| Literature DB >> 32493353 |
Ken Ueoka1, Tamon Kabata2, Yoshitomo Kajino1, Daisuke Inoue1, Takaaki Ohmori1, Takuro Ueno1, Junya Yoshitani1, Yuki Yamamuro1, Hiroyuki Tsuchiya1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A few previous studies have investigated patient satisfaction after total hip arthroplasty (THA) according to the degree of pelvic deformity. This study compared patient-reported outcomes after primary THA for Crowe types III, IV and I dysplasia.Entities:
Keywords: Case control study; Crowe classification; Patient reported outcome; Satisfaction; Total hip arthroplasty
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32493353 PMCID: PMC7271540 DOI: 10.1186/s12891-020-03371-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord ISSN: 1471-2474 Impact factor: 2.362
Fig. 1Flow chart of the study design. Twenty-three patients (32 hips) who underwent THA for Crowe type III/IV were enrolled as the high hip dislocation group (H group). The control group was formed by recruiting data-matched controls per patient in the H group. Data-matching involved matching for age (±10 years), sex, body mass index (±5 kg/m2), and surgical approach (posterior approach). The patients in the H group were divided according to whether femoral shortening osteotomy was performed (FO group) or not (N-FO group). THA: total hip arthroplasty; H group: high hip dislocation group
Fig. 2A 71-year-old woman with left high hip dislocation. Preoperative (a) and postoperative (b) radiographs at 5-year follow up
Fig. 3Sample postoperative questionnaire for THA patients. We sent postal questionnaires to all the patients enrolled in this study. The questionnaire consisted of 13 questions. The VAS was incorporated into the questionnaire. The SF-36 was enclosed in the questionnaire
Patient demographics
| H group (n = 32 hips) | Control (n = 64 hips) | FO group (n = 15 hips) | N-FO group (n = 15 hips) | P-value | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of patients | 23 | 46 | – | 10 | 12 | – |
| Sex (male/female) | 2/21 | 4/42 | 0.686 | 2/8 | 0/12 | 0.195 |
| Unilateral/bilateral | 14/9 | 28/18 | 1.000 | 5/5 | 9/3 | 0.221 |
| Age (years) | 65.3 ± 6.3 | 64.5 ± 8.4 | 0.864 | 69.3 ± 4.5 | 60.8 ± 6.2 | |
| Height (cm) | 146.1 ± 6.5 | 157.3 ± 10.4 | 142.8 ± 6.4 | 150.6 ± 5.4 | ||
| Weight (kg) | 47.9 ± 8.2 | 58.2 ± 12.4 | 48.0 ± 12.0 | 48.8 ± 7.1 | 0.849 | |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 22.0 ± 3.4 | 23.5 ± 3.2 | 0.202 | 23.5 ± 5.4 | 21.5 ± 2.8 | 0.284 |
| Diagnosis (number of hips) | ||||||
| Dysplasia | 31 | 64 | 0.333 | 14 | 15 | 0.500 |
| Other | 1 | 0 | 0.333 | 1 | 0 | 0.500 |
| Average follow-up period (years) | 5.8 ± 2.6 | 5.4 ± 2.4 | 0.557 | 5.4 ± 2.8 | 6.3 ± 2.8 | 0.443 |
| Intraoperative blood loss (mL) | 465.9 ± 295.6 | 245.5 ± 143.0 | 596.0 ± 363.9 | 355.0 ± 212.1 | 0.067 | |
| Surgery time (min) | 252.4 ± 108.0 | 149.5 ± 28.3 | 350.0 ± 124.4 | 177.7 ± 42.8 | ||
| LLD-preoperative (mm) | 24.9 ± 13.9 | 8.1 ± 5.6 | 31.9 ± 16.0 | 18.4 ± 10.0 | ||
| LLD-postoperative (mm) | 9.4 ± 7.7 | 3.0 ± 2.1 | 12.5 ± 9.4 | 7.5 ± 5.6 | 0.140 | |
| Complications | ||||||
| Infection | 2 | 0 | 0.109 | 0 | 2 | 0.286 |
| Dislocation | 1 | 1 | 0.716 | 1 | 0 | 0.455 |
| Intraoperative fracture | 0 | 1 | 0.536 | 0 | 0 | |
| Preoperative JOA score (points) | ||||||
| Pain | 15.5 ± 7.0 | 16.1 ± 6.5 | 0.670 | 15.7 ± 7.9 | 16.0 ± 6.1 | 0.903 |
| ROM | 10.8 ± 4.7 | 12.4 ± 4.0 | 0.081 | 12.4 ± 5.2 | 9.4 ± 3.6 | 0.056 |
| Gait | 8.4 ± 2.9 | 9.3 ± 3.4 | 0.242 | 8.0 ± 2.5 | 9.9 ± 3.3 | 0.559 |
| ADL | 10.9 ± 3.9 | 11.3 ± 3.5 | 0.641 | 10.8 ± 4.3 | 11.1 ± 3.6 | 0.931 |
| Total | 45.8 ± 11.1 | 49.3 ± 10.6 | 0.139 | 47.1 ± 12.0 | 45.2 ± 10.4 | 0.579 |
| Postoperative JOA score (points) | ||||||
| Pain | 37.2 ± 3.0 | 37.7 ± 3.3 | 0.439 | 37.23 ± 3.1 | 37.3 ± 3.1 | 1.000 |
| ROM | 17.4 ± 2.6 | 18.0 ± 2.6 | 0.309 | 17.1 ± 3.3 | 17.7 ± 1.8 | 0.596 |
| Gait | 16.6 ± 3.8 | 17.6 ± 3.0 | 0.191 | 15.8 ± 5.0 | 17.7 ± 2.2 | 0.330 |
| ADL | 16.3 ± 4.1 | 17.6 ± 2.7 | 0.096 | 15.5 ± 4.8 | 17.1 ± 3.4 | 0.314 |
| Total | 87.4 ± 9.1 | 90.8 ± 8.7 | 0.080 | 85.7 ± 10.5 | 89.2 ± 7.7 | 0.327 |
| Postoperative SF-36 (points) | ||||||
| PF | 73.3 ± 19.7 | 70.1 ± 22.3 | 0.568 | 75.0 ± 14.7 | 71.7 ± 24.1 | 0.696 |
| RP | 81.3 ± 19.8 | 79.2 ± 24.2 | 0.728 | 82.9 ± 16.8 | 79.7 ± 22.9 | 0.705 |
| BP | 72.0 ± 22.5 | 63.6 ± 23.2 | 0.158 | 71.0 ± 21.5 | 72.9 ± 24.4 | 0.844 |
| GH | 59.2 ± 19.3 | 60.5 ± 16.7 | 0.780 | 59.2 ± 19.3 | 60.5 ± 16.7 | 0.624 |
| VT | 66.6 ± 19.0 | 65.9 ± 15.4 | 0.875 | 68.8 ± 18.3 | 64.6 ± 20.2 | 0.610 |
| SF | 88.6 ± 18.8 | 87.2 ± 17.0 | 0.763 | 89.8 ± 9.4 | 87.5 ± 25.0 | 0.780 |
| RE | 83.0 ± 21.2 | 83.0 ± 21.3 | 1.000 | 86.4 ± 20.2 | 79.9 ± 22.6 | 0.477 |
| MH | 72.2 ± 20.7 | 77.5 ± 15.1 | 0.228 | 71.4 ± 21.8 | 72.9 ± 20.6 | 0.862 |
The control group included 46 patients (64 hips) who underwent primary THA for Crowe I dysplasia, matched for age, sex, BMI, and surgical approach
Values are expressed as means ± SD or as numbers (n). P-values in bold indicate statistical significance (P < 0.05)
H group high hip dislocation group, FO group femoral shortening osteotomy group, N-FO group non-femoral shortening osteotomy group, THA total hip arthroplasty, BMI body mass index, LLD leg length discrepancy, JOA Japanese Orthopaedic Association, ROM range of motion, ADL activities of daily living, SF-36 Short form-36, PF Physical Functioning, RP Role Physical, BP Bodily Pain, GH General Health, VT Vitality, SF Social Functioning, RE Role Emotional, MH Mental Health, SD standard deviation
The Net promoter score in each group
| Groups | Promoters | Passives | Detractors | NPS |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| H group (n = 23) | 69.5% (n = 16) | 26.1% (n = 6) | 4.3% (n = 1) | |
| Control (n = 46) | 80.4% (n = 37) | 10.9% (n = 5) | 8.7% (n = 4) | |
| FO group (n = 10) | 70.0% (n = 7) | 20.0% (n = 2) | 10.0% (n = 1) | |
| N-FO group (n = 12) | 75.0% (n = 9) | 25.0% (n = 3) | 0% (n = 0) |
On the 0–100 scale, patients scoring above 90 were classified as “promoters”, between 70 and 89 were classified as “passives” and under 70 were classified as “detractors”. The NPS was calculated by subtracting the percentage of “detractors” from the percentage of “promoters”
NPS Net promoter score, FO group femoral shortening osteotomy group, N-FO group non-femoral shortening osteotomy group
Questionnaire results
| H group (23 cases) | Control (46 cases) | P-value | FO group (10 cases) | N-FO group (12 cases) | P-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q1. The reason for receiving THA | ||||||
| 1. Hip pain | 19 | 41 | 0.468 | 7 | 11 | 0.293 |
| 2. Other pain | 9 | 14 | 0.470 | 6 | 3 | 0.192 |
| 3. Walking disorder | 18 | 40 | 0.487 | 8 | 9 | 1.000 |
| 4. LLD | 13 | 9 | 5 | 8 | 0.666 | |
| 5. Limits on ROM at hip joint | 16 | 27 | 0.380 | 7 | 8 | 1.000 |
| Q2. Primary complaint | ||||||
| 1. Hip pain | 15 | 32 | 0.715 | 6 | 8 | 0.546 |
| 2. Other pain | 0 | 3 | 0.546 | 0 | 0 | – |
| 3. Walking disorder | 6 | 5 | 0.161 | 4 | 2 | 0.348 |
| 4. LLD | 1 | 0 | 0.333 | 0 | 1 | 0.545 |
| 5. Limits on ROM at hip joint | 1 | 6 | 0.411 | 0 | 1 | 0.545 |
| Q3. Satisfaction following THA | ||||||
| Points | 90.3 ± 11.3 | 91.5 ± 12.5 | 0.680 | 84.8 ± 13.2 | 94.0 ± 6.6 | 0.057 |
| Rates, % (n/N) | 95.6 (22/23) | 93.5 (43/46) | 0.593 | 90.0 (9/10) | 100.0 (12/12) | 0.455 |
| Q4. Benefits of THA | ||||||
| 1. Hip pain subsided | 19 | 43 | 0.211 | 7 | 11 | 0.226 |
| 2. Other pain subsided | 6 | 12 | 0.071 | 3 | 3 | 0.583 |
| 3. Walking disorder improved | 16 | 38 | 0.216 | 6 | 9 | 0.652 |
| 4. LLD improved | 12 | 9 | 5 | 7 | 0.515 | |
| 5. ROM improved | 12 | 32 | 0.157 | 4 | 7 | 0.392 |
| Q5. Best outcome | ||||||
| 1. Hip pain subsided | 13 | 29 | 0.601 | 6 | 7 | 0.639 |
| 2. Other pain subsided | 1 | 3 | 0.892 | 0 | 1 | 0.545 |
| 3. Walking disorder improved | 6 | 8 | 0.527 | 2 | 3 | 0.594 |
| 4. LLD improved | 2 | 0 | 0.108 | 1 | 1 | 0.714 |
| 5. ROM improved | 1 | 6 | 0.411 | 1 | 0 | 0.455 |
| Q6. Adverse outcomes | ||||||
| 1. Hip pain worsened | 0 | 1 | 0.667 | 0 | 0 | – |
| 2. Other pain worsened | 3 | 4 | 0.435 | 1 | 2 | 0.571 |
| 3. Walking disorder worsened | 3 | 4 | 0.435 | 2 | 0 | 0.195 |
| 4. LLD worsened | 0 | 1 | 0.667 | 0 | 0 | – |
| 5. Limits on ROM worsened | 0 | 3 | 0.290 | 0 | 0 | – |
| 6. None | 17 | 33 | 0.544 | 7 | 10 | 0.229 |
| Q7. Worst outcome | ||||||
| 1. Hip pain worsened | 0 | 1 | 0.667 | 0 | 0 | – |
| 2. Other pain worsened | 3 | 4 | 0.435 | 2 | 1 | 0.429 |
| 3. Walking disorder worsened | 3 | 4 | 0.435 | 2 | 0 | 0.195 |
| 4. LLD worsened | 0 | 1 | 0.667 | 0 | 0 | – |
| 5. Limits on ROM worsened | 0 | 3 | 0.290 | 0 | 0 | – |
| 6. None | 17 | 33 | 0.544 | 6 | 11 | 0.105 |
| Q8. Social problems after THA | ||||||
| 1. High treatment cost | 2 | 2 | 0.596 | 0 | 2 | 0.286 |
| 2. Long length of stay | 4 | 2 | 0.09 | 2 | 2 | 0.632 |
| 3. Serious rehabilitation | 10 | 8 | 7 | 2 | ||
| 4. Difficult return to work | 0 | 4 | 0.293 | 0 | 0 | |
| 5. None | 13 | 32 | 0.284 | 3 | 8 | 0.099 |
| Q9. Worst social problem after THA | ||||||
| 1. High treatment cost | 0 | 1 | 0.667 | 0 | 0 | |
| 2. Long length of stay | 2 | 2 | 0.596 | 0 | 2 | 0.286 |
| 3. Serious rehabilitation | 10 | 7 | 7 | 2 | ||
| 4. Difficult return to work | 0 | 4 | 0.293 | 0 | 0 | |
| 5. None | 11 | 32 | 0.079 | 3 | 8 | 0.099 |
| Q10. Walking indoors | ||||||
| 1. No cane | 20 | 44 | 0.202 | 7 | 12 | 0.078 |
| 2. Cane | 3 | 2 | 0.202 | 3 | 0 | 0.078 |
| 3. A walker | 0 | 0 | – | 0 | 0 | – |
| 4. Wheelchair | 0 | 0 | – | 0 | 0 | – |
| 5. Not walking | 0 | 0 | – | 0 | 0 | – |
| Q11. Walking outdoors | ||||||
| 1. No cane | 18 | 38 | 0.465 | 6 | 11 | 0.105 |
| 2. Cane | 4 | 8 | 0.640 | 3 | 1 | 0.226 |
| 3. A walker | 1 | 0 | 0.333 | 1 | 0 | 0.455 |
| 4. Wheelchair | 0 | 0 | – | 0 | 0 | |
| 5. Not walking | 0 | 0 | – | 0 | 0 | |
| Q12. VAS score (mm) | 14.2 ± 12.9 | 9.3 ± 7.5 | 23.1 ± 14.4 | 6.2 ± 8.0 | ||
| Q13. THA was still the best choice? | ||||||
| 1. Yes | 20 | 39 | 0.559 | 8 | 11 | 0.571 |
| 2. Not sure | 3 | 5 | 0.538 | 2 | 1 | 0.571 |
| 3. No | 0 | 2 | 0.441 | 0 | 0 | – |
Values are expressed as means ± SD, numbers (n), or percentages (n/N). P-values in bold indicate statistical significance (P < 0.05)
H group high hip dislocation group, FO group femoral shortening osteotomy group, N-FO group non-femoral shortening osteotomy group, THA total hip arthroplasty, LLD leg length discrepancy, ROM range of motion, VAS visual analogue scale