Patient-reported outcome after total hip arthroplasty: comparison between lateral and posterior approach: A randomized controlled trial in 80 patients with 12-month follow-up

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

194 Downloads (Pure)

Resumé

Background and purpose - Criticism of the lateral approach (LA) for hip arthroplasty is mainly based on the risk of poor patient-reported outcomes compared to the posterior approach (PA). However, there have been no controlled studies comparing patient-reported outcomes between them. In this randomized controlled trial, we tested the hypothesis that patient-reported outcomes are better in patients who have undergone total hip arthroplasty (THA) with PA than in those who have undergone THA with LA, 12 months postoperatively. Patients and methods - 80 patients with hip osteoarthritis (mean age 61 years) were randomized to THA using PA or the modified direct LA. We recorded outcome measures preoperatively and 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively using the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Physical Function Short Form (HOOS-PS) as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were HOOS-Pain, HOOS-Quality-Of-Life, EQ-5D, UCLA Activity Score, and limping. Results - We found no statistically significant difference in the improvements in HOOS-PS between the treatment groups at 12-month follow-up. All secondary outcomes showed similar results except for limping, where PA patients improved significantly more than LA patients. Interpretation - Contrary to our hypothesis, patients treated with PA did not improve more than patients treated with LA regarding physical function, pain, physical activity, and quality of life 12 months postoperatively. However, limping was more pronounced in the LA patients.

OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftActa Orthopaedica
Vol/bind88
Udgave nummer3
Sider (fra-til)239-247
ISSN1745-3674
DOI
StatusUdgivet - 20. feb. 2017

Fingeraftryk

Hip
Randomized Controlled Trials
Hip Osteoarthritis
Quality of Life
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Exercise

Emneord

  • Hip arthroplasty
  • Surgical approach
  • Patient reported outcomes
  • HOOS
  • EQ-5D
  • UCLA

Citer dette

@article{92c6a518fb8649499c097c20f7611e34,
title = "Patient-reported outcome after total hip arthroplasty: comparison between lateral and posterior approach: A randomized controlled trial in 80 patients with 12-month follow-up",
abstract = "Background and purpose - Criticism of the lateral approach (LA) for hip arthroplasty is mainly based on the risk of poor patient-reported outcomes compared to the posterior approach (PA). However, there have been no controlled studies comparing patient-reported outcomes between them. In this randomized controlled trial, we tested the hypothesis that patient-reported outcomes are better in patients who have undergone total hip arthroplasty (THA) with PA than in those who have undergone THA with LA, 12 months postoperatively. Patients and methods - 80 patients with hip osteoarthritis (mean age 61 years) were randomized to THA using PA or the modified direct LA. We recorded outcome measures preoperatively and 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively using the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Physical Function Short Form (HOOS-PS) as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were HOOS-Pain, HOOS-Quality-Of-Life, EQ-5D, UCLA Activity Score, and limping. Results - We found no statistically significant difference in the improvements in HOOS-PS between the treatment groups at 12-month follow-up. All secondary outcomes showed similar results except for limping, where PA patients improved significantly more than LA patients. Interpretation - Contrary to our hypothesis, patients treated with PA did not improve more than patients treated with LA regarding physical function, pain, physical activity, and quality of life 12 months postoperatively. However, limping was more pronounced in the LA patients.",
keywords = "Hip arthroplasty, Surgical approach, Patient reported outcomes, HOOS, EQ-5D, UCLA",
author = "Signe Rosenlund and Leif Broeng and Anders Holsgaard-Larsen and Carsten Jensen and S{\o}ren Overgaard",
year = "2017",
month = "2",
day = "20",
doi = "10.1080/17453674.2017.1291100",
language = "English",
volume = "88",
pages = "239--247",
journal = "Acta Orthopaedica (Print Edition)",
issn = "1745-3674",
publisher = "Taylor & Francis",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Patient-reported outcome after total hip arthroplasty: comparison between lateral and posterior approach

T2 - A randomized controlled trial in 80 patients with 12-month follow-up

AU - Rosenlund, Signe

AU - Broeng, Leif

AU - Holsgaard-Larsen, Anders

AU - Jensen, Carsten

AU - Overgaard, Søren

PY - 2017/2/20

Y1 - 2017/2/20

N2 - Background and purpose - Criticism of the lateral approach (LA) for hip arthroplasty is mainly based on the risk of poor patient-reported outcomes compared to the posterior approach (PA). However, there have been no controlled studies comparing patient-reported outcomes between them. In this randomized controlled trial, we tested the hypothesis that patient-reported outcomes are better in patients who have undergone total hip arthroplasty (THA) with PA than in those who have undergone THA with LA, 12 months postoperatively. Patients and methods - 80 patients with hip osteoarthritis (mean age 61 years) were randomized to THA using PA or the modified direct LA. We recorded outcome measures preoperatively and 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively using the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Physical Function Short Form (HOOS-PS) as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were HOOS-Pain, HOOS-Quality-Of-Life, EQ-5D, UCLA Activity Score, and limping. Results - We found no statistically significant difference in the improvements in HOOS-PS between the treatment groups at 12-month follow-up. All secondary outcomes showed similar results except for limping, where PA patients improved significantly more than LA patients. Interpretation - Contrary to our hypothesis, patients treated with PA did not improve more than patients treated with LA regarding physical function, pain, physical activity, and quality of life 12 months postoperatively. However, limping was more pronounced in the LA patients.

AB - Background and purpose - Criticism of the lateral approach (LA) for hip arthroplasty is mainly based on the risk of poor patient-reported outcomes compared to the posterior approach (PA). However, there have been no controlled studies comparing patient-reported outcomes between them. In this randomized controlled trial, we tested the hypothesis that patient-reported outcomes are better in patients who have undergone total hip arthroplasty (THA) with PA than in those who have undergone THA with LA, 12 months postoperatively. Patients and methods - 80 patients with hip osteoarthritis (mean age 61 years) were randomized to THA using PA or the modified direct LA. We recorded outcome measures preoperatively and 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively using the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Physical Function Short Form (HOOS-PS) as the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes were HOOS-Pain, HOOS-Quality-Of-Life, EQ-5D, UCLA Activity Score, and limping. Results - We found no statistically significant difference in the improvements in HOOS-PS between the treatment groups at 12-month follow-up. All secondary outcomes showed similar results except for limping, where PA patients improved significantly more than LA patients. Interpretation - Contrary to our hypothesis, patients treated with PA did not improve more than patients treated with LA regarding physical function, pain, physical activity, and quality of life 12 months postoperatively. However, limping was more pronounced in the LA patients.

KW - Hip arthroplasty

KW - Surgical approach

KW - Patient reported outcomes

KW - HOOS

KW - EQ-5D

KW - UCLA

U2 - 10.1080/17453674.2017.1291100

DO - 10.1080/17453674.2017.1291100

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 28464754

VL - 88

SP - 239

EP - 247

JO - Acta Orthopaedica (Print Edition)

JF - Acta Orthopaedica (Print Edition)

SN - 1745-3674

IS - 3

ER -