No clear influence of preference bias on satisfaction and early functional outcome in resurfacing hip arthroplasty

Acta Orthopaedica

Volumn 82, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 161-165

  Bisseling, Pepijn ^a   Smolders, José M H ^a   Hol, Annemiek ^a   Van Susante, Job L C ^a  

^a RIJNSTATE HOSPITAL   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; AVASCULAR NECROSIS; CLINICAL ARTICLE; COHORT ANALYSIS; COXITIS; FEMALE; FEMOROACETABULAR IMPINGEMENT; FOLLOW UP; HARRIS HIP SCORE; HIP ARTHROPLASTY; HIP DYSPLASIA; HIP RESURFACING ARTHROPLASTY; HUMAN; MALE; OSTEOARTHRITIS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SHORT FORM 12; TOTAL HIP PROSTHESIS; VISUAL ANALOG SCALE;

ARTHROPLASTY, REPLACEMENT, HIP; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT PREFERENCE; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PATIENT SELECTION; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 79953823861     PISSN: 17453674     EISSN: 17453682     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3109/17453674.2011.566140     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Amstutz H C, Ball S T, Le Duff M J, Dorey F J. Resurfacing THA for patients younger than 50 year: results of 2- to 9-year followup. Clin Orthop 2007; (460): 159-64. (Pubitemid 47056492)
2. Bryant D, Havey T C, Roberts R, Guyatt G. How many patients? How many limbs? Analysis of patients or limbs in the orthopaedic literature: A systematic review. J Bone Joint Surg (Am) 2006; 88: 41-5. (Pubitemid 43062771)
3. Chen S, Marin M, Estabrooks T, Amuah J E, Zhu N. Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty: Findings From the Canadian Joint Replacement Registry. Canadian Institute for Health Information, Toronto, Canada 2009. Available from: http://secure.cihi.ca/cihiweb/en/downloads/cjrr-coa-poster-200907-e.pdf
4. Crowninshield R D, Maloney W J, Wentz D H, Humphrey S M, Blanchard C R. Biomechanics of large femoral heads: what they do and don't do. Clin Orthop 2004: (429): 102-7. (Pubitemid 39579199)
5. Khan M, Kuiper J H, Edwards D, Robinson E, Richardson J B. Birmingham hip arthroplasty: five to eight years of prospective multicenter results. J Arthroplasty 2009; 24: 1044-50.
6. Klaber Moffett J A, Jackson D A, Richmond S, Hahn S, Coulton S, Farrin A, Manca A, Torgerson D J. Randomised trial of a brief physiotherapy intervention compared with usual physiotherapy for neck pain patients: outcomes and patients' preference. Bmj 2005; 330: 75.
7. Lavigne M, Therrien M, Nantel J, Roy A, Prince F, Vendittoli P A. The John Charnley Award: The functional outcome of hip resurfacing and large-head THA is the same: a randomized, double-blind study. Clin Orthop 2010; (468): 326-36.
8. Lingard E A, Muthumayandi K, Holland J P. Comparison of patient-reported outcomes between hip resurfacing and total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 2009; 91: 1550-4.
9. McPherson K, Britton A. Preferences and understanding their effects on health. Qual Health Care (Suppl 1) 2001; 10: i61-6.
10. McPherson K, Chalmers I. Incorporating patient preferences into clinical trials. Information about patients' preference must be obtained first. Bmj 1998; 317: 78; author reply 78-9. (Pubitemid 28333840)
11. McPherson K, Britton A R, Wennberg J E. Are randomized controlled trials controlled? Patient preferences and unblind trials. J R Soc Med 1997; 90: 652-6. (Pubitemid 28021529)
12. Mont M A, Marker D R, Smith J M, Ulrich S D, McGrath M S. Resurfacing is comparable to total hip arthroplasty at short-term follow-up. Clin Orthop 2009; (467): 66-71.
13. National Joint Registry for England and Wales. 1st Annual report. Hemstead, England: The National Joint Registry (NJR) Centre 2004. Available from: http://www.njrcentre.org.uk/njrcentre/AbouttheNJR/Publicationsandreports/ Annualreports/tabid/86/Default.aspx
14. National Joint Registry for England and Wales. 6th Annual report 2009. Hemstead, England: The National Joint Registry (NJR) Centre 2009. Available from: http://www.njrcentre.org.uk/njrcentre/AbouttheNJR/Publicationsandreports/ Annualreports/tabid/86/Default.aspx
15. Pollard T C, Baker R P, Eastaugh-Waring S J, Bannister G C. Treatment of the young active patient with osteoarthritis of the hip. A five- to seven-year comparison of hybrid total hip arthroplasty and metal-on-metal resurfacing. J Bone Joint Surg (Br) 2006; 88 (5): 592-600.
16. Prosser G H, Yates P J, Wood D J, Graves S E, de Steiger R N, Miller L N. Outcome of primary resurfacing hip replacement: evaluation of risk factors for early revision. Acta Orthop 2010; 81: 66-71.
17. Thomas E, Croft P R, Paterson S M, Dziedzic K, Hay E M. What influences participants' treatment preference and can it influence outcome? Results from a primary care-based randomised trial for shoulder pain. Br J Gen Pract 2004; 54: 93-6. (Pubitemid 38190230)
18. Torgerson D J, Klaber-Moffett J, Russell I T. Patient preferences in randomised trials: threat or opportunity? J Health Serv Res Policy 1996; 1: 194-7.
19. Vail T P, Mina C A, Yergler J D, Pietrobon R. Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing compares favorably with THA at 2 years followup. Clin Orthop 2006; (453): 123-31. (Pubitemid 44900970)
20. Windt van der, D A, Koes B W, van Aarst M, Heemskerk M A, Bouter L M. Practical aspects of conducting a pragmatic randomised trial in primary care: patient recruitment and outcome assessment. Br J Gen Pract 2000; 50: 371-4. (Pubitemid 30245615)
21. Witjes S, Smolder J M, Beaulé P E, Parker P, Van Susante J L. Learning from the learning curve in total hip resurfacing: a radiographic analysis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 2009; 129: 1293-9.