The effect of posterior and lateral approach on patient-reported outcome measures and physical function in patients with osteoarthritis, undergoing total hip replacement: a randomised controlled trial protocol

Signe Rosenlund, Leif Broeng, Carsten Jensen, Anders Holsgaard-Larsen, Søren Overgaard, Signe Rosenlund, Leif Broeng, Carsten Jensen, Anders Holsgaard-Larsen, Søren Overgaard

Abstract

Background: 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.

Methods/design: 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.

Discussion: 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.

Trial registration: Clinicaltrial.gov: NCT01616667.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study flow chart.

References

    1. Ethgen O, Bruyere O, Richy F, Dardennes C, Reginster JY. Health-related quality of life in total hip and total knee arthroplasty. A qualitative and systematic review of the literature. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86-A:963–974.
    1. Nilsdotter AK, Petersson IF, Roos EM, Lohmander LS. Predictors of patient relevant outcome after total hip replacement for osteoarthritis: a prospective study. Ann Rheum Dis. 2003;62:923–930. doi: 10.1136/ard.62.10.923.
    1. Steiner C, Andrews R, Barrett M, Weiss A. HCUP Projections: Mobility/Orthopedic Procedures 2011 to 2012. U.S.: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2012. HCUP Projections Report # 2012-03.
    1. Annual Report 2009, Danish Hip Arthroplasty Registry. March 2010. 2009, [],
    1. Havelin LI, Fenstad AM, Salomonsson R, Mehnert F, Furnes O, Overgaard S, Pedersen AB, Herberts P, Karrholm J, Garellick G. The Nordic Arthroplasty Register Association: a unique collaboration between 3 national hip arthroplasty registries with 280,201 THRs. Acta Orthop. 2009;80:393–401. doi: 10.3109/17453670903039544.
    1. Palan J, Beard DJ, Murray DW, Andrew JG, Nolan J. Which approach for total hip arthroplasty: anterolateral or posterior? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467:473–477. doi: 10.1007/s11999-008-0560-5.
    1. Jolles BM, Bogoch ER. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2004. Posterior versus lateral surgical approach for total hip arthroplasty in adults with osteoarthritis.
    1. Arthursson AJ, Furnes O, Espehaug B, Havelin LI, Soreide JA. Prosthesis survival after total hip arthroplasty–does surgical approach matter? Analysis of 19,304 Charnley and 6,002 Exeter primary total hip arthroplasties reported to the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop. 2007;78:719–729. doi: 10.1080/17453670710014482.
    1. Hailer NP, Weiss RJ, Stark A, Karrholm J. The risk of revision due to dislocation after total hip arthroplasty depends on surgical approach, femoral head size, sex, and primary diagnosis. Acta Orthop. 2012;83:442–448. doi: 10.3109/17453674.2012.733919.
    1. Pellicci PM, Bostrom M, Poss R. Posterior approach to total hip replacement using enhanced posterior soft tissue repair. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998;355:224–228. doi: 10.1097/00003086-199810000-00023.
    1. Smith AJ, Wylde V, Berstock JR, Maclean AD, Blom AW. Surgical approach and patient-reported outcomes after total hip replacement. Hip Int. 2012;22(4):355–361. doi: 10.5301/HIP.2012.9455.
    1. Edmunds CT, Boscainos PJ. Effect of surgical approach for total hip replacement on hip function using Harris Hip scores and Trendelenburg’s test. A retrospective analysis. Surgeon. 2011;9:124–129. doi: 10.1016/j.surge.2010.08.014.
    1. Masonis JL, Bourne RB. Surgical approach, abductor function, and total hip arthroplasty dislocation. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2002;405:46–53. doi: 10.1097/00003086-200212000-00006.
    1. Mulliken BD, Rorabeck CH, Bourne RB, Nayak N. A modified direct lateral approach in total hip arthroplasty: a comprehensive review. J Arthroplasty. 1998;13:737–747. doi: 10.1016/S0883-5403(98)90024-9.
    1. Gore DR, Murray MP, Sepic SB, Gardner GM. Anterolateral compared to posterior approach in total hip arthroplasty: differences in component positioning, hip strength, and hip motion. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1982;165:180–187.
    1. Baker AS, Bitounis VC. Abductor function after total hip replacement. An electromyographic and clinical review. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1989;71:47–50.
    1. Madsen MS, Ritter MA, Morris HH, Meding JB, Berend ME, Faris PM, Vardaxis VG. The effect of total hip arthroplasty surgical approach on gait. J Orthop Res. 2004;22:44–50. doi: 10.1016/S0736-0266(03)00151-7.
    1. Witzleb WC, Stephan L, Krummenauer F, Neuke A, Gunther KP. Short-term outcome after posterior versus lateral surgical approach for total hip arthroplasty - A randomized clinical trial. Eur J Med Res. 2009;14:256–263. doi: 10.1186/2047-783X-14-6-256.
    1. Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gotzsche PC, Devereaux PJ, Elbourne D, Egger M, Altman DG. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ. 2010;340:c869. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c869.
    1. Hoppenfeld S, de Boer P, Buckley R. Surgical Exposures in Orthopaedics the Anatomic Approach. 4. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2009. The Hip; pp. 403–462.
    1. Davis AM, Perruccio AV, Canizares M, Tennant A, Hawker GA, Conaghan PG, Roos EM, Jordan JM, Maillefert JF, Dougados M, Lohmander LS. The development of a short measure of physical function for hip OA HOOS-Physical Function Shortform (HOOS-PS): an OARSI/OMERACT initiative. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2008;16:551–559. doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2007.12.016.
    1. Thorborg K, Roos EM, Bartels EM, Petersen J, Holmich P. Validity, reliability and responsiveness of patient-reported outcome questionnaires when assessing hip and groin disability: a systematic review. Br J Sports Med. 2010;44:1186–1196. doi: 10.1136/bjsm.2009.060889.
    1. Nilsdotter AK, Lohmander LS, Klassbo M, Roos EM. Hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score (HOOS)–validity and responsiveness in total hip replacement. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2003;4:10. doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-4-10.
    1. Davis AM, Perruccio AV, Canizares M, Hawker GA, Roos EM, Maillefert JF, Lohmander LS. Comparative, validity and responsiveness of the HOOS-PS and KOOS-PS to the WOMAC physical function subscale in total joint replacement for osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2009;17:843–847. doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2009.01.005.
    1. de Groot IB, Reijman M, Terwee CB, Bierma-Zeinstra SM, Favejee M, Roos EM, Verhaar JA. Validation of the Dutch version of the Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2007;15:104–109. doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2006.06.014.
    1. Beyer N, Thorborg K, Vinther A. Translation and Cross-Cultural Adaptation of the Danish Version of the Hip Dysfunction and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score 2.0 (HOOS 2.0) 2008.
    1. Brooks R. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy. 1996;37:53–72. doi: 10.1016/0168-8510(96)00822-6.
    1. Fransen M, Edmonds J. Reliability and validity of the EuroQol in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. Rheumatology (Oxford) 1999;38:807–813. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/38.9.807.
    1. Ashby E, Grocott MP, Haddad FS. Outcome measures for orthopaedic interventions on the hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90:545–549. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.90B5.19746.
    1. van Agt HM, Essink-Bot ML, Krabbe PF, Bonsel GJ. Test-retest reliability of health state valuations collected with the EuroQol questionnaire. Soc Sci Med. 1994;39:1537–1544. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(94)90005-1.
    1. Harrison MJ, Davies LM, Bansback NJ, Ingram M, Anis AH, Symmons DP. The validity and responsiveness of generic utility measures in rheumatoid arthritis: a review. J Rheumatol. 2008;35:592–602.
    1. Tidermark J, Bergstrom G, Svensson O, Tornkvist H, Ponzer S. Responsiveness of the EuroQol (EQ 5-D) and the SF-36 in elderly patients with displaced femoral neck fractures. Qual Life Res. 2003;12:1069–1079. doi: 10.1023/A:1026193812514.
    1. Paulsen A, Pedersen AB, Overgaard S, Roos EM. Feasibility of 4 patient-reported outcome measures in a registry setting. Acta Orthop. 2012;83:321–327. doi: 10.3109/17453674.2012.702390.
    1. Translation Process- EuroQol. [],
    1. Terwee CB, Bouwmeester W, van Elsland SL, de Vet HC, Dekker J. Instruments to assess physical activity in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee: a systematic review of measurement properties. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2011;19:620–633. doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2011.01.002.
    1. Naal FD, Impellizzeri FM, Leunig M. Which is the best activity rating scale for patients undergoing total joint arthroplasty? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467:958–965. doi: 10.1007/s11999-008-0358-5.
    1. Beaule PE, Dorey FJ, Hoke R, Le DM, Amstutz HC. The value of patient activity level in the outcome of total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2006;21:547–552. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2005.09.004.
    1. Soderman P, Malchau H. Is the Harris hip score system useful to study the outcome of total hip replacement? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001;384:189–197. doi: 10.1097/00003086-200103000-00022.
    1. Villadsen A, Roos EM, Overgaard S, Holsgaard-Larsen A. Agreement and reliability of functional performance and muscle power in patients with advanced osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2012;91:401–410. doi: 10.1097/PHM.0b013e3182465ed0.
    1. Podsiadlo D, Richardson S. The timed "Up & Go": a test of basic functional mobility for frail elderly persons. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1991;39:142–148. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.1991.tb01616.x.
    1. Yeung TS, Wessel J, Stratford PW, MacDermid JC. The timed up and go test for use on an inpatient orthopaedic rehabilitation ward. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2008;38:410–417. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2008.2657.
    1. Mizner RL, Petterson SC, Clements KE, Zeni JA, Jr, Irrgang JJ, Snyder-Mackler L. Measuring functional improvement after total knee arthroplasty requires both performance-based and patient-report assessments: a longitudinal analysis of outcomes. J Arthroplasty. 2011;26:728–737. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2010.06.004.
    1. Kennedy DM, Stratford PW, Wessel J, Gollish JD, Penney D. Assessing stability and change of four performance measures: a longitudinal study evaluating outcome following total hip and knee arthroplasty. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2005;6:3. doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-6-3.
    1. Wright AA, Cook CE, Baxter GD, Dockerty JD, Abbott JH. A comparison of 3 methodological approaches to defining major clinically important improvement of 4 performance measures in patients with hip osteoarthritis. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2011;41:319–327. doi: 10.2519/jospt.2011.3515.
    1. Dobson F, Hinman RS, Hall M, Terwee CB, Roos EM, Bennell KL. Measurement properties of performance-based measures to assess physical function in hip and knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2012;20:1548–1562. doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2012.08.015.
    1. Jones CJ, Rikli RE, Beam WC. A 30-s chair-stand test as a measure of lower body strength in community-residing older adults. Res Q Exerc Sport. 1999;70:113–119. doi: 10.1080/02701367.1999.10608028.
    1. Gill S, McBurney H. Reliability of performance-based measures in people awaiting joint replacement surgery of the hip or knee. Physiother Res Int. 2008;13:141–152. doi: 10.1002/pri.411.
    1. Bremander AB, Dahl LL, Roos EM. Validity and reliability of functional performance tests in meniscectomized patients with or without knee osteoarthritis. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2007;17:120–127.
    1. Hardcastle P, Nade S. The significance of the Trendelenburg test. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1985;67:741–746.
    1. Kendall KD, Patel C, Wiley JP, Pohl MB, Emery CA, Ferber R. Clin J Sport Med. 2012. Steps towards the validation of the Trendelenburg test: the effect of experimentally reduced hip abductor muscle function on frontal plane mechanics.
    1. Kendall KD, Schmidt C, Ferber R. The relationship between hip-abductor strength and the magnitude of pelvic drop in patients with low back pain. J Sport Rehabil. 2010;19:422–435.
    1. Bergmann TF, Peterson DH, Lawrence DJ. Chiropractic Techniques. New York: Churchill Livingstone Inc; 1993. Extraspinal Techniques.
    1. Poulsen E, Christensen HW, Penny JO, Overgaard S, Vach W, Hartvigsen J. Reproducibility of range of motion and muscle strength measurements in patients with hip osteoarthritis - an inter-rater study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2012;13:242. doi: 10.1186/1471-2474-13-242.
    1. Schwartz MH, Rozumalski A. The Gait Deviation Index: a new comprehensive index of gait pathology. Gait Posture. 2008;28:351–357. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2008.05.001.
    1. Pospischill M, Kranzl A, Attwenger B, Knahr K. Minimally invasive compared with traditional transgluteal approach for total hip arthroplasty: a comparative gait analysis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92:328–337. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.H.01086.
    1. Foucher KC, Hurwitz DE, Wimmer MA. Preoperative gait adaptations persist one year after surgery in clinically well-functioning total hip replacement patients. J Biomech. 2007;40:3432–3437. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2007.05.020.
    1. Molloy M, McDowell BC, Kerr C, Cosgrove AP. Further evidence of validity of the Gait Deviation Index. Gait Posture. 2010;31:479–482. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2010.01.025.
    1. Jensen C, Aagaard P, Overgaard S. Recovery in mechanical muscle strength following resurfacing vs standard total hip arthroplasty - a randomised clinical trial. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2011;19:1108–1116. doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2011.06.011.
    1. SENIAM EMG Guidelines. [],
    1. Perron M, Malouin F, Moffet H, McFadyen BJ. Three-dimensional gait analysis in women with a total hip arthroplasty. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon) 2000;15:504–515. doi: 10.1016/S0268-0033(00)00002-4.
    1. Burden AM, Trew M, Baltzopoulos V. Normalisation of gait EMGs: a re-examination. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2003;13:519–532. doi: 10.1016/S1050-6411(03)00082-8.
    1. Burden A. How should we normalize electromyograms obtained from healthy participants? What we have learned from over 25 years of research. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2010;20:1023–1035. doi: 10.1016/j.jelekin.2010.07.004.
    1. Bergh I, Sjostrom B, Oden A, Steen B. An application of pain rating scales in geriatric patients. Aging (Milano) 2000;12:380–387.
    1. Zhang W, Moskowitz RW, Nuki G, Abramson S, Altman RD, Arden N, Bierma-Zeinstra S, Brandt KD, Croft P, Doherty M, Dougados M, Hochberg M, Hunter DJ, Kwoh K, Lohmander LS, Tugwell P. OARSI recommendations for the management of hip and knee osteoarthritis, Part II: OARSI evidence-based, expert consensus guidelines. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2008;16:137–162. doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2007.12.013.
    1. Paulsen A, Overgaard S, Lauritsen JM. Quality of data entry using single entry, double entry and automated forms processing-an example based on a study of patient-reported outcomes. PLoS One. 2012;7:e35087. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0035087.
    1. Ehrich EW, Davies GM, Watson DJ, Bolognese JA, Seidenberg BC, Bellamy N. Minimal perceptible clinical improvement with the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index questionnaire and global assessments in patients with osteoarthritis. J Rheumatol. 2000;27:2635–2641.
    1. Roos EM, Lohmander LS. The Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS): from joint injury to osteoarthritis. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003;1:64. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-1-64.
    1. Terwee CB, Roorda LD, Knol DL, De Boer MR, De Vet HC. Linking measurement error to minimal important change of patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:1062–1067. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.10.011.
    1. KOOS FAQs. [],
    1. Frison L, Pocock SJ. Repeated measures in clinical trials: analysis using mean summary statistics and its implications for design. Stat Med. 1992;11:1685–1704. doi: 10.1002/sim.4780111304.
    1. Cimolin V, Galli M, Vimercati SL, Albertini G. Use of the Gait Deviation Index for the assessment of gastrocnemius fascia lengthening in children with Cerebral Palsy. Res Dev Disabil. 2011;32:377–381. doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2010.10.017.
    1. Rosenlund S, Nielsen DB, Overgaard S, Jensen C, Holsgaard-Larsen A. Is gait velocity and gait quality associated with hip muscle strength in hip osteoarthritis patients scheduled for total hip arthroplasty? Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2014;22:S116–S117. doi: 10.1016/j.joca.2014.02.214.
    1. Rabe-Hesketh S, Skrondal A. In: Multilevel and Longitudinal Modeling using Stata. 2. Newton HJ, editor. Texas: Stata Press; 2008.
    1. Cohen J. A power primer. Psychol Bull. 1992;112:155–159. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155.
    1. Sainani KL. Making sense of intention-to-treat. PMR. 2010;2:209–213. doi: 10.1016/j.pmrj.2010.01.004.
    1. Rantanen T, Avlund K, Suominen H, Schroll M, Frandin K, Pertti E. Muscle strength as a predictor of onset of ADL dependence in people aged 75 years. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2002;14:10–15.
    1. Bellamy N, Kirwan J, Boers M, Brooks P, Strand V, Tugwell P, Altman R, Brandt K, Dougados M, Lequesne M. Recommendations for a core set of outcome measures for future phase III clinical trials in knee, hip, and hand osteoarthritis. Consensus development at OMERACT III. J Rheumatol. 1997;24:799–802.
    1. Kiyama T, Naito M, Shinoda T, Maeyama A. Hip abductor strengths after total hip arthroplasty via the lateral and posterolateral approaches. J Arthroplasty. 2010;25:76–80. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2008.11.001.
    1. Klausmeier V, Lugade V, Jewett BA, Collis DK, Chou LS. Is there faster recovery with an anterior or anterolateral THA? A pilot study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:533–541. doi: 10.1007/s11999-009-1075-4.
    1. Rasch A, Dalen N, Berg HE. Muscle strength, gait, and balance in 20 patients with hip osteoarthritis followed for 2 years after THA. Acta Orthop. 2010;81:183–188. doi: 10.3109/17453671003793204.
    1. Downing ND, Clark DI, Hutchinson JW, Colclough K, Howard PW. Hip abductor strength following total hip arthroplasty: a prospective comparison of the posterior and lateral approach in 100 patients. Acta Orthop Scand. 2001;72:215–220. doi: 10.1080/00016470152846501.
    1. Beaulieu ML, Lamontagne M, Beaule PE. Lower limb biomechanics during gait do not return to normal following total hip arthroplasty. Gait Posture. 2010;32:269–273. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2010.05.007.
    1. Ewen AM, Stewart S, St Clair GA, Kashyap SN, Caplan N. Post-operative gait analysis in total hip replacement patients-a review of current literature and meta-analysis. Gait Posture. 2012;36:1–6. doi: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2011.12.024.
    1. Boutron I, Moher D, Altman DG, Schulz KF, Ravaud P. Extending the CONSORT statement to randomized trials of nonpharmacologic treatment: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148:295–309. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-148-4-200802190-00008.
Pre-publication history
    1. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe