Dataset Information

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

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.

SUBMITTER: Rosenlund S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5434589 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Rosenlund Signe S Broeng Leif L Holsgaard-Larsen Anders A Jensen Carsten C Overgaard Søren S

Acta orthopaedica 20170218 3

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 L ...[more]

PMID: 28464754

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundComparisons of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) based on surgical approach for total hip arthroplasty (THA) in the United States are limited to series from single surgeons or institutions. Using prospective data from a large, multicenter study, we compare preoperative to postoperative changes in PROs between posterior, transgluteal, and anterior surgical approaches to THA.MethodsPatient-reported function, global health, and pain were systematically collected preoperatively and at 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively from patients undergoing primary THA at 26 sites participating in the Comparative Effectiveness of Pulmonary Embolism Prevention After Hip and Knee Replacement (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02810704). Outcomes consisted of the brief Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Health score, and the Numeric Pain Rating Scale. Operative approaches were grouped by surgical plane relative to the abductor musculature as being either anterior, transgluteal, or posterior.ResultsBetween 12/12/2016 and 08/31/2019, outcomes from 3018 eligible participants were examined. At 1 month, the transgluteal cohort had a 2.2-point lower improvement in Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcomes Score (95% confidence interval, 0.40-4.06; P = .017) and a 1.3-point lower improvement in Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Health score (95% confidence interval, 0.48-2.04; P = .002) compared to posterior approaches. There was no significant difference in improvement between anterior and posterior approaches. At 3 and 6 months, no clinically significant differences in PRO improvement were observed between groups.ConclusionPROs 6 months following THA dramatically improved regardless of the plane of surgical approach, suggesting that choice of surgical approach can be left to the discretion of surgeons and patients without fear of differential early outcomes.

Project description:Total hip replacement provides pain relief and improves physical function and quality of life in patients with end-stage hip osteoarthritis. The incidence of hip replacement operations is expected to increase due to the growing elderly population. Overall, the posterior approach and lateral approach are the two most commonly used approaches for hip replacement operations. The posterior approach is associated with an increased risk of revision due to dislocations, and some studies have shown that the lateral approach is associated with reduced patient-reported outcomes, including physical function and pain; however, this has not been investigated in a randomised controlled trial with a twelve-month follow-up. We hypothesized that the lateral approach has an inferior outcome in patient-reported outcome compared with the posterior approach after one year.The trial is a prospective, double blinded, parallel-group controlled trial with balanced randomisation [1: 1]. Patients with hip osteoarthritis scheduled for hip replacement surgery, aged 45-70 years, will be consecutively recruited and randomised into two groups. Group A will receive hip replacement using the posterior approach, and Group B will receive hip replacement using the lateral approach. The primary end-point for assessing the outcome of the two interventions will be twelve months after surgery. Follow-up will also be performed after three and six months. The primary outcome is Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, subscale of "Physical function Short form" (HOOS-PS) Secondary outcome measures include two other subscales of HOOS ("Pain" and "Hip related Quality of Life"), physical activity level (UCLA activity score), limping (HHS) and general health status (EQ-5D-3L). Explorative outcomes include physical function test, 3D-gait-analysis and muscle strength.To our knowledge, this is the first randomised controlled trial comparing the posterior approach with the lateral approach with patient reported outcome as the primary outcome and with a twelve-month follow-up.Clinicaltrial.gov: NCT01616667.

Project description:BackgroundSupercapsular Percutaneously Assisted total hip arthroplasty (SuperPATH approach) is a relatively new minimal invasive approach which has been associated with encouraging postoperative outcomes. The aim of this study is to compare the minimal invasive (MIS) SuperPATHapproach with the standard modified Hardinge approach at the base of muscle damage due to serum markers, functional results and other perioperative and postoperative data.Material and methodsForty eight (48) consecutive patients undergone primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) by the same surgeon (GD), were enrolled in our study. From this study population, the modified Hardinge approach was performed in 23 patients and the SuperPATH approach was performed in 25 patients. Soft tissue impairment was studied based on three representative markers, C-reactive-protein (CRP) and two enzymes, creatine kinase (CK) and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH). We measured these markers 10 min after surgery, on 1st and 2nd postoperative day. The levels of the perceived pain were evaluated according to the Visual Analog Scale/Numerical Rating Scale (VAS/NRS) score which was registered 6 h, 12 h, 1 day and 2 days postoperatively. The functional and clinical evaluation of the patients was achieved with Harris Hip Score (HHS), Charnley's Hip score, EuroQol (EQ-5D)-(EQ-100), Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and neuropathic pain questionnaire (DN-4) 6 months and 1 year postoperatively. The rest of the collected data included patient's age, gender, body mass index (BMI), other comorbitities, the American Society of Anesthiologists score (ASA), Charlson Index score, the pre-operative diagnosis, implant positioning through radiographic evaluation, the type of anesthesia, the days of hospitalization, the operating time, incision length, blood loss and blood transfusion requirements and complication rates.ResultsSuperPATH approach was related with statistically considerable lower levels of CRP at 10 min (p = 0,001) and at 24 h (p = 0,047) postoperatively, as well as lower LDH levels in all time points postoperatively. It was also associated with shorter incision length (p < 0.001), longer operating time (p < 0.001), higher mean cup inclination p < 0.001, decreased postoperative pain levels the first 6 and 12 h (p < 0.001) and relatively better clinical and functional results 6 months after surgery, but not at 12 months.ConclusionOur study revealed some advantages in favor of the SuperPATH approach comparing with the standard modified Hardinge approach, mainly in terms of less muscle damage and less perceived pain postoperatively. More research is required in order to further elucidate its efficacy.

Dataset Information

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

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets