Influence of preoperative variables on total hip arthroplasty results | Revista Española de Cirugía Ortopédica y Traumatología (English Edition)

Article information

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate the influence of certain preoperative variables (comorbidity, gender, age, aetiology, marital status or surgeon) on the results of the total hip arthroplasty (THA), and also to find out if there is agreement between the opinion of the patient and the surgeon when the final result is obtained.

Material and methods

The results of 100 of the same type of THA were analysed retrospectively using three methods: a clinical evaluation scale (Johnston protocol); the SF-36 quality of life scale, and a visual analogue scale that could assess the differences in scoring between the patient and the surgeon for the residual pain and the satisfaction obtained.

Results

The age, the sex of the patient or the type of arthrosis did not influence the final result (p>.05). Married patients presented a greater vitality (p=.01) than those not married, and those with greater preoperative comorbidity had more social activity after the surgery (p=.04). The patients showed more pain and less satisfaction than those noted by the surgeon, with more striking significant differences (p<.05) in the group of patients who showed higher levels of pain and lower levels of satisfaction with a significant linear regression (p<.05).

Discussion

We have found a discrepancy in the evaluation of the results of total hip arthroplasties between the surgeon and the patient, particularly regarding the residual pain, the more pain there was the less satisfied was the patient. In general, it could be said that the surgeon is happier with the result of the procedure than the patient.

Keywords:

Total hip arthroplasty

Outcomes

Health-related quality of life

Resumen

Objetivo

Valorar la influencia de determinadas variables preoperatorias (comorbilidad, sexo, edad, etiología, estado civil o cirujano) en los resultados de las artroplastias totales de cadera y comparar si hay concordancia entre la opinión del paciente y del cirujano en cuanto al resultado obtenido.

Material y método

Hemos analizado retrospectivamente los resultados de 100 artroplastias totales de cadera del mismo modelo, mediante tres sistemas de evaluación: el protocolo de Johnston, el SF-36 y una escala analógica visual que permitió valorar las diferencias entre el paciente y el cirujano en cuanto al dolor residual y la satisfacción obtenida.

Resultados

La edad, el sexo del paciente o el tipo de artrosis no influyeron en el resultado final (p > 0,05). Los pacientes casados presentaron una mayor vitalidad (p = 0,01) que los no casados y aquellos con mayor comorbilidad preoperatoria tuvieron mayor función social tras la cirugía (p = 0,04). Los pacientes mostraron más dolor y menor satisfacción que los anotados por su cirujano, con diferencias significativas (p < 0,05) más llamativas en los pacientes que mostraban niveles más altos de dolor y más bajos de satisfacción con una regresión lineal significativa (p < 0,05).

Discusión

Determinadas variables pueden modificar los resultados de las artroplastias de cadera. Existe una discordancia en la valoración de los resultados de las artroplastias de cadera entre paciente y cirujano, mayor cuanto más elevado es el dolor o menor la satisfacción del paciente. El cirujano valora mejor el resultado del procedimiento que el propio paciente.

Palabras clave:

Artroplastia total de cadera

Valoración de resultados

Calidad de vida

Full text is only aviable in PDF

References

[1.]

D. Hernandez Vaquero, J.L. Barrera Cadenas.

Sistemas de evaluación de los resultados en las artroplastias.

Rev Ortop Traumatol, 43 (1999), pp. 245-251

[2.]

R. Merle D’Aubigne, M. Postel.

Functional results of hip Arthroplasty with acrylic protesis.

J Bone Joint Surg Am, 36A (1954), pp. 451-475

[3.]

C.B. Larson.

Rating scale for hip disabilities.

Clin Orthop Relat Res, 31 (1963), pp. 85-93

Medline

[4.]

W.H. Harris.

Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: Treatment by mold arthroplasty and results study using a new method of result evaluation.

J Bone Joint Surg Am, 51A (1969), pp. 737-755

[5.]

J. Charnley.

The long-term results of low-friction arthroplasty of the hip performed as a primary intervention.

J Bone Joint Surg Br, 54B (1972), pp. 61-76

[6.]

B.F. Kavanagh, D. Ilstrup, R.H. Fitzgerald Jr..

Revision total hip arthroplasty.

J Bone Joint Surg Am, 67A (1985), pp. 517-526

[7.]

R.C. Johnston, R.H. Fitzgerald Jr., W.H. Harris, R. Poss, M.E. Muller, C.B. Sledge.

Clinical and radiographic evaluation of total hip replacement. A standard system of terminology for reporting results.

J Bone Joint Surg Am, 72A (1990), pp. 161-168

[8.]

E.L. Kaplan, P. Meier.

Non parametric estimation from incomplete observation.

J Am Stat Asoc, 53 (1958), pp. 457-481

[9.]

E. Gómez Barrena.

Analisis de resultados finales en Cirugía Ortopédica y Traumatología.

Rev Ortop Traumatol, 41 (1997), pp. 613-618

[10.]

J. Sánchez Sotelo.

Instrumentos de valoración del estado de salud en Traumatología y Cirugía Ortopédica.

Rev Ortop Traumatol, 48 (2004), pp. 304-314

[11.]

J.E. Ware, C.D. Sherbourne.

The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36).

Med Care, 30 (1992), pp. 473-483

Medline

[12.]

F. Angst, A. Aeschlimann, B.A. Michel, G. Stucki.

Minimal clinically important rehabilitation effects in patients with osteoarthritis of the lower extremities.

J Rheumatol, 29 (2002), pp. 131-138

Medline

[13.]

P.E. Bijur, W. Silver, E.J. Gallagher.

Reliability of the visual analog scale for measurement of acute pain.

Acad Emerg Med, 8 (2001), pp. 1153-1157

Medline

[14.]

F. Salaffi, A. Stancati, C.A. Silvestri, A. Ciapetti, W. Grassi.

Minimal clinically important changes in chronic musculoskeletal pain intensity measured on a numerical rating scale.

Eur J Pain, 8 (2004), pp. 283-291

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpain.2003.09.004 | Medline

[15.]

J.R. Lieberman, F. Dorey, P. Shekelle, L. Schumacher, B.J. Thomas, D.J. Kilgus, et al.

Differences between patients′ and physicians′ evaluations of outcome after total hip arthroplasty.

J Bone Joint Surg Am, 78A (1996), pp. 835-838

[16.]

R.B. Brokelman, C.J. Van Loon, W.J. Rijnberg.

Patient versus surgeon satisfaction after total hip arthroplasty.

J Bone Joint Surg Br, 85B (2003), pp. 495-498

[17.]

D. Hernández Vaquero, J. Cervero-Suárez, M. Cima Suárez, M.C. Cuervo-Olay, J.M. Fernández Carreira.

Resultados de las artroplastias de rodilla. ¿Coinciden la opinión del cirujano y la del paciente?.

Rev Ortop Traumatol, 52 (2008), pp. 295-299

[18.]

J. Alonso, L. Prieto, J.M. Anto.

La versión española del SF-36 Health Survey (Cuestionario de Salud SF-36): Un instrumento para la medida de los resultados clínicos.

Med Clin (Barc), 104 (1995), pp. 771-776

[19.]

R Development Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. (2007). ISBN 3-900051-07-0, URL. Available from: http://www.R-project.org.

[20.]

W.N. Venables, B.D. Ripley.

Modern Applied Statistics with S.

Fourth Edition, Springer, (2002),

[21.]

L. Lebart, A. Morineau, M. Piron.

Statistique exploratoire multidimensionnelle.

Dunod, (1995),

[22.]

J.D. Fitzgerald, E.J. Orav, T.H. Lee, E.R. Marcantonio, R. Poss, L. Goldman, et al.

Patient quality of life during the 12 months following joint replacement surgery.

Arthritis Rheum, 51 (2004), pp. 100-109

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/art.20090 | Medline

[23.]

S. Greenfield, G. Apolone, B.J. McNeil, P.D. Cleary.

The importance of co-existent disease in the occurrence of postoperative complications and one-year recovery in patients undergoing total hip replacement. Comorbidity and outcomes after hip replacement.

Med Care, 31 (1993), pp. 141-154

Medline

[24.]

J.R. Lieberman, F. Dorey, P. Shekelle, L. Schumacher, D.J. Kilgus, B.J. Thomas, et al.

Outcome after total hip arthroplasty. Comparison of a traditional disease-specific and a quality-of-life measurement of outcome.

J Arthroplasty, 12 (1997), pp. 639-645

Medline

[25.]

M.A. Ritter, M.J. Albohm, E.M. Keating, P.M. Faris, J.B. Meding.

Comparative outcomes of total joint arthroplasty.

J Arthroplasty, 10 (1995), pp. 737-741

Medline

[26.]

C.A. Jones, D.C. Voaklander, D.W. Johnston, M.E. Suarez-Almazor.

The effect of age on pain, function, and quality of life after total hip and knee arthroplasty.

Arch Intern Med, 161 (2001), pp. 454-460

Medline

[27.]

F.X. McGuigan, W.J. Hozack, L. Moriarty, K. Eng, R.H. Rothman.

Predicting quality-of-life outcomes following total joint arthroplasty. Limitations of the SF-36 Health Status Questionnaire.

J Arthroplasty, 10 (1995), pp. 742-747

Medline

[28.]

W.J. Hozack, R.H. Rothman, T.J. Albert, R.A. Balderston, K. Eng.

Relationship of total hip arthroplasty outcomes to other orthopaedic procedures.

Clin Orthop Relat Res, 344 (1997), pp. 88-93

Medline

[29.]

F. Rannou, I. Boutron, M. Jardinaud-Lopez, G. Meric, M. Revel, J. Fermanian, et al.

Should aggregate scores of the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short Form Health Survey be used to assess quality of life in knee and hip osteoarthritis? A national survey in primary care.

Osteoarth Cartilage, 15 (2007), pp. 1013-1018

[30.]

R. Benroth, S. Gawande.

Patient-reported health status in total joint replacement.

J Arthroplasty, 14 (1999), pp. 576-580

Medline

[31.]

C.Y. Ng, J.A. Ballantyne, I.J. Brenkel.

Quality of life and functional outcome after primary total hip replacement. A five-year follow-up.

J Bone Joint Surg Br, 89B (2007), pp. 868-873

[32.]

O. Ethgen, P. Vanparijs, S. Delhalle, S. Rosant, O. Bruyere, J.Y. Reginster.