The purpose of this study was to determine patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) changes in: (1) pain, function and global health; and (2) predictors of PROMs in patients undergoing aseptic revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) using a multilevel model with patients nested within surgeon.
Methods:
A prospective cohort of 216 patients with baseline and 1-year PROMs who underwent aseptic rTHA between January 2016 and December 2017 were analysed. The most common indication for rTHA was aseptic loosening, instability, and implant failure. The PROMs included in this study were HOOS Pain and HOOS Physical Function Short-form (PS), Veterans RAND-12 Physical Component Score (VR-12 PCS), and VR-12 Mental Component Score (MCS). Multivariable linear regression models were constructed for predicting 1-year PROMs.
Results:
Mean 1-year PROMs improvement for aseptic revisions were 30.4 points for HOOS Pain and 22.1 points for HOOS PS. Predictors of better pain relief were patients with higher baseline pain scores. Predictors of better 1-year function were patients with higher baseline function and patients with a posterolateral hip surgical approach during revision. Although VR-12 PCS scores had an overall improvement, nearly 50% of patients saw no improvement or had worse physical component scores. Only 30.7% of patients reported improvements in VR-12 MCS.
Conclusions:
Overall, patients undergoing aseptic rTHA improved in pain and function PROMs at 1 year. Although global health assessment improved overall, nearly half of aseptic rTHA patients reported no change in physical/mental health status. The associations highlighted in this study can help guide the shared decision-making process by setting expectations before aseptic revision THA.
SloanMPremkumarAShethNP. Projected volume of primary total joint arthroplasty in the U.S., 2014 to 2030. J Bone Joint Surg Am2018; 100: 1455–1460.
2.
RajaeeSSCampbellJCMirochaJ, et al. Increasing burden of total hip arthroplasty revisions in patients between 45 and 64 years of age. J Bone Joint Surg Am2018; 100: 448–458.
3.
BadarudeenSShuACOngKL, et al. Complications after revision total hip arthroplasty in the Medicare population. J Arthroplasty2017; 32: 1954–1958.
4.
McGeeASJohnsonJLPaulKD, et al. Risk factors for readmission following revision total hip arthroplasty in patients undergoing surgery for noninfective causes. Cureus2018; 10: e2934.
5.
KurtzSMLauEWatsonH, et al. Economic burden of periprosthetic joint infection in the United States. J Arthroplasty2012; 27(Suppl.): 61–65.e1.
6.
WaddellJPMortonJGriffithKA, et al. Comparison of primary and revision total hip replacement. Orthop Proc2005; 87-B(Supp. III): 360–361.
7.
MahomedNNBarrettJAKatzJN, et al. Rates and outcomes of primary and revision total hip replacement in the United States medicare population. J Bone Joint Surg Am2003; 85: 27–32.
8.
KloucheSSarialiEMamoudyP. Total hip arthroplasty revision due to infection: a cost analysis approach. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res2010; 96: 124–132.
9.
BerryDJTrousdaleRTDennisDA, et al. Revision total hip and knee arthroplasty. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2012.
10.
BrownTSMcLaughlinRJBerryDJ, et al. What is the survivorship of revision surgery performed for the chronically dislocated THA?Clin Orthop Relat Res2019; 477: 374–379.
11.
BrownNMTetreaultMCiprianoCA, et al. Modular tapered implants for severe femoral bone loss in THA: reliable osseointegration but frequent complications. Clin Orthop Relat Res2015; 473: 555–560.
12.
SquitieriLBozicKJPusicAL. The role of patient-reported outcome measures in value-based payment reform. Value Health2017; 20: 834–836.
13.
WilsonIBohmELubbekeA, et al. Orthopaedic registries with patient-reported outcome measures. EFORT Open Rev2019; 4: 357–367.
14.
SiljanderMPMcQuiveyKSFahsAM, et al. Current trends in patient-reported outcome measures in total joint arthroplasty: a study of 4 major orthopaedic journals. J Arthroplasty2018; 33: 3416–3421.
15.
RolfsonOBohmEFranklinP, et al. Patient-reported outcome measures in arthroplasty registries: report of the Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Working Group of the International Society of Arthroplasty Registries Part II. Recommendations for selection, administration, and analysis. Acta Orthop2016; 87(Suppl. 1): 9–23.
16.
EtkinCDSpringerBD. The American Joint Replacement Registry–the first 5 years. Arthroplast Today2017; 3: 67–69.
17.
PorterMArmstrongRHowardP, et al. Orthopaedic registries - the UK view (National Joint Registry): impact on practice. EFORT Open Rev2019; 4: 377–390.
18.
de SteigerRNGravesSE. Orthopaedic registries: the Australian experience. EFORT Open Rev2019; 4: 409–415.
19.
GravesSCDropkinBMKeeneyBJ, et al. Does surgical approach affect patient-reported function after primary THA?Clin Orthop Relat Res2016; 474: 971–981.
20.
LindgrenJVWretenbergPKärrholmJ, et al. Patient-reported outcome is influenced by surgical approach in total hip replacement: a study of the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register including 42,233 patients. Bone Joint J2014; 96-B: 590–596.
21.
TaliaAJCoetzeeCTiroshO, et al. Comparison of outcome measures and complication rates following three different approaches for primary total hip arthroplasty: a pragmatic randomised controlled trial. Trials2018; 19: 13.
22.
DurstASpaceyKKhanWS. Advances in bearing surfaces of total hip arthroplasty. In: IyerKMKhanWS (eds) General principles of orthopaedics and trauma. London: Springer-Verlag, 2019, pp.739–746.
23.
Beltrán-SánchezHSonejiSCrimminsEM. Past, present, and future of healthy life expectancy. Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med2015; 5: a025957.
24.
PiuzziNSStrnadGEsaWA, et al. The main predictors of length of stay after total knee arthroplasty: patient-related or procedure-related risk factors. J Bone Joint Surg Am2019; 101: 1093–1101.
25.
ClevelandOPiuzziNSStrnadG, et al. Implementing a scientifically valid, cost-effective, and scalable data collection system at point of care: the Cleveland Clinic OME Cohort. J Bone Joint Surg Am2019; 101: 458–464.
26.
HarrisPATaylorRThielkeR, et al. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)-a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform2009; 42: 377–381.
27.
NilsdotterAKLohmanderLSKlässboM, et al. Hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score (HOOS)–validity and responsiveness in total hip replacement. BMC Musculoskelet Disord2003; 4: 10.
28.
PaulsenARoosEMPedersenAB, et al. Minimal clinically important improvement (MCII) and patient-acceptable symptom state (PASS) in total hip arthroplasty (THA) patients 1 year postoperatively. Acta Orthop2014; 85: 39–48.
29.
DavisAMPerruccioAVCanizaresM, et al. The development of a short measure of physical function for hip OA HOOS-Physical Function Shortform (HOOS-PS): an OARSI/OMERACT initiative. Osteoarthritis Cartilage2008; 16: 551–559.
30.
SchaletBDRothrockNEHaysRD, et al. Linking veterans RAND 12-item health survey (VR-12) to the PROMIS® Global Health Scale. J Gen Intern Med2015; 30: 1524–1530.
31.
LevinJMKhlopasASodhiN, et al. The association between readmission and patient experience in a total hip arthroplasty population. J Arthroplasty2018; 33: 1668–1674.
32.
von ElmEAltmanDGEggerM, et al. The strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Int J Surg2014; 12: 1495–1499.
33.
CharlsonMEPompeiPAlesKL, et al. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis1987; 40: 373–383.
34.
KazisLEMillerDRSkinnerKM, et al. Patient-reported measures of health: the veterans health study. J Ambul Care Manage2004; 27: 70–83.
35.
PostlerAEBeyerFWegnerT, et al. Patient-reported outcomes after revision surgery compared to primary total hip arthroplasty. Hip Int2017; 27: 180–186.
36.
LenguerrandEWyldeVGooberman-HillR, et al. Trajectories of pain and function after primary hip and knee arthroplasty: the ADAPT cohort study. PLoS One2016; 11: e0149306.
37.
SinghJALewallenDG. Operative diagnosis for revision total hip arthroplasty is associated with patient-reported outcomes (PROs). BMC Musculoskelet Disord2013; 14: 210.
38.
DavisAMAgnidisZBadleyE, et al. Predictors of functional outcome two years following revision hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am2006; 88: 685–691.
39.
BiringGSMasriBAGreidanusNV, et al. Predictors of quality of life outcomes after revision total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br2007; 89: 1446–1451.
40.
GordonMGreeneMFrumentoP, et al. Age- and health-related quality of life after total hip replacement. Acta Orthop2014; 85: 244–249.
41.
PetersRMvan BeersLWvan SteenbergenLN, et al. Similar superior patient-reported outcome measures for anterior and posterolateral approaches after total hip arthroplasty: postoperative patient-reported outcome measure improvement after 3 months in 12,774 primary total hip arthroplasties using the anterior, anterolateral, straight lateral, or posterolateral approach. J Arthroplasty2018; 33: 1786–1793.
42.
OzakiYBabaTHommaY, et al. Posterior versus direct anterior approach in total hip arthroplasty: difference in patient-reported outcomes measured with the forgotten joint score-12. SICOT J2018; 4: 54.
43.
BenditzAJansenPSchaibleJ, et al. Psychological factors as risk factors for poor hip function after total hip arthroplasty. Ther Clin Risk Manag2017; 13: 237–244.
44.
RamkumarPNNavarroSMHaeberleHS, et al. No difference in outcomes 12 and 24 months after lower extremity total joint arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty2018; 33: 2322–2329.
45.
BengtssonADonahueGSNemesS, et al. Consistency in patient-reported outcomes after total hip replacement: a 6-year registry follow-up of 15,755 patients. Acta Orthop2017; 88: 484–489.
46.
NilsdotterABremanderA. Measures of hip function and symptoms: Harris Hip Score (HHS), Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS), Oxford Hip Score (OHS), Lequesne Index of Severity for Osteoarthritis of the Hip (LISOH), and American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS) Hip and Knee Questionnaire. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken)2011; 63(Suppl. 11): S200–S207.
