their function as normal and abnormal, respectively, with high sensitivity (0.74 and 0.90, respectively) and specificity (0.82 and 0.86, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides information to help interpret iHOT-12 scores for a follow-up period ranging between 335 and 395 days with MCID and SCB values of 13 and 28 points, respectively. In addition, a vpatient who scored 86 points or better was likely to have a normal rating of function, whereas a patient with a score of 56 points or less was likely to have an abnormal rating of function. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, retrospective comparative study.
Authors: Dominic S Carreira; Daniel B Shaw; Andrew B Wolff; John J Christoforetti; John P Salvo; Benjamin R Kivlan; Dean K Matsuda Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2022-09-10 Impact factor: 3.479
Authors: RobRoy L Martin; Benjamin R Kivlan; John J Christoforetti; Andrew B Wolff; Shane J Nho; John P Salvo; Geoff Van Thiel; Dean Matsuda; Dominic S Carreira Journal: J Hip Preserv Surg Date: 2020-02-03
Authors: Jesus Mas Martinez; Javier Sanz-Reig; Carmen Verdu Roman; David Bustamante Suarez de Puga; Enrique Martinez Gimenez; Manuel Morales Santias Journal: Arthrosc Sports Med Rehabil Date: 2020-07-29