Outcomes after total hip replacement based on patients' baseline status: What results can be expected?

Arthritis Care and Research

Volumn 64, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 563-572

  Quintana, Jose M ^a   Aguirre, Urko ^a   Barrio, Irantzu ^a   Orive, Miren ^a   Garcia, Susana ^a   Escobar, Antonio ^b  

^a HOSPITAL DE GALDAKAO   (Spain)

^b HOSPITAL DE BASURTO   (Spain)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; COHORT ANALYSIS; FEMALE; FUNCTIONAL ASSESSMENT; HIP OSTEOARTHRITIS; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; OUTCOMES RESEARCH; PAIN ASSESSMENT; PATIENT SATISFACTION; QUESTIONNAIRE; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; TOTAL HIP PROSTHESIS; TREATMENT OUTCOME; WESTERN ONTARIO AND MCMASTER UNIVERSITIES OSTEOARTHRITIS INDEX;

AGED; ARTHROPLASTY, REPLACEMENT, HIP; COHORT STUDIES; FEMALE; HEALTH SURVEYS; HUMANS; MALE; OSTEOARTHRITIS, HIP; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; QUESTIONNAIRES; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SELF REPORT; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84859736215     PISSN: 00043591     EISSN: 21514658     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/acr.21570     Document Type: Article

References (32)

1. Helmick CG, Felson DT, Lawrence RC, Gabriel S, Hirsch R, Kwoh CK, et al, for the National Arthritis Data Work Group. Estimates of the prevalence of arthritis and other rheumatic conditions in the United States: part I. Arthritis Rheum 2008; 58:15-25.
2. Juni P, Dieppe P, Donovan J, Peters T, Eachus J, Pearson N, et al. Population requirement for primary knee replacement surgery: a cross-sectional study. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2003; 42:516-21. (Pubitemid 36432469)
3. Lawrence RC, Felson DT, Helmick CG, Arnold LM, Choi H, Deyo RA, et al, for the National Arthritis Data Work Group. Estimates of the prevalence of arthritis and other rheumatic conditions in the United States: part II. Arthritis Rheum 2008; 58:26-35.
4. Quintana JM, Arostegui I, Escobar A, Azkarate J, Goenaga JI, Lafuente I. Prevalence of knee and hip osteoarthritis and the appropriateness of joint replacement in an older population. Arch Intern Med 2008;168:1576-84.
5. Faulkner A, Kennedy LG, Baxter K, Donovan J, Wilkinson M, Bevan G. Effectiveness of hip prostheses in primary total hip replacement: a critical review of evidence and an economic model. Health Technol Assess 1998;2:1-133.
6. Quintana JM, Escobar A, Bilbao A, Arostegui I, Lafuente I, Vidaurreta I. Responsiveness and clinically important differences for the WOMAC and SF-36 after hip joint replacement. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2005;13:1076-83. (Pubitemid 41672505)
7. Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item Short Form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992;30:473-83.
8. Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW. 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;15:1833-40. (Pubitemid 19037656)
9. Angst F, Aeschlimann A, Steiner W, Stucki G. Responsiveness of the WOMAC osteoarthritis index as compared with the SF-36 in patients with osteoarthritis of the legs undergoing a comprehensive rehabilitation intervention. Ann Rheum Dis 2001;60:834-40. (Pubitemid 32778173)
10. Beaton DE, Boers M, Wells GA. Many faces of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID): a literature review and directions for future research. Curr Opin Rheumatol 2002;14:109-14. (Pubitemid 34185291)
11. De Vet HC, Terwee CB, Ostelo RW, Beckerman H, Knol DL, Bouter LM. Minimal changes in health status questionnaires: distinction between minimally detectable change and minimally important change. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2006;4:54.
12. Kvien TK, Heiberg T, Hagen KB. Minimal clinically important improvement/difference (MCII/MCID) and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS): what do these concepts mean? Ann Rheum Dis 2007;66 Suppl 3:iii40-1. (Pubitemid 350032631)
13. Tubach F, Ravaud P, Baron G, Falissard B, Logeart I, Bellamy N, et al. Evaluation of clinically relevant states in patient reported outcomes in knee and hip osteoarthritis: the patient acceptable symptom state. Ann Rheum Dis 2005;64:34-7. (Pubitemid 40075271)
14. Tubach F, Ravaud P, Beaton D, Boers M, Bombardier C, Felson DT, et al. Minimal clinically important improvement and patient acceptable symptom state for subjective outcome measures in rheumatic disorders. J Rheumatol 2007;34:1188-93. (Pubitemid 46774873)
15. Escobar A, Quintana JM, Bilbao A, Azkarate J, Guenaga JI. Validation of the Spanish version of the WOMAC questionnaire for patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis: Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index. Clin Rheumatol 2002;21:466-71. (Pubitemid 36054443)
16. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ. The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 1982;143:29-36. (Pubitemid 12142173)
17. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status: ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 1989;10:407-15. (Pubitemid 20025670)
18. Kvamme MK, Kristiansen IS, Lie E, Kvien TK. Identification of cutpoints for acceptable health status and important improvement in patient-reported outcomes, in rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis. J Rheumatol 2010;37:26-31.
19. Fleiss JL. Statistical methods for rates and proportions. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley; 1981.
20. Angst F, Aeschlimann A, Stucki G. Smallest detectable and minimal clinically important differences of rehabilitation intervention with their implications for required sample sizes using WOMAC and SF-36 quality of life measurement instruments in patients with osteoarthritis of the lower extremities. Arthritis Rheum 2001;45:384-91. (Pubitemid 32738745)
21. Tubach F, Ravaud P, Baron G, Falissard B, Logeart I, Bellamy N, et al. Evaluation of clinically relevant changes in patient reported outcomes in knee and hip osteoarthritis: the minimal clinically important improvement. Ann Rheum Dis 2005;64: 29-33. (Pubitemid 40075270)
22. Walters SJ, Brazier JE. What is the relationship between the minimally important difference and health state utility values? The case of the SF-6D. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2003; 1:4.
23. Tubach F, Dougados M, Falissard B, Baron G, Logeart I, Ravaud P. Feeling good rather than feeling better matters more to patients. Arthritis Rheum 2006;55:526-30. (Pubitemid 44289869)
24. Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Murray D, Carr A. The problem of 'noise' in monitoring patient-based outcomes: generic, disease-specific and site-specific instruments for total hip replacement. J Health Serv Res Policy 1996;1:224-31.
25. Fortin PR, Clarke AE, Joseph L, Liang MH, Tanzer M, Ferland D, et al. Outcomes of total hip and knee replacement: preoperative functional status predicts outcomes at six months after surgery. Arthritis Rheum 1999;42:1722-8. (Pubitemid 30263642)
26. Davis AM, Agnidis Z, Badley E, Kiss A, Waddell JP, Gross AE. Predictors of functional outcome two years following revision hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2006;88:685-91.
27. Nilsdotter AK, Lohmander LS. Age and waiting time as predictors of outcome after total hip replacement for osteoarthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2002;41:1261-7. (Pubitemid 35363800)
28. Mancuso CA, Jout J, Salvati EA, Sculco TP. Fulfillment of patients' expectations for total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009;91:2073-8.
29. Suda AJ, Seeger JB, Bitsch RG, Krueger M, Clarius M. Are patients' expectations of hip and knee arthroplasty fulfilled? A prospective study of 130 patients. Orthopedics 2010;33:76-80.
30. Eisler T, Svensson O, Tengstrom A, Elmstedt E. Patient expectation and satisfaction in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2002;17:457-62. (Pubitemid 34663264)
31. Gandhi R, Davey JR, Mahomed N. Patient expectations predict greater pain relief with joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 2009;24:716-21.
32. Hays RD, Woolley JM. The concept of clinically meaningful difference in health-related quality-of-life research: how meaningful is it? Pharmacoeconomics 2000;18:419-23.