Hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score (HOOS)--validity and responsiveness in total hip replacement

Anna K Nilsdotter, L Stefan Lohmander, Maria Klässbo, Ewa M Roos, Anna K Nilsdotter, L Stefan Lohmander, Maria Klässbo, Ewa M Roos

Abstract

Background: The aim of the study was to evaluate if physical functions usually associated with a younger population were of importance for an older population, and to construct an outcome measure for hip osteoarthritis with improved responsiveness compared to the Western Ontario McMaster osteoarthritis score (WOMAC LK 3.0).

Methods: A 40 item questionnaire (hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score, HOOS) was constructed to assess patient-relevant outcomes in five separate subscales (pain, symptoms, activity of daily living, sport and recreation function and hip related quality of life). The HOOS contains all WOMAC LK 3.0 questions in unchanged form. The HOOS was distributed to 90 patients with primary hip osteoarthritis (mean age 71.5, range 49-85, 41 females) assigned for total hip replacement for osteoarthritis preoperatively and at six months follow-up.

Results: The HOOS met set criteria of validity and responsiveness. It was more responsive than WOMAC regarding the subscales pain (SRM 2.11 vs. 1.83) and other symptoms (SRM 1.83 vs. 1.28). The responsiveness (SRM) for the two added subscales sport and recreation and quality of life were 1.29 and 1.65, respectively. Patients <or= 66 years of age (range 49-66) reported higher responsiveness in all five subscales than patients >66 years of age (range 67-85) (Pain SRM 2.60 vs. 1.97, other symptoms SRM 3.0 vs. 1.60, activity of daily living SRM 2.51 vs. 1.52, sport and recreation function SRM 1.53 vs. 1.21 and hip related quality of life SRM 1.95 vs. 1.57).

Conclusion: The HOOS 2.0 appears to be useful for the evaluation of patient-relevant outcome after THR and is more responsive than the WOMAC LK 3.0. The added subscales sport and recreation function and hip related quality of life were highly responsive for this group of patients, with the responsiveness being highest for those younger than 66.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
HOOS profiles prior to and 6 months after THR. Pre and postoperative HOOS mean values (95% CI) presented as outcome profiles. The scale is 0–100, worst to best. --▲-- preoperative, ...○... postoperative.

References

    1. Bryant MJ, Kernohan WG, Nixon JR, Mollan RAB. A Statistical Analysis of Hip Scores. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. 1993;75-B:705–709.
    1. Bergner M, Bobbitt RA, Pollard WE, Martin DP, Gilson BS. The Sickness Impact Profile: Validation of a Health Status Measure. Medical Care. 1976;14:57–67.
    1. Hunt SM, McKenna SP, McEwen J, Williams J, Papp E. The Nottingham Health Profile: Subjective Health Status and Medical Consultations. Social Science and Medicine. 1981;15A:221–229.
    1. Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) Medical Care. 1992;30:473–483.
    1. Bellamy N, Buchanan W, Goldsmith C. Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes following total hip or knee arthroplasty in osteoarthritis. J Orthop Rheumatol. 1988;1:95–108.
    1. Altman R, Brandt K, Hochberg M, Moskowitz R, Bellamy N, Bloch D, et al. Design and Conduct on Clinical Trials in patients with Osteoarthritis: Recommendations from a task of the Osteoarthritis Research Society. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 1996;4:217–243.
    1. Amadio PC. Outcome measurements. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. 1993;75-A:1583–1584.
    1. Bellamy N, Kirwan J, Boers M, Brooks P, Strand V, Tugwell P, et al. 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. The Journal of Rheumatology. 1997;24:799–802.
    1. Clancy CM, Eisenberg JM. Outcomes research: measuring the end results of health care. Science. 1998;282:245–6. doi: 10.1126/science.282.5387.245.
    1. Nilsdotter AK, Roos EM, Westerlund JP, Roos HP, Lohmander LS. Comparative responsiveness of measures of pain and function after total hip replacement. Arthritis Rheum. 2001;45:258–62. doi: 10.1002/1529-0131(200106)45:3<258::AID-ART258>;2-C.
    1. Roos EM, Roos HP, Lohmander LS, Ekdahl C, Beynnon BD. Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) – Development of a Self-Administered Outcome Measure. Journal of Orthopedic and Sports Physical Therapy. 1998;78:88–96.
    1. Roos EM, Roos HP, Lohmander LS. WOMAC Osteoarthritis Index-additional dimensions for use in subjects with post-traumatic osteoarthritis of the knee. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage. 1999;7:206–221. doi: 10.1053/joca.1998.0153.
    1. Roos EM, Roos HP, Ekdahl C, Lohmander LS. Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) – validation of a Swedish version. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 1998;8:439–48.
    1. Roos EM, Klässbo M, Lohmander LS. WOMAC osteoarthritis index. Reliability, validity, and responsiveness in patients with arthroscopically assessed osteoarthritis. Western Ontario and MacMaster Universities. Scand J Rheumatol. 1999;28:210–5. doi: 10.1080/03009749950155562.
    1. Stucki G, Meier D, Stucki S, Michel BA, Tyndall AG, Dick W, et al. [Evaluation of a German version of WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities) Arthrosis Index] Z Rheumatol. 1996;55:40–9.
    1. Sullivan M, Karlsson J, Ware JR. The Swedish SF-36 Health Survey-I. Evaluation of data quality, scaling assumptions, reliability and construct validity across general populations in Sweden. Social Science and Medicine. 1995;41:1349–1358. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(95)00125-Q.
    1. Roos EM, Brandsson S, Karlsson J. Validation of the foot and ankle outcome score for ankle ligament reconstruction. Foot Ankle Int. 2001;22:788–94.
    1. Liang MH, Fossel AH, Larson MG. Comparisons of Five Health Status Instruments for Orthopedic Evaluation. Medical Care. 1990;28:632–642.
    1. Burton KE, Wright V, Richards J. Patients' expectations in relation to outcome of total hip replacement surgery. Annals of Rheumatic Diseases. 1979;38:471–474.
    1. Nilsdotter AK, Lohmander LS. Age and waiting time as predictors of outcome after total hip replacement for osteoarthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2002;41:1261–7. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/41.11.1261.
    1. Bellamy N, Buchanan W, Goldsmith C, Campbell J, Stitt LW. Validation Study of WOMAC: A Health Status Instrument for Measuring Clinically Important Patient Relevant Outcomes to Antirheumatic Drug Therapy in Patients with Osteoarhritis of the Hip or Knee. The Journal of Rheumatology. 1988;15:1833–1840.
    1. Streiner D, Norman G. A practical guide to their development and use. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1995. Health measurement scales.
    1. Bellamy N. Dordrecht. Vol. 1. Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1993. Musculoskeletal Clinical Metrology.
    1. McDowell I, Newell C. Measuring Health: A Guide to Rating Scales and Questionnaires. New York: Oxford University Press; 1987.
    1. Nilsdotter AK, Aurell Y, Siosteen AK, Lohmander LS, Roos HP. Radiographic stage of osteoarthritis or sex of the patient does not predict one year outcome after total hip arthroplasty. Ann Rheum Dis. 2001;60:228–32. doi: 10.1136/ard.60.3.228.
    1. Davies GM, Watson DJ, Bellamy N. Comparison of the responsiveness and relative effect size of the western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index and the short-form Medical Outcomes Study Survey in a randomized, clinical trial of osteoarthritis patients. Arthritis Care Res. 1999;12:172–9. doi: 10.1002/1529-0131(199906)12:3<172::AID-ART4>;2-Y.
    1. Rosner B. Fundamentals of Biostatistics Belmont. California: Duxbury Press; 1995.
    1. Jones CA, Voaklander DC, Johnston DW, Suarez-Almazor ME. Health related quality of life outcomes after total hip and knee arthroplasties in a community based population. J Rheumatol. 2000;27:1745–52.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe