4.2 Article

Surgical approach and patient-reported outcomes after total hip replacement

Journal

HIP INTERNATIONAL
Volume 22, Issue 4, Pages 355-361

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.5301/HIP.2012.9455

Keywords

Arthroplasty; Replacement; Hip; Assessments; Patient outcome; Surgical procedure; Operative

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Previous research has mainly focused on how factors such as surgical approach might affect implant survivorship and the incidence of complications. Given the increasing interest in patient-reported outcomes, the purpose of this study is to explore whether surgical approach is associated with patient-reported pain, function, and satisfaction at 1-3 years after primary total hip replacement (THR). Methods: Details of surgical factors were collated from operation notes for all consecutive patients at our centre from 2004-2006. All patients were mailed a questionnaire 1-3 years following surgery that collected WOMAC pain and function scores and the Self-Administered Patient Satisfaction Scale for Primary Hip and Knee Arthroplasty. Of the eligible 1,315 patients, 911 patients returned a completed questionnaire (69% response rate). Multivariable fractional logit models were used to identify whether surgical approach was associated with outcome scores. Results: Surgical approach was found to be a significant predictor of patient-reported outcomes at 1-3 years after surgery, even after controlling for patient-specific factors. A posterior approach was associated with better scores on all three outcome measures. On average, predicted outcome scores for a typical patient with a posterior approach were between 3.5 and 7.2 percentage points higher than an equivalent patient with an anterolateral approach. Interpretation: These findings suggest that clinical decisions concerning surgical approach may have an observable impact on patient-reported levels of pain, function, and satisfaction following THR.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available