24
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Comparison of outcome measures and complication rates following three different approaches for primary total hip arthroplasty: a pragmatic randomised controlled trial

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Total hip arthroplasty is one of the most commonly performed surgical procedures worldwide. There are a number of surgical approaches for total hip arthroplasty and no high-level evidence supporting one approach over the other. Each approach has its unique benefits and drawbacks. This trial aims to directly compare the three most common surgical approaches for total hip arthroplasty.

          Methods/design

          This is a single-centre study conducted at Western Health, Melbourne, Australia; a large metropolitan centre. It is a pragmatic, parallel three-arm, randomised controlled trial. Sample size will be 243 participants (81 in each group). Randomisation will be secure, web-based and managed by an independent statistician. Patients and research team will be blinded pre-operatively, but not post-operatively.

          Intervention will be either direct anterior, lateral or posterior approach for total hip arthroplasty, and the three arms will be directly compared. Participants will be aged over 18 years, able to provide informed consent and recruited from our outpatients. Patients who are having revision surgery or have indications for hip replacement other than osteoarthritis (i.e., fracture, malignancy, development dysplasia) will be excluded from the trial.

          The Oxford Hip Score will be determined for patients pre-operatively and 6 weeks, 6, 12 and 24 months post-operatively. The Oxford Hip Score at 24 months will be the primary outcome measure. Secondary outcome measures will be dislocation, infection, intraoperative and peri-prosthetic fracture rate, length of hospital stay and pain level, reported using a visual analogue scale.

          Discussion

          Many studies have evaluated approaches for total hip arthroplasty and arthroplasty registries worldwide are now collecting this data. However no study to date has compared these three common approaches directly in a randomised fashion. No trial has used patient-reported outcome measures to evaluate success. This pragmatic study aims to identify differences in patient perception of total hip arthroplasty depending on surgical approach.

          Trial registration

          Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12617000272392. Registered on 22 February 2017.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-017-2368-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references43

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The use of the Oxford hip and knee scores.

          The Oxford hip and knee scores have been extensively used since they were first described in 1996 and 1998. During this time, they have been modified and used for many different purposes. This paper describes how they should be used and seeks to clarify areas of confusion.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Health-related quality of life in total hip and total knee arthroplasty. A qualitative and systematic review of the literature.

            Total hip and total knee arthroplasties are well accepted as reliable and suitable surgical procedures to return patients to function. Health-related quality-of-life instruments have been used to document outcomes in order to optimize the allocation of resources. The objective of this study was to review the literature regarding the outcomes of total hip and knee arthroplasties as evaluated by health-related quality-of-life instruments. The Medline and EMBASE medical literature databases were searched, from January 1980 to June 2003, to identify relevant studies. Studies were eligible for review if they met the following criteria: (1). the language was English or French, (2). at least one well-validated and self-reported health-related quality of life instrument was used, and (3). a prospective cohort study design was used. Of the seventy-four studies selected for the review, thirty-two investigated both total hip and total knee arthroplasties, twenty-six focused on total hip arthroplasty, and sixteen focused on total knee arthroplasty exclusively. The most common diagnosis was osteoarthritis. The duration of follow-up ranged from seven days to seven years, with the majority of studies describing results at six to twelve months. The Short Form-36 and the Western Ontario and McMaster University Osteoarthritis Index, the most frequently used instruments, were employed in forty and twenty-eight studies, respectively. Seventeen studies used a utility index. Overall, total hip and total knee arthroplasties were found to be quite effective in terms of improvement in health-related quality-of-life dimensions, with the occasional exception of the social dimension. Age was not found to be an obstacle to effective surgery, and men seemed to benefit more from the intervention than did women. When improvement was found to be modest, the role of comorbidities was highlighted. Total hip arthroplasty appears to return patients to function to a greater extent than do knee procedures, and primary surgery offers greater improvement than does revision. Patients who had poorer preoperative health-related quality of life were more likely to experience greater improvement. Health-related quality-of-life data are valuable, can provide relevant health-status information to health professionals, and should be used as a rationale for the implementation of the most adequate standard of care. Additional knowledge and scientific dissemination of surgery outcomes should help to ensure better management of patients undergoing total hip or total knee arthroplasty and to optimize the use of these procedures.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Meaningful changes for the Oxford hip and knee scores after joint replacement surgery

              Objectives To present estimates of clinically meaningful or minimal important changes for the Oxford Hip Score (OHS) and the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) after joint replacement surgery. Study Design and Setting Secondary data analysis of the NHS patient-reported outcome measures data set that included 82,415 patients listed for hip replacement surgery and 94,015 patients listed for knee replacement surgery was performed. Results Anchor-based methods revealed that meaningful change indices at the group level [minimal important change (MIC)], for example in cohort studies, were ∼11 points for the OHS and ∼9 points for the OKS. For assessment of individual patients, receiver operating characteristic analysis produced MICs of 8 and 7 points for OHS and OKS, respectively. Additionally, the between group minimal important difference (MID), which allows the estimation of a clinically relevant difference in change scores from baseline when comparing two groups, that is, for clinical trials, was estimated to be ∼5 points for both the OKS and the OHS. The distribution-based minimal detectable change (MDC90) estimates for the OKS and OHS were 4 and 5 points, respectively. Conclusion This study has produced and discussed estimates of minimal important change/difference for the OKS/OHS. These estimates should be used in the power calculations and the interpretation of studies using the OKS and OHS. The MDC90 (∼4 points OKS and ∼5 points OHS) represents the smallest possible detectable change for each of these instruments, thus indicating that any lower value would fall within measurement error.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                +61 3 8345 7575 , ajtalia@gmail.com
                cncoe1@gmail.com
                oren.tirosh@wh.org.au
                phong.tran@wh.org.au
                Journal
                Trials
                Trials
                Trials
                BioMed Central (London )
                1745-6215
                8 January 2018
                8 January 2018
                2018
                : 19
                : 13
                Affiliations
                ISNI 0000 0004 0645 2884, GRID grid.417072.7, Department of Orthopaedics, , Western Health, ; Gordon Street, Footscray, VIC 3011 Melbourne, Australia
                Article
                2368
                10.1186/s13063-017-2368-7
                5759198
                29310681
                05849bf0-1492-468c-bde8-9a857582f414
                © The Author(s). 2018

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 21 March 2017
                : 30 November 2017
                Categories
                Study Protocol
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2018

                Medicine
                osteoarthritis,total hip arthroplasty,randomised,patient-reported outcome measures,surgical approach

                Comments

                Comment on this article