Advertisement

Journal of Artificial Organs

, Volume 20, Issue 2, pp 152–157 | Cite as

Improvement of activities of daily living after total hip arthroplasty using a computed tomography-based navigation system

  • Yuki MaedaEmail author
  • Nobuo NakamuraEmail author
  • Nobuhiko Sugano
Original Article Artificial Skin, Muscle, Bone / Joint, Neuron

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the outcome improvements after total hip arthroplasty (THA) using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) in patients who underwent THA with a navigation system in our institutions. The subjects were 219 patients. All patients had adequate data to allow complete scoring of the WOMAC for a 1-year postoperative follow-up. CT-based navigation was used in all THAs. Postoperatively, no restrictions were imposed on patients’ ADL. One year after surgery, the average WOMAC pain subscale score was 1.8 ± 2.9, the stiffness subscale score was 1.1 ± 1.6, and the physical function subscale score was 7.5 ± 11.6 points. The number of patients whose score for the WOMAC physical function score was 0 points was 61 (27.9%). A lower WOMAC score usually represents a better status. In some of the most difficult functions, such as ascending stairs, bending to the floor, putting on socks/stockings, and heavy domestic duties, the scores tended to be higher than the other scores postoperatively. These results show that THA using navigation can improve patients’ postoperative QOL.

Keywords

Quality of life WOMAC CT-based navigation Total hip arthroplasty 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors report no commercial associations that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with this article.

References

  1. 1.
    Nishii T, Sugano N, Miki H, Koyama T, Takao M, Yoshikawa H. Influence of component position on dislocation: computed tomographic evaluation in a consecutive series of total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2004;19:162–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Woolson ST, Harris WH. A method of intraoperative limb length measurement in total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1985;194:207–10.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ranawat CS, Rao RR, Rodriguez JA, Bhende HS. Correction of limb-length inequality during total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2001;16:715–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sugano N, Nishii T, Miki H, Yoshikawa H, Sato Y, Tamura S. Mid-term results of cementless total hip arthroplasty using a ceramic-on-ceramic bearing with and without computer navigation. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007;89:455–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sugano N, Takao M, Sakai T, Nishii T, Miki H. Does CT-Based Navigation Improve the Long-Term Survival in Ceramic-on-Ceramic THA? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012;470:3054–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bosker BH, Verheyen CCPM, Horstmann WG, Tulp NJ. Poor accuracy of freehand cup positioning during total hip arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2007;127:375–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Collanan MC, Jarrett B, Bragdon CR, Zurakowski D, Rubash HE, Freiberg AA, Malchau H. The John Charnley Award. Risk factors for cup malpositioning quality improvement through a joint registry at a tertiary hospital. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469:319–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Talbot NJ, Brown JH, Treble NJ. Early dislocation after total hip arthroplasty. Are postoperative restrictions necessary? J Arthroplasty. 2002;17:1006–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Peak EL, Parvizi J, Ciminiello M, Purtill JJ, Sharkey PF, Hozack WJ, Rothman RH. The role of patient restrictions in reducing the prevalence of early dislocation following total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:247–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Iwana D, Nakamura N, Miki H, Kitada M, Hananouchi T, Sugano N. Accuracy of angle and position of the cup using computed tomography-based navigation systems in total hip arthroplasty. Comput Aid Surg. 2013;18:187–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sugano N, Tsuda K, Miki H, Takao M, Suzuki N, Nakamura N. Dynamic measurements of hip movement in deep bending activities after total hip arthroplasty using a 4-dimentional motion analysis system. J Arthroplasty. 2012;27:1562–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hagio K, Sugano N, Nishii T, Miki H, Otake Y, Hattori A, Suzuki N, Yonenobu K, Yoshikawa H, Ochi T. A novel system of four-dimensional motion analysis after total hip arthroplasty. J Orthop Res. 2004;22:665–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Konan S, Tahmassebi J, Haddad FS. The development and validation of a more discriminating functional hip score for research. HSS J. 2012;8(3):198–205.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lavernia CJ, Alcerro JC, Contreras JS, Rossi MD. Patient perceived outcomes after primary hip arthroplasty. Does gender matter? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2011;469:348–54.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Quitana 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. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2005;13:1076–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ostendorf M, Stel HF, Buskens E, Schrijvers AJ, Marting LN, Verbout AJ, Dhert WJ. Patient-reported outcome in total hip replacement. A comparison of five instruments of health status. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2004;86:801–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ostendorf M, Buskens E, Stel H, Schrijvers A, Marting L, Dhert W, Verbout A. Waiting for total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2004;19:302–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nilsdotter AK, Lohmander LS. Age and waiting time as predictors of outcome after total hip replacement for osteoarthritis. Rheumatology(Oxford). 2002;41:1261–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kostamo T, Bourne RB, Whittaker JP, McCalden RW, MacDonald SJ. No difference in gender-specific hip replacement outcomes. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467:135–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bourne RB, Chesworth B, Davis A, Mahomed N, Charron K. Comparing patient outcomes after THA and TKA. Is there a difference? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:542–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Greidanus NV, Chihab S, Garbuz DS, Masri BA, Tanzer M, Gross AE, Duncan CP. Outcomes of minimally invasive anterolateral THA are not superior to those of minimally invasive direct lateral and posterolateral THA. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2013;471:463–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nilsdotter AK, Isaksson F. Patient relevant outcome 7 years after total hip replacement for OA-a prospective study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2010;11:47.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fujita K, Makimoto K, Higo T, Shigematsu M, Hotokebuchi T. Changes in the WOMAC, EuroQol and Japanese lifestyle measurements among patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2009;17:848–55.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    McConnell S, Kolopack P, Davis AM. The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC): a review of its utility and measurement properties. Arthritis Rheum. 2001;45:453–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    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(12):1833–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japanese Society for Artificial Organs 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center of ArthroplastyKyowakai HospitalSuitaJapan
  2. 2.Department of Orthopedic Medical EngineeringOsaka University Graduate School of MedicineSuitaJapan

Personalised recommendations