Movement-Pattern Training to Improve Function in People With Chronic Hip Joint Pain: A Feasibility Randomized Clinical Trial

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

Study Design Feasibility randomized clinical trial. Background Rehabilitation may be an appropriate treatment strategy for patients with chronic hip joint pain; however, the evidence related to the effectiveness of rehabilitation is limited. Objectives To assess feasibility of performing a randomized clinical trial to investigate the effectiveness of movement-pattern training (MPT) to improve function in people with chronic hip joint pain. Methods Thirty-five patients with chronic hip joint pain were randomized into a treatment (MPT) group or a control (wait-list) group. The MPT program included 6 one-hour supervised sessions and incorporated (1) task-specific training for basic functional tasks and symptom-provoking tasks, and (2) strengthening of hip musculature. The wait-list group received no treatment. Primary outcomes for feasibility were patient retention and adherence. Secondary outcomes to assess treatment effects were patient-reported function (Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score), lower extremity kinematics, and hip muscle strength. Results Retention rates did not differ between the MPT (89%) and wait-list groups (94%, P = 1.0). Sixteen of the 18 patients (89%) in the MPT group attended at least 80% of the treatment sessions. For the home exercise program, 89% of patients reported performing their home program at least once per day. Secondary outcomes support the rationale for conduct of a superiority randomized clinical trial. Conclusion Based on retention and adherence rates, a larger randomized clinical trial appears feasible and warranted to assess treatment effects more precisely. Data from this feasibility study will inform our future clinical trial. Level of Evidence Therapy, level 2b-. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2016;46(6):452-461. Epub 26 Apr 2016. doi:10.2519/jospt.2016.6279.

Related collections

Most cited references 37

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Hip morphology influences the pattern of damage to the acetabular cartilage: femoroacetabular impingement as a cause of early osteoarthritis of the hip.

M. Beck, M Kalhor, M Leunig … (2005)

Recently, femoroacetabular impingement has been recognised as a cause of early osteoarthritis. There are two mechanisms of impingement: 1) cam impingement caused by a non-spherical head and 2) pincer impingement caused by excessive acetabular cover. We hypothesised that both mechanisms result in different patterns of articular damage. Of 302 analysed hips only 26 had an isolated cam and 16 an isolated pincer impingement. Cam impingement caused damage to the anterosuperior acetabular cartilage with separation between the labrum and cartilage. During flexion, the cartilage was sheared off the bone by the non-spherical femoral head while the labrum remained untouched. In pincer impingement, the cartilage damage was located circumferentially and included only a narrow strip. During movement the labrum is crushed between the acetabular rim and the femoral neck causing degeneration and ossification. Both cam and pincer impingement lead to osteoarthritis of the hip. Labral damage indicates ongoing impingement and rarely occurs alone.

0 comments Cited 380 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Sample size slippages in randomised trials: exclusions and the lost and wayward.

Kenneth F Schulz, David A Grimes (2002)

Proper randomisation means little if investigators cannot include all randomised participants in the primary analysis. Participants might ignore follow-up, leave town, or take aspartame when instructed to take aspirin. Exclusions before randomisation do not bias the treatment comparison, but they can hurt generalisability. Eligibility criteria for a trial should be clear, specific, and applied before randomisation. Readers should assess whether any of the criteria make the trial sample atypical or unrepresentative of the people in which they are interested. In principle, assessment of exclusions after randomisation is simple: none are allowed. For the primary analysis, all participants enrolled should be included and analysed as part of the original group assigned (an intent-to-treat analysis). In reality, however, losses frequently occur. Investigators should, therefore, commit adequate resources to develop and implement procedures to maximise retention of participants. Moreover, researchers should provide clear, explicit information on the progress of all randomised participants through the trial by use of, for instance, a trial profile. Investigators can also do secondary analyses on, for instance, per-protocol or as-treated participants. Such analyses should be described as secondary and non-randomised comparisons. Mishandling of exclusions causes serious methodological difficulties. Unfortunately, some explanations for mishandling exclusions intuitively appeal to readers, disguising the seriousness of the issues. Creative mismanagement of exclusions can undermine trial validity.

0 comments Cited 167 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Psychometric properties of patient-reported outcome measures for hip arthroscopic surgery.

Kay M Crossley, Natalie J Collins, Graham J L Kemp … (2013)

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are considered the gold standard when evaluating outcomes in a surgical population. While the psychometric properties of some PROs have been tested, the properties of newer PROs in patients undergoing hip arthroscopic surgery remain somewhat unknown. To evaluate the reliability, validity, responsiveness, and interpretability of 5 PROs (Copenhagen Hip and Groin Outcome Score [HAGOS], Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score [HOOS], Hip Outcome Score [HOS], International Hip Outcome Tool [iHOT-33], and Modified Harris Hip Score [MHHS]) in a population undergoing hip arthroscopic surgery and also to provide a recommendation of the best PROs in patients undergoing hip arthroscopic surgery. Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 2. Study participants were adults (mean age, 37 ± 11 years) who had undergone hip arthroscopic surgery 12 to 24 months previously and pain-free, healthy age-matched controls (mean age, 35 ± 11 years). Baseline characteristics including age, height, weight, waist girth, physical activity, and occupation were collected for both groups. The hip arthroscopic surgery group completed the 5 PRO questionnaires on 3 occasions, while the healthy control group completed the PRO questionnaires on 1 occasion. The reliability (test-retest reliability [intraclass correlation coefficient, or ICC] and minimal detectable change [MDC]), validity (construct validity, ability to detect a difference between groups, acceptability including floor and ceiling effects), responsiveness, and interpretability (minimal important change [MIC]) of each measure were calculated. The test-retest reliability of PROs was excellent (ICC, 0.91-0.97), with an MDC of <20%. The HOOS, HAGOS, and iHOT-33 had acceptable content validity. All PROs demonstrated construct validity and were able to detect a difference between the hip arthroscopic surgery and control groups. No measures demonstrated a floor effect; however, the MHHS and subscales relating to activities of daily living of the HOOS, HOS, and HAGOS demonstrated a ceiling effect. The HOOS, iHOT-33, and MHHS demonstrated adequate responsiveness, and the MIC for all measures was <11 points of a possible 100 points. The PROs of the HOOS and iHOT-33 demonstrate psychometric properties that may enable researchers and clinicians to use them with confidence in a population undergoing hip arthroscopic surgery. The psychometric properties of the MHHS, HOS, and some subscales of the HAGOS are reduced, and these PROs may be less valuable in this group.