The extent of first-time THA revision is not associated with patient-reported outcomes at 1-year follow-up: a study of 426 aseptic revisions
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2023.16906Keywords:
Arthroplasty, Hip, PROMs, RevisionAbstract
Background and purpose: Studies evaluating pain and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) related to type of revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) are sparse. Our aim was to compare pain, physical function, quality of life, and patient satisfaction among different types of aseptic rTHA at 1-year follow-up.
Patients and methods: We performed a retrospective study from an institutional registry with 426 primary THAs scheduled for rTHA in a fast-track setting between 2012 and 2021. Revisions were grouped by 4 types of surgery: head and/or liner exchange, cup revision, stem revision, and cup and stem revision. Pain during mobilization and at rest (NRS 0–10), physical function (HOOS-PS and HHS) and health-related quality of life (EQ-5D) were registered preoperatively, at 3 months, and 1 year postoperatively. Patient satisfaction was surveyed at the 1-year follow-up by 2 questions related to hip function and willingness to undergo the same surgery.
Results: With a response rate of 85%, all outcomes improved in the 4 groups but there were neither statistical nor clinical differences between types of rTHA at 1-year follow-up. NRS pain during mobilization improved overall by 2.7 (95% confidence interval 2.3–3.1) until 1-year follow-up, both being statistically significant and clinically relevant. The improvements were mainly seen at the 3-month follow-up, with minor progress observed at 1 year. About 80% reported improved hip function and willingness to undergo the surgery again at the 1-year follow-up.
Conclusion: Significant improvements in NRS pain and PROMS were found in all groups after rTHA, with no group differences at 1 year. This is relevant preoperative information for both clinicians and patients eligible for rTHA.
Downloads
References
Pabinger C, Lothaller H, Portner N, Geissler A. Projections of hip arthroplasty in OECD countries up to 2050. Hip Int 2018; 28(5): 498-506. doi: 10.1177/1120700018757940. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1120700018757940
Wilson I, Bohm E, Lübbeke A, Lyman S, Overgaard S, Rolfson O, et al. Orthopaedic registries with patient-reported outcome measures. EFORT Open Rev 2019; 4(6): 357-67. doi: 10.1302/2058-5241.4.180080. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/2058-5241.4.180080
Ray G S, Ekelund P, Nemes S, Rolfson O, Mohaddes M. Changes in health-related quality of life are associated with patient satisfaction following total hip replacement: an analysis of 69,083 patients in the Swedish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop 2019:1-5. doi: 10.1080/17453674.2019.1685284. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2019.1685284
Siddiqi A, Warren J, Anis H K, Barsoum W K, Bloomfield M R, Briskin I, et al. Do patient-reported outcome measures improve after aseptic revision total hip arthroplasty? Hip Int 2021: 11207000211036320. doi: 10.1177/11207000211036320. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/11207000211036320
Swarup I, Henn C M, Gulotta L V, Henn R F 3rd. Patient expectations and satisfaction in orthopaedic surgery: a review of the literature. J Clin Orthop Trauma 2019; 10(4): 755-60. doi: 10.1016/j.jcot.2018.08.008. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcot.2018.08.008
Husted H. Fast-track hip and knee arthroplasty: clinical and organizational aspects. Acta Orthop 2012; 83(346, Suppl.): 1-39. doi: 10.3109/17453674.2012.700593. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2012.700593
Lindberg-Larsen M, Petersen P B, Corap Y, Gromov K, Jørgensen C C, Kehlet H. Fast-track revision hip arthroplasty: a multicenter cohort study on 1,345 elective aseptic major component revision hip arthroplasties. Acta Orthop 2022; 93: 341-7. doi: 10.2340/17453674.2022.2196. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2022.2196
Hamilton D F, Lane J V, Gaston P, Patton J T, Macdonald D, Simpson A H, et al. What determines patient satisfaction with surgery? A prospective cohort study of 4709 patients following total joint replacement. BMJ Open 2013; 3(4): e002525. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-002525. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2012-002525
Wik T S, Klaksvik J, Husby O S, Rasch A, Winther S B. Patient-reported outcome after primary and aseptic revision hip arthroplasty: 1-year follow-up of 3,559 primary and 406 revision THAs in an institutional registry. Acta Orthop 2022; 93: 132-7. doi: 10.2340/17453674.2021.852. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2021.852
Innocenti M, Smulders K, Willems J H, Goosen J H M, van Hellemondt G. Patient-reported outcome measures, complication rates, and re-revision rates are not associated with the indication for revision total hip arthroplasty: a prospective evaluation of 647 consecutive patients. Bone Joint J 2022; 104-b(7): 859-66. doi: 10.1302/0301-620x.104b7.Bjj-2021-1739.R1. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.104B7.BJJ-2021-1739.R1
Winther S B, Foss O A, Wik T S, Davis S P, Engdal M, Jessen V, et al. 1-year follow-up of 920 hip and knee arthroplasty patients after implementing fast-track. Acta Orthop 2015; 86(1): 78-85. doi: 10.3109/17453674.2014.957089. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2014.957089
Tubach F, Ravaud P, Martin-Mola E, Awada H, Bellamy N, Bombardier C, et al. Minimum clinically important improvement and patient acceptable symptom state in pain and function in rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, chronic back pain, hand osteoarthritis, and hip and knee osteoarthritis: results from a prospective multinational study. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2012; 64(11): 1699-707. doi: 10.1002/acr.21747. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.21747
van der Wees P J, Wammes J J, Akkermans R P, Koetsenruijter J, Westert G P, van Kampen A, et al. Patient-reported health outcomes after total hip and knee surgery in a Dutch University Hospital setting: results of twenty years clinical registry. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2017; 18(1): 97. doi: 10.1186/s12891-017-1455-y. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-017-1455-y
Zampelis V, Ornstein E, Franzén H, Atroshi I. A simple visual analog scale for pain is as responsive as the WOMAC, the SF-36, and the EQ-5D in measuring outcomes of revision hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop 2014; 85(2): 128-32. doi: 10.3109/17453674.2014.887951. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2014.887951
Postler A E, Beyer F, Wegner T, Lutzner J, Hartmann A, Ojodu I, et al. Patient-reported outcomes after revision surgery compared to primary total hip arthroplasty. Hip Int 2017; 27(2): 180-6. doi: 10.5301/hipint.5000436. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5301/hipint.5000436
Adelani M A, Mall N A, Nyazee H, Clohisy J C, Barrack R L, Nunley R M. Revision total hip arthroplasty with retained acetabular component. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2014; 96(12): 1015-20. doi: 10.2106/jbjs.L.01177. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.L.01177
Korbee S, Van Kempen R, Van Wensen R, Van der Steen M, Liu W Y. Measurement properties of the HOOS-PS in revision total hip arthroplasty: a validation study on validity, interpretability, and responsiveness in 136 revision hip arthroplasty patients. Acta Orthop 2022; 93: 742-9. doi: 10.2340/17453674.2022.4572. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2022.4572
Katakam A, Hosseinzadeh S, Humphrey T J, Collins A, Shin D, Melnic C M, et al. Different designs of proximal femoral stems for total hip arthroplasty: mid-term clinical and patient-reported functional outcomes. Cureus 2021; 13(11): e19745. doi: 10.7759/cureus.19745. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.19745
Tubach F, Ravaud P, Beaton D, Boers M, Bombardier C, Felson D T, et al. Minimal clinically important improvement and patient acceptable symptom state for subjective outcome measures in rheumatic disorders. J Rheumatol 2007; 34(5): 1188-93. https://www.jrheum.org/content/jrheum/34/5/1188.full.pdf.
Walters S J, Brazier J E. Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D. Qual Life Res 2005; 14(6): 1523-32. doi: 10.1007/s11136-004-7713-0. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-004-7713-0
Singh J A, Schleck C, Harmsen S, Lewallen D. Clinically important improvement thresholds for Harris Hip Score and its ability to predict revision risk after primary total hip arthroplasty. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2016; 17: 256. doi: 10.1186/s12891-016-1106-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-016-1106-8
Ramkumar P N, Navarro S M, Haeberle H S, Ng M, Piuzzi N S, Spindler K P. No difference in outcomes 12 and 24 months after lower extremity total joint arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33(7): 2322-9. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2018.02.056. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2018.02.056
Hamilton D F, Simpson P M, Patton J T, Howie C R, Burnett R. Aseptic revision knee arthroplasty with total stabilizer prostheses achieves similar functional outcomes to primary total knee arthroplasty at 2 years: a longitudinal cohort Study. J Arthroplasty 2017; 32(4): 1234-40.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2016.10.028. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2016.10.028
Additional Files
Published
How to Cite
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Siri B Winther, Jomar Klaksvik, Olav A Foss, Tina Strømdal Wik, Tarjei Egeberg, Otto S Husby
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
