An update on joint-specific outcome measures in total hip replacement

Łukasz Pulik, Krzysztof Romaniuk, Kaja Jaśkiewicz, Paweł Wojtyński, Paweł Łęgosz, Paweł Małdyk, Łukasz Pulik, Krzysztof Romaniuk, Kaja Jaśkiewicz, Paweł Wojtyński, Paweł Łęgosz, Paweł Małdyk

Abstract

This is the latest review of joint-specific tools used to evaluate patients undergoing total hip replacement (THR) surgery, which is an effective treatment for end-stage osteoarthritis. Due to the large number and multitude of scales and their variants used, a critical assessment of the available tools is necessary. In the article, we briefly describe six different clinical tools: the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, the Harris Hip Score, the Oxford Hip Score, the Mayo Hip Score, and the Rheumatoid and Arthritis Outcome Score. We present the advantages and constraints of the different outcome measures, providing a helpful resource of information for clinical trials and for everyday routine evaluation.

Keywords: arthroplasty; clinicalscales; patient outcome assessment; quality of life; total hip replacements.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Copyright © 2020 Narodowy Instytut Geriatrii, Reumatologii i Rehabilitacji w Warszawie.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Items (n) of the joint-specific outcome measures in total hip replacement.

References

    1. Hunter DJ, Bierma-Zeinstra S. Osteoarthritis. Lancet 2019; 393: 1745-1759, DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19)30417-9.
    1. EUROSTAT. Surgical operations and procedures performed in hospitals by ICD-9-CM. Retrieved from , 2020.
    1. Schamber EM, Takemoto SK, Chenok KE, Bozic KJ. Barriers to completion of Patient Reported Outcome Measures. J Arthroplasty 2013; 28: 1449-1453, DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2013.06.025.
    1. Rolfson O, Wissig S, van Maasakkers L, et al. . Defining an International Standard Set of Outcome Measures for Patients With Hip or Knee Osteoarthritis: Consensus of the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis Working Group. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2016; 68: 1631-1639, DOI: 10.1002/acr.22868.
    1. Banaszkiewicz PA. Traumatic Arthritis of the Hip After Dislocation and Acetabular Fractures: Treatment by Mold Arthroplasty: An End-Result Study Using a New Method of Result Evaluation. In: Classic Papers in Orthopaedics, eds. Banaszkiewicz PA, Kader DF. Springer London, London: 2014: 13-17, DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4471-5451-8.
    1. Copsey B, Thompson JY, Vadher K, et al. . Problems persist in reporting of methods and results for the WOMAC measure in hip and knee osteoarthritis trials. Qual Life Res 2019; 28: 335-343, DOI: 10.1007/s11136-018-1978-1.
    1. Bellamy N. WOMAC: a 20-year experiential review of a patient-centered self-reported health status questionnaire. J Rheumatol 2002; 29: 2473-2476.
    1. Łęgosz P, Sarzyńska S, Pulik Ł, et al. . Heterotopic ossification and clinical results after total hip arthroplasty using the anterior minimally invasive and anterolateral approaches. Arch Med Sci 2020; 16: 613-620, DOI: 10.5114/aoms.2018.78653.
    1. Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, et al.. Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol 1988; 15: 1833-1840.
    1. McConnell S, Kolopack P, Davis AM. The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC): a review of its utility and measurement properties. Arthritis Rheum 2001; 45: 453-461, DOI: 10.1002/1529-0131(200110)45:5<453::aid-art365>;2-w.
    1. Bellamy N. The WOMAC Knee and Hip Osteoarthritis Indices: development, validation, globalization and influence on the development of the AUSCAN Hand Osteoarthritis Indices. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2005; 23 (5 Suppl 39): 148-153.
    1. Gandek B. Measurement properties of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index: a systematic review. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2015; 67: 216-229, DOI: 10.1002/acr.22415.
    1. Quintana JM, Escobar A, Bilbao A, et al. . Responsiveness and clinically important differences for the WOMAC and SF-36 after hip joint replacement. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2005; 13: 1076-1083, DOI: 10.1016/j.joca.2005.06.012
    1. Bellamy N, Wilson C, Hendrikz J, et al. . Osteoarthritis Index delivered by mobile phone (m-WOMAC) is valid, reliable, and responsive. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64: 182-190, DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.03.013.
    1. Theiler R, Spielberger J, Bischoff HA, et al. . Clinical evaluation of the WOMAC 3.0 OA Index in numeric rating scale format using a computerized touch screen version. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2002; 10: 479-481, DOI: 10.1053/joca.2002.0807.
    1. Lopez Alonso SR, Martínez Sánchez CM, Romero Cañadillas AB, et al. . [Metric properties of WOMAC questionnaires-original and reduced versions-to measure symptoms and Physical Functional Disability]. Aten Primaria 2009; 41: 613-620, DOI: 10.1016/j.aprim.2009.02.005.
    1. Kersten P, White PJ, Tennant A. The visual analogue WOMAC 3.0 scale--internal validity and responsiveness of the VAS version. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2010; 11: 80, DOI: 10.1186/1471-2474-11-80.
    1. Ghomrawi HM, Mandl LA, Rutledge J, et al. . Is there a role for expectation maximization imputation in addressing missing data in research using WOMAC questionnaire? Comparison to the standard mean approach and a tutorial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2011; 12: 109, DOI: 10.1186/1471-2474-12-109.
    1. Nilsdotter AK, Lohmander LS, Klässbo M, et al. . 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. Stratford PW, Kennedy DM. Does parallel item content on WOMAC’s pain and function subscales limit its ability to detect change in functional status? BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2004; 5: 17, DOI: 10.1186/1471-2474-5-17.
    1. Bilbao A, Quintana JM, Escobar A, et al. . Validation of a proposed WOMAC short form for patients with hip osteoarthritis. Health and quality of life outcomes 2011; 9: 75, DOI: 10.1186/1477-7525-9-75 .
    1. Whitehouse SL, Lingard EA, Katz JN, Learmonth ID. Development and testing of a reduced WOMAC function scale. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2003; 85: 706-711.
    1. Whitehouse SL, Crawford RW, Learmonth ID. Validation for the reduced Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index function scale. J Orthop Surg (Hong Kong) 2008; 16: 50-53, DOI: 10.1177/230949900801600113.
    1. Nilsdotter A, Bremander A. Measures of hip function and symptoms: Harris Hip Score (HHS), Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS), Oxford Hip Score (OHS), Lequesne Index of Severity for Osteoarthritis of the Hip (LISOH), and American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS) Hip and Knee Questionnaire. Arthritis Care Res 2011; 63: 200-207, DOI: 10.1002/acr.20549.
    1. Scott EJ, Anthony CA, Rooney P, et al. . Mobile Phone Administration of Hip-Specific Patient-Reported Outcome Instruments Correlates Highly With In-office Administration. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2020; 28: e41-e46, DOI: 10.5435/JAAOS-D-18-00708.
    1. Glinkowski W, Żukowska A, Dymitrowicz M et al. . Translation, Cross-Cultural Adaptation, and Psychometric Properties of the Polish Version of the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS). Medicina (Kaunas) 2019; 55: 614, DOI: 10.3390/medicina55100614.
    1. Davis AM, Perruccio AV, Canizares M, et al. . 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. Harris WH. Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. An end-result study using a new method of result evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1969; 51: 737-755.
    1. Sharma S, Shah R, Draviraj KP, Bhamra MS. Use of telephone interviews to follow up patients after total hip replacement. J Telemed Telecare 2005; 11: 211-214, DOI: 10.1258/1357633054068883.
    1. Celik D, Can C, Aslan Y et al. . Translation, cross-cultural adaptation, and validation of the Turkish version of the Harris Hip Score. Hip Int 2014; 24: 473-479, DOI: 10.5301/hipint.5000146.
    1. Dettoni F, Pellegrino P, La Russa MR, et al. . Validation and cross cultural adaptation of the Italian version of the Harris Hip Score. Hip Int 2015; 25: 91-97, DOI: 10.5301/hipint.5000184.
    1. Nilsdotter A, Bremander A. Measures of hip function and symptoms: Harris Hip Score (HHS), Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS), Oxford Hip Score (OHS), Lequesne Index of Severity for Osteoarthritis of the Hip (LISOH), and American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS) Hip and Knee Questionnaire. Arthritis Care Res 2011; 63: 200-207, DOI: 10.1002/acr.20549.
    1. Söderman 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. Hoeksma HL, Van Den Ende CH, Ronday HK, et al. . Comparison of the responsiveness of the Harris Hip Score with generic measures for hip function in osteoarthritis of the hip. Ann Rheum Dis 2003; 62: 935-938, DOI: 10.1136/ard.62.10.935.
    1. Mahomed NN, Arndt DC, McGrory BJ, Harris WH. The Harris hip score: comparison of patient self-report with surgeon assessment. J Arthroplasty 2001; 16: 575-580, DOI: 10.1054/arth.2001.23716.
    1. Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Carr A, Murray D. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1996; 78: 185-190.
    1. Clarke S, Lock V, Duddy J, et al. . Intra-articular hylan G-F 20 (Synvisc) in the management of patellofemoral osteoarthritis of the knee (POAK). Knee 2005; 12: 57-62, DOI: 10.1016/j.knee.2004.03.002.
    1. Reilly KA, Beard DJ, Barker KL, et al. . Efficacy of an accelerated recovery protocol for Oxford unicompartmental knee arthroplasty–a randomised controlled trial. Knee 2005; 12: 351-357, DOI: 10.1016/j.knee.2005.01.002.
    1. Murray DW, Fitzpatrick R, Rogers K, et al. . The use of the Oxford hip and knee scores. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2007; 89: 1010-1014, DOI: 10.1302/0301-620X.89B8.19424.
    1. Weale AE, Halabi OA, Jones PW, White SH. Perceptions of outcomes after unicompartmental and total knee replacements. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2001; 382: 143-153, DOI: 10.1097/00003086-200101000-00021.
    1. Haverkamp D, Breugem SJ, Sierevelt IN, et al. . Translation and validation of the Dutch version of the Oxford 12-item knee questionnaire for knee arthroplasty. Acta Orthop 2005; 76: 347-352.
    1. Dunbar MJ, Robertsson O, Ryd L, Lidgren L. Translation and validation of the Oxford-12 item knee score for use in Sweden. Acta Orthop Scand 2000; 71: 268-274, DOI: 10.1080/000164700317411861.
    1. Martinelli N, Longo UG, Marinozzi A, et al. . Cross-cultural adaptation and validation with reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the Italian version of the Oxford Hip Score in patients with hip osteoarthritis. Qual life Res 2011; 20: 923-929, DOI: 10.1007/s11136-010-9811-5.
    1. Kavanagh BF, Fitzgerald RH Jr. Clinical and roentgenographic assessment of total hip arthroplasty. A new hip score. Clin Orthop Relat Res 1985; 193: 133-140.
    1. Singh JA, Schleck C, Harmsen WS, Lewallen DG. Validation of the Mayo Hip Score: construct validity, reliability and responsiveness to change. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2016; 17:39, DOI: 10.1186/s12891-016-0868-3.
    1. Bremander AB, Petersson IF, Roos EM. Validation of the Rheumatoid and Arthritis Outcome Score (RAOS) for the lower extremity. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2003; 1: 55, DOI: 10.1186/1477-7525-1-55.
    1. Lovelock TM, Broughton NS, Williams CM. The Popularity of Outcome Measures for Hip and Knee Arthroplasties. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33: 273-276, DOI: 10.1016/j.arth.2017.08.024.
    1. Arden NK, Kiran A, Judge A, et al. . What is a good patient reported outcome after total hip replacement? Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2011; 19: 155-162, DOI: 10.1016/j.joca.2010.10.004.
    1. Berliner JL, Brodke DJ, Chan V, et al. . John Charnley Award: Preoperative Patient-reported Outcome Measures Predict Clinically Meaningful Improvement in Function After THA. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2016; 474: 321-329, DOI: 10.1007/s11999-015-4350-6.
    1. Singh JA, Dowsey MM, Dohm M, et al. . Achieving Consensus on Total Joint Replacement Trial Outcome Reporting Using the OMERACT Filter: Endorsement of the Final Core Domain Set for Total Hip and Total Knee Replacement Trials for Endstage Arthritis. J Rheumatol 2017; 44: 1723-1726, DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.161113.
    1. Santić V, Legović D, Sestan B, et al. . Measuring improvement following total hip and knee arthroplasty using the SF-36 Health Survey. Coll Antropol 2012; 36: 207-212.
    1. Chang CH. Patient-reported outcomes measurement and management with innovative methodologies and technologies. Qual Life Res 2007; (16 Suppl 1): 157-166, DOI: 10.1007/s11136-007-9196-2.
    1. Tariq MB, Vega JF, Westermann R, et al. . Arthroplastystudies with greaterthan 1000 participants: analysis of follow-upmethods. Arthroplast Today 2019; 5: 243-250, DOI: 10.1016/j.artd.2019.03.006.

Source: PubMed

Sponsor e collaboratori

Condizioni mediche

Interventi farmacologici

3
Sottoscrivi