Roy H Lan1, Jack W Bell1, Linsen T Samuel2, Atul F Kamath3. 1. College of Medicine, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, 910 Madison Ave, Memphis, TN, 38163, USA. 2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Center for Hip Preservation, Orthopaedic and Rheumatologic Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, 9500 Euclid Avenue Mail Code A40, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA. 3. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Center for Hip Preservation, Orthopaedic and Rheumatologic Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, 9500 Euclid Avenue Mail Code A40, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA. kamatha@ccf.org.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Consensus has not been reached regarding ideal outcome measures for total hip arthroplasty (THA) clinical evaluation and research. The goal of this review was to analyze the trends in outcome metrics within the THA literature and to discuss the potential impact of instrument heterogeneity on clinical practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A PubMed search of all manuscripts related to THA from January 2005 to December 2019 was performed. Statistical and linear regression analyses were performed for individual outcome metrics as a proportion of total THA publications over time. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant increase in studies utilizing outcomes metrics between 2005 and 2019 (15.1-29.5%; P < 0.001; R2 = 98.1%). Within the joint-specific subcategory, use of the Harris Hip Score (HHS) significantly decreased from 2005 to 2019 (82.8-57.3%; P < 0.001), use of the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS) significantly increased (0-6.7%; P < 0.001), and the modified HHS significantly increased (0-10.5%; P < 0.001). In the quality of life subcategory, EQ-5D demonstrated a significant increase in usage (0-34.8%; P < 0.001), while Short Form-36 significantly decreased (100% vs. 27.3%; P = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: The utilization of outcome-reporting metrics in THA has continued to increase, resulting in added complexity within the literature. The utilization rates of individual instruments have shifted over the past 15 years. Additional study is required to determine which specific instruments are recommended.
INTRODUCTION: Consensus has not been reached regarding ideal outcome measures for total hip arthroplasty (THA) clinical evaluation and research. The goal of this review was to analyze the trends in outcome metrics within the THA literature and to discuss the potential impact of instrument heterogeneity on clinical practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A PubMed search of all manuscripts related to THA from January 2005 to December 2019 was performed. Statistical and linear regression analyses were performed for individual outcome metrics as a proportion of total THA publications over time. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant increase in studies utilizing outcomes metrics between 2005 and 2019 (15.1-29.5%; P < 0.001; R2 = 98.1%). Within the joint-specific subcategory, use of the Harris Hip Score (HHS) significantly decreased from 2005 to 2019 (82.8-57.3%; P < 0.001), use of the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS) significantly increased (0-6.7%; P < 0.001), and the modified HHS significantly increased (0-10.5%; P < 0.001). In the quality of life subcategory, EQ-5D demonstrated a significant increase in usage (0-34.8%; P < 0.001), while Short Form-36 significantly decreased (100% vs. 27.3%; P = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: The utilization of outcome-reporting metrics in THA has continued to increase, resulting in added complexity within the literature. The utilization rates of individual instruments have shifted over the past 15 years. Additional study is required to determine which specific instruments are recommended.
Authors: Man Hung; Charles L Saltzman; Tom Greene; Maren W Voss; Jerry Bounsanga; Yushan Gu; Mike B Anderson; Christopher L Peters; Jeremy Gililland; Christopher E Pelt Journal: J Orthop Res Date: 2017-10-09 Impact factor: 3.494
Authors: Ilda B Molloy; Taylor M Yong; Aakash Keswani; Benjamin J Keeney; Wayne E Moschetti; Adriana P Lucas; David S Jevsevar Journal: J Arthroplasty Date: 2019-11-13 Impact factor: 4.757
Authors: Dariusch Arbab; Johannes H M van Ochten; Christoph Schnurr; Bertil Bouillon; Dietmar König Journal: Rheumatol Int Date: 2017-10-05 Impact factor: 2.631
Authors: Ian Wilson; Eric Bohm; Anne Lübbeke; Stephen Lyman; Søren Overgaard; Ola Rolfson; Annette W-Dahl; Mark Wilkinson; Michael Dunbar Journal: EFORT Open Rev Date: 2019-06-03