Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

, Volume 471, Issue 8, pp 2586–2594

Which Functional Assessments Predict Long-term Wear After Total Hip Arthroplasty?

  • Ryan K. Takenaga
  • John J. Callaghan
  • Nicholas A. Bedard
  • Steve S. Liu
  • Yubo Gao
Clinical Research

Abstract

Background

There is a paucity of literature concerning functional assessment at long-term followup of THAs in general and in young patients specifically. Functional data may be useful in determining differences in the performance of various implants and surgical techniques in THA.

Questions/purposes

The purposes of this study were to evaluate a group of young patients who were still active 10 years after THA to determine (1) which functional tests and (2) which patient-reported outcome assessments predicted long-term THA function, as measured by acetabular UHMWPE wear, and (3) whether medical comorbidities influenced patient performance on activity tests and patient outcome questionnaires.

Methods

Fifty patients (58 hips) 50 years and younger at the time of THA were followed clinically and radiographically for a minimum of 10 years. All patients wore step activity monitors for up to 21 days, performed 6-minute walk (6-MW) tests, and every patient had minimum 10-year radiographs and sequential radiographs evaluated for wear using edge detection techniques. Mean age and BMI at surgery were 39 years and 29 kg/m2, respectively.

Results

Patients who walked more as determined by step activity monitor (average daily steps) had more linear acetabular UHMWPE wear per year and more volumetric wear per year. The 6-MW, University of California Los Angeles (UCLA), and Tegner Lysholm scores did not correlate with acetabular wear. Mean 6-MW distance was 335 m and pedometer data averaged 1.56 million steps per year. Average UCLA and Tegner Lysholm scores were 6 and 3, respectively. Mean linear wear rate was 0.266 mm/year; mean volumetric wear rate was 82.6 mm3/year. The number of comorbid medical conditions had a detrimental effect on our activity parameters and outcomes questionnaires, but the relationships were not statistically significant.

Conclusions

Of functional tools measured, only pedometer data correlated with THA polyethylene wear. Obtaining pedometer data should be considered when trying to distinguish differences in various hip arthroplasty designs and techniques over the long term.

Level of evidence

Level IV, diagnostic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

References

  1. 1.
    Amstutz HC, Thomas BJ, Jinnah R, Kim W, Grogan T, Yale C. Treatment of primary osteoarthritis of the hip: a comparison of total joint and surface replacement arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1984;66:228–241.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bellamy N, Campbell J, Stevens J, Pilch L, Stewart C, Mahmood Z. Validation study of computerized version of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities VA3.0 osteoarthritis index. J Rheumatol. 1997:2413–2415.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Busse M, van Deursen R, Wiles C. Real-life step and activity measurement: reliability and validity. J Med Eng Technol. 2009;33:33–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Capello WN, D’Antonio JA, Feinberg JR, Manley MT. Ten-year results with hydroxyapatite-coated total hip femoral components in patients less than fifty years old: a concise follow-up of a previous report. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003;85:885–889.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Charnley J. Low Friction Arthroplasty of the Hip: Theory and Practice. New York, NY, USA: Springer-Verlag; 1979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Coleman KL, Smith DG, Boone DA, Joseph AW, del Aguila MA. Step activity monitor: long-term, continuous recording of ambulatory function. J Rehabil Res Dev. 1999;36:8–18.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Duffy GP, Berry DJ, Rowland C, Cabanela ME. Primary uncemented total hip arthroplasty in patients < 40 years old: 10- to 14-year results using first-generation proximally porous-coated implants. J Arthroplasty. 2001;16(8 suppl 1):140–144.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Enright PL, McBurnie MA, Bittner V, Tracy RP, McNamara R, Arnold A, Newman AB; Cardiovascular Health Study. The 6-min walk test: a quick measure of functional status in elderly adults. Chest. 2003;123:387–398.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Enright PL, Sherrill DL. Reference equations for the six-minute walk in healthy adults. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1998;158(5 pt 1):1384–1387.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fischer CR, Lee JH, Macaulay W. Patient activity after hip arthroplasty: state of the art, current knowledge, and guidelines. Oper Techn Orthop. 2009;19:176–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gaffey JL, Callaghan JJ, Pedersen DR, Goetz DP, Sullivan PM, Johnston RC. Cementless acetabular fixation at fifteen years: a comparison with the same surgeon’s results following acetabular fixation with cement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004;86:257–261.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Goldsmith AA, Dowson D, Wroblewski BM, Siney PD, Fleming PA, Lane JM. The effect of activity levels of total hip arthroplasty patients on socket penetration. J Arthroplasty. 2001;16:620–627.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Guyatt G, Sullivan M, Thompson P, Fallen E, Pugsley S, Taylor D, Berman L. The 6-minute walk: a new measure of exercise capacity in patients with chronic heart failure. Can Med Assoc J. 1985;132:919–923.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Harris WH. Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. An end-result study using a new method of result evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1969;51:737–755.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Johnston RC, Fitzgerald RJ Jr, Harris WH, Poss R, Muller ME, Sledge CB. Clinical and radiographic evaluation of total hip replacement: a standard system of terminology for reporting results. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1990;72:161–168.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kabo JM, Gebhard JS, Loren G, Amstutz HC. In vivo wear of polyethylene acetabular components. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1993;75:254–258.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Keener JD, Callaghan JJ, Goetz DD, Pederson D, Sullivan P, Johnston RC. Long-term function after Charnley total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;417:148–156.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kim Y, Kim J, Park J, Joo J. Comparison of total hip replacement with and without cement in patients younger than 50 years of age: the results at 18 years. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2011;93:449–455.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Laupacis A, Bourne R, Rorabeck C, Feeny D, Tugwell P, Wong C. Comparison of total hip arthroplasty performed with and without cement: a randomized trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84:1823–1828.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    McLaughlin JR, Lee KR. Total hip arthroplasty with an uncemented tapered femoral component in patients younger than 50 years. J Arthroplasty. 2011;26:9–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Naal FD, Impellizzeri FM, Leunig M. Which is the best activity rating scale for patients undergoing total joint arthroplasty? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467:958–965.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schmalzried TP, Callaghan JJ. Wear in total hip and knee replacements. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1999;81:115–136.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schmalzried TP, Dorey FJ, McKellop H. The multifactorial nature of polyethylene wear in vivo. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1998;80:1234–1242; discussion 1242–1243.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schmalzried TP, Shepherd EF, Dorey FJ, Jackson WO, dela Rosa M, Fa’vae F, McKellop HA, McClung CD, Martell J, Moreland JR, Amstutz HC. The John Charnley Award: Wear is a function of use, not time. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2000;381:36–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schmalzried TP, Szuszczewicz ES, Northfield MR, Akizuki KH, Frankel RE, Belcher G, Amstutz HC. Quantitative assessment of walking activity after total hip or knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1998;80:54–59.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sechriest VF 2nd, Kyle RF, Marek DJ, Spates JD, Saleh KJ, Kuskowski M. Activity level in young patients with primary total hip arthroplasty: a 5-year minimum follow-up. J Arthroplasty. 2007;22:39–47.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shaver SM, Brown TD, Hillis SL, Callaghan JJ. Digital edge-detection measurement of polyethylene wear after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997;79:690–700.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Shepherd EF, Toloza E, McClung CD, Schmalzried TP. Step activity monitor: increased accuracy in quantifying ambulatory activity. J Orthop Res. 1999;17:703–708.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Silva M, Shepherd EF, Jackson WO, Dorey FJ, Schmalzried TP. Average patient walking activity approaches 2 million cycles per year: pedometers under-record walking activity. J Arthroplasty. 2002;17:693–697.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Takenaga RK, Callaghan JJ, Bedard NA, Liu SS, Klaassen AL, Pedersen DR. Cementless total hip arthroplasty in patients fifty years of age or younger: a minimum ten-year follow-up. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2012;94:2153–2159PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Tegner Y, Lysholm J. Rating systems in the evaluation of knee ligament injuries. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1985;198:43–49.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ware J, Kosinski M, Keller S. SF-36 Physical and Mental Health Summary Scales: A User’s Manual. Boston, MA: The Health Institute, New England Medical Center; 1994.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Zahiri CA, Schmalzried TP, Szuszczewicz ES, Amstutz HC. Assessing activity in joint replacement patients. J Arthroplasty. 1998;13:890–895.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons® 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ryan K. Takenaga
    • 1
  • John J. Callaghan
    • 2
    • 1
  • Nicholas A. Bedard
    • 1
  • Steve S. Liu
    • 1
  • Yubo Gao
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of OrthopaedicsUniversity of Iowa Health Care, University of Iowa Hospitals and ClinicsIowa CityUSA
  2. 2.VA Medical CenterIowa CityUSA

Personalised recommendations