Recovery expectations of hip resurfacing compared to total hip arthroplasty: A matched pairs study

Arthritis Care and Research

Volumn 63, Issue 12, 2011, Pages 1753-1757

  Ghomrawi, Hassan M K ^a   Dolan, Mark M ^b   Rutledge, John ^c   Alexiades, Michael M ^a  

^a HOSPITAL FOR SPECIAL SURGERY   (United States)

^b NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c VALLEY HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ANALGESIA; ARTICLE; CONSULTATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; DAILY LIFE ACTIVITY; EXPECTATION; FACTORIAL ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HEALTH SURVEY; HIP ARTHROPLASTY; HIP RESURFACING ARTHROPLASTY; HUMAN; IMPLANT REGISTRY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PATIENT COUNSELING; PREOPERATIVE EVALUATION; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; RANGE OF MOTION; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR; SURGEON; TOTAL HIP PROSTHESIS; WALKING AID; CONVALESCENCE; COUNSELING; DISABILITY; HIP; JOINT CHARACTERISTICS AND FUNCTIONS; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; PAIN ASSESSMENT; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PATIENT; PATIENT REFERRAL; PERCEPTION; POSTOPERATIVE PAIN; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; QUESTIONNAIRE; REGISTER; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UNITED STATES;

ACTIVITIES OF DAILY LIVING; ADULT; AGED; ARTHROPLASTY, REPLACEMENT, HIP; COUNSELING; DISABILITY EVALUATION; FEMALE; HIP JOINT; HUMANS; MALE; MATCHED-PAIR ANALYSIS; MIDDLE AGED; PAIN MEASUREMENT; PAIN, POSTOPERATIVE; PATIENTS; PERCEPTION; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; QUESTIONNAIRES; RANGE OF MOTION, ARTICULAR; RECOVERY OF FUNCTION; REFERRAL AND CONSULTATION; REGISTRIES; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR; TREATMENT OUTCOME; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84856024048     PISSN: 21514658     EISSN: 15290131     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/acr.20626     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Quesada MJ, Marker DR, Mont MA. Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing: advantages and disadvantages. J Arthroplasty 2008;23 Suppl:69-73.
2. Nunley RM, Della Valle CJ, Barrack RL. Is patient selection important for hip resurfacing? Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009; 467:56-65.
3. Vendittoli PA, Lavigne M, Roy AG, Lusignan D. A prospective randomized clinical trial comparing metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty and metal-on-metal total hip resurfacing in patients less than 65 years old. Hip Int 2006;16 Suppl 4:73-81.
4. Vail TP, Mina CA, Yergler JD, Pietrobon R. Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing compares favorably with THA at 2 years followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006;453:123-31. (Pubitemid 44900970)
5. Pollard TC, Baker RP, Eastaugh-Waring SJ, Bannister GC. 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;88:592-600.
6. Mont MA, Marker DR, Smith JM, Ulrich SD, McGrath MS. Resurfacing is comparable to total hip arthroplasty at short-term follow-up. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009;467:66-71.
7. Lavigne M, Therrien M, Nantel J, Roy A, Prince F, Vendittoli PA. The John Charnley Award. The functional outcome of hip resurfacing and large-head THA is the same: a randomized, double-blind study. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010;468:326-36.
8. Uhlmann RF, Inui TS, Carter WB. Patient requests and expectations: definitions and clinical applications. Med Care 1984;22:681-5. (Pubitemid 14070427)
9. Mancuso CA, Salvati EA, Johanson NA, Peterson MG, Charl-son ME. Patients' expectations and satisfaction with total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 1997;12:387-96. (Pubitemid 29023761)
10. Mahomed NN, Liang MH, Cook EF, Daltroy LH, Fortin PR, Fossel AH, et al. The importance of patient expectations in predicting functional outcomes after total joint arthroplasty. J Rheumatol 2002;29:1273-9. (Pubitemid 34601965)
11. Ackerman D, Murphy T, Trousdale RT, Pagnano MW, Mabry T, Sierra RJ. Patients' perceptions of hip resurfacing arthro-plasty abstract. J Arthroplasty 2008;23:318.
12. Murphy TP, Trousdale RT, Pagnano MW, Mabry TM, Sierra RJ. Patients' perceptions of hip resurfacing arthroplasty. Orthopedics 2009;32:730.
13. Saleh KJ, Mulhall KJ, Bershadsky B, Ghomrawi HM, White LE, Buyea CM, et al. Development and validation of a lower-extremity activity scale: use for patients treated with revision total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2005;87:1985-94. (Pubitemid 41279129)
14. Mancuso CA, Graziano S, Briskie LM, Peterson MG, Pellicci PM, Salvati EA, et al. Randomized trials to modify patients' preoperative expectations of hip and knee arthroplasties. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2008;466:424-31. (Pubitemid 351912900)
15. Mulhall KJ, Ghomrawi HM, Bershadsky B, Saleh KJ. Functional improvement after total knee arthroplasty revision: new observations on the dimensional nature of outcome. J Or-thop Surg Res 2007;2:25.
16. MacCallum RC, Widaman KF, Preacher KJ, Hong S. Sample size in factor analysis: the role of model error. Multivariate Behav Res 2001;36:611-37. (Pubitemid 33406157)
17. Noble PC, Conditt MA, Cook KF, Mathis KB. The John Insall Award: patient expectations affect satisfaction with total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006;452:35-43. (Pubitemid 44690639)