The early outcome of surgical treatment for femoroacetabular impingement: Success depends on how you measure it

Osteoarthritis and Cartilage

Volumn 20, Issue 7, 2012, Pages 638-645

  Impellizzeri, F M ^a   Mannion, A F ^a,b   Naal, F D ^a   Hersche, O ^a   Leunig, M ^a,c  

^a SCHULTHESS CLINIC   (Switzerland)

^b UNIVERSITY CHILDREN S HOSPITAL   (Switzerland)

^c UNIVERSITY OF BERN   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Acceptability of symptoms; Femoroacetabular impingement; Global outcome; Patient reported outcome; Surgical success

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTHROSCOPY; ARTICLE; CLINICAL PRACTICE; FEMALE; FEMOROACETABULAR IMPINGEMENT; FOLLOW UP; GLOBAL TREATMENT OUTCOME; HEALTH STATISTICS; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MINIMAL CLINICALLY IMPORTANT CHANGE; MUSCULOSKELETAL STIFFNESS; OBSERVATIONAL STUDY; PAIN; PATIENT ASSESSMENT; PATIENT SATISFACTION; POSTOPERATIVE CARE; POSTOPERATIVE PERIOD; PREOPERATIVE PERIOD; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROSPECTIVE STUDY; QUESTIONNAIRE; RECEIVER OPERATING CHARACTERISTIC; SCORING SYSTEM; SURGICAL TECHNIQUE; TREATMENT OUTCOME; WESTERN ONTARIO AND MCMASTER UNIVERSITY OSTEOARTHRITIS INDEX;

ADULT; ARTHROSCOPY; FEMALE; FEMORACETABULAR IMPINGEMENT; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PAIN MEASUREMENT; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PROSPECTIVE STUDIES; QUALITY OF LIFE; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; TREATMENT OUTCOME; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84862128386     PISSN: 10634584     EISSN: 15229653     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.joca.2012.03.019     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Leunig M., Ganz R. [FAI - concept and etiology]. Orthopade 2009, 38:394-401.
2. Wenger D.R., Kishan S., Pring M.E. Impingement and childhood hip disease. J Pediatr Orthop B 2006, 15:233-243.
3. Clohisy J.C., St John L.C., Schutz A.L. Surgical treatment of femoroacetabular impingement: a systematic review of the literature. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010, 468:555-564.
4. Ng V.Y., Arora N., Best T.M., Pan X., Ellis T.J. Efficacy of surgery for femoroacetabular impingement: a systematic review. Am J Sports Med 2010, 38:2337-2345.
5. Bedi A., Chen N., Robertson W., Kelly B.T. The management of labral tears and femoroacetabular impingement of the hip in the young, active patient. Arthroscopy 2008, 24:1135-1145.
6. Lavigne M., Parvizi J., Beck M., Siebenrock K.A., Ganz R., Leunig M. Anterior femoroacetabular impingement: part I. Techniques of joint preserving surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2004, 61-66.
7. Graves M.L., Mast J.W. Femoroacetabular impingement: do outcomes reliably improve with surgical dislocations?. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009, 467:717-723.
8. Poolman R.W., Swiontkowski M.F., Fairbank J.C., Schemitsch E.H., Sprague S., de Vet H.C. Outcome instruments: rationale for their use. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2009, 91(Suppl 3):41-49.
9. Stevens M.S., Legay D.A., Glazebrook M.A., Amirault D. The evidence for hip arthroscopy: grading the current indications. Arthroscopy 2010, 26:1370-1383.
10. van der Roer N., Ostelo R.W., Bekkering G.E., van Tulder M.W., de Vet H.C. Minimal clinically important change for pain intensity, functional status, and general health status in patients with nonspecific low back pain. Spine 2006, 31:578-582.
11. Stratford P.W., Binkley J.M., Riddle D.L., Guyatt G.H. Sensitivity to change of the Roland-Morris back pain questionnaire: part 1. Phys Ther 1998, 78:1186-1196.
12. Deyo R.A., Centor R.M. Assessing the responsiveness of functional scales to clinical change: an analogy to diagnostic test performance. Journal of Chronic Diseases 1986, 39:897-906.
13. Wells G., Beaton D., Shea B., Boers M., Simon L., Strand V., et al. Minimal clinically important differences: review of methods. J Rheumatol 2001, 28:406-412.
14. 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, 64:34-37.
15. Lodhia P., Slobogean G.P., Noonan V.K., Gilbart M.K. Patient-reported outcome instruments for femoroacetabular impingement and hip labral pathology: a systematic review of the clinimetric evidence. Arthroscopy 2010, 27:279-286.
16. 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, 55:526-530.
17. Brooks R. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy 1996, 37:53-72.
18. Greiner W, Graf v.d. Schulenburg J-M, Piercy J, Eds. (EuroQol) Plenary Meeting. Discussion Papers. Hannover Uni-Verlag: WItte 1999.
19. Prieto L., Sacristan J.A. What is the value of social values? The uselessness of assessing health-related quality of life through preference measures. BMC Med Res Methodol 2004, 4:10.
20. Dawson J., Fitzpatrick R., Carr A., Murray D. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 1996, 78:185-190.
21. Naal F.D., Sieverding M., Impellizzeri F.M., von Knoch F., Mannion A.F., Leunig M. Reliability and validity of the cross-culturally adapted German Oxford hip score. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009, 467:952-957.
22. Murray D.W., Fitzpatrick R., Rogers K., Pandit H., Beard D.J., Carr A.J., et al. The use of the Oxford hip and knee scores. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2007, 89:1010-1014.
23. Bellamy N., Buchanan W.W., Goldsmith C.H., Campbell J., Stitt L.W. 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, 15:1833-1840.
24. Stucki G., Meier D., Stucki S., Michel B.A., Tyndall A.G., Dick W., et al. [Evaluation of a German version of WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities) Arthrosis Index]. Z Rheumatol 1996, 55:40-49.
25. Mannion A.F., Porchet F., Kleinstuck F.S., Lattig F., Jeszenszky D., Bartanusz V., et al. The quality of spine surgery from the patient's perspective: part 2. Minimal clinically important difference for improvement and deterioration as measured with the Core Outcome Measures Index. Eur Spine J 2009, 18:374-379.
26. Cherkin D.C., Deyo R.A., Street J.H., Barlow W. Predicting poor outcomes for back pain seen in primary care using patients' own criteria. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 1996, 21:2900-2907.
27. Stratford P.W., Spadoni G., Kennedy D., Westaway M.D., Alcock G.K. Seven points to consider when investigating a measure's ability to detect change. Physiother Can 2002, 54:16-24.
28. Beaton D.E., Bombardier C., Katz J.N., Wright J.G. A taxonomy for responsiveness. J Clin Epidemiol 2001, 54:1204-1217.
29. Aletaha D., Funovits J., Ward M.M., Smolen J.S., Kvien T.K. Perception of improvement in patients with rheumatoid arthritis varies with disease activity levels at baseline. Arthritis Rheum 2009, 61:313-320.
30. Aletaha D., Smolen J., Ward M.M. Measuring function in rheumatoid arthritis: identifying reversible and irreversible components. Arthritis Rheum 2006, 54:2784-2792.
31. Ilizaliturri V.M., Nossa-Barrera J.M., Acosta-Rodriguez E., Camacho-Galindo J. Arthroscopic treatment of femoroacetabular impingement secondary to paediatric hip disorders. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2007, 89:1025-1030.
32. Ilizaliturri V.M., Orozco-Rodriguez L., Acosta-Rodriguez E., Camacho-Galindo J. Arthroscopic treatment of cam-type femoroacetabular impingement: preliminary report at 2 years minimum follow-up. J Arthroplasty 2008, 23:226-234.
33. Schunemann H.J., Akl E.A., Guyatt G.H. Interpreting the results of patient reported outcome measures in clinical trials: the clinician's perspective. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2006, 4:62.
34. Brozek J.L., Guyatt G.H., Schunemann H.J. How a well-grounded minimal important difference can enhance transparency of labelling claims and improve interpretation of a patient reported outcome measure. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2006, 4:69.
35. Wells G., Anderson J., Beaton D., Bellamy N., Boers M., Bombardier C., et al. Minimal clinically important difference module: summary, recommendations, and research agenda. J Rheumatol 2001, 28:452-454.
36. Beurskens A.J.H.M., de Vet H.C.W., Köke A.J.A. Responsiveness of functional status in low back pain: a comparison of different instruments. Pain 1996, 65:71-76.
37. Crosby R.D., Kolotkin R.L., Williams G.R. Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol 2003, 56:395-407.
38. Tubach F., Ravaud P., Beaton D., Boers M., Bombardier C., Felson D.T., et al. Minimal clinically important improvement and patient acceptable symptom state for subjective outcome measures in rheumatic disorders. J Rheumatol 2007, 34:1188-1193.
39. Falgarone G., Zerkak D., Bauer C., Messow M., Dougados M. How to define a Minimal clinically individual state (MCIS) with pain VAS in daily practice for patients suffering from musculoskeletal disorders. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2005, 23:235-238.
40. Pham T., Tubach F. Patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS). Joint Bone Spine 2009, 76:321-323.
41. Ostelo R.W., Deyo R.A., Stratford P., Waddell G., Croft P., Von Korff M., et al. Interpreting change scores for pain and functional status in low back pain: towards international consensus regarding minimal important change. Spine 2008, 33:90-94.
42. Revicki D.A., Cella D., Hays R.D., Sloan J.A., Lenderking W.R., Aaronson N.K. Responsiveness and minimal important differences for patient reported outcomes. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2006, 4:70.
43. Guyatt G.H., Norman G.R., Juniper E.F., Griffith L.E. A critical look at transition ratings. J Clin Epidemiol 2002, 55:900-908.