Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Outcome measures in total hip arthroplasty: have our metrics changed over 15 years?

  • Orthopaedic Surgery
  • Published:
Archives of Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Consensus has not been reached regarding ideal outcome measures for total hip arthroplasty (THA) clinical evaluation and research. The goal of this review was to analyze the trends in outcome metrics within the THA literature and to discuss the potential impact of instrument heterogeneity on clinical practice.

Materials and methods

A PubMed search of all manuscripts related to THA from January 2005 to December 2019 was performed. Statistical and linear regression analyses were performed for individual outcome metrics as a proportion of total THA publications over time.

Results

There was a statistically significant increase in studies utilizing outcomes metrics between 2005 and 2019 (15.1–29.5%; P < 0.001; R2 = 98.1%). Within the joint-specific subcategory, use of the Harris Hip Score (HHS) significantly decreased from 2005 to 2019 (82.8–57.3%; P < 0.001), use of the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS) significantly increased (0–6.7%; P < 0.001), and the modified HHS significantly increased (0–10.5%; P < 0.001). In the quality of life subcategory, EQ-5D demonstrated a significant increase in usage (0–34.8%; P < 0.001), while Short Form-36 significantly decreased (100% vs. 27.3%; P = 0.008).

Conclusions

The utilization of outcome-reporting metrics in THA has continued to increase, resulting in added complexity within the literature. The utilization rates of individual instruments have shifted over the past 15 years. Additional study is required to determine which specific instruments are recommended.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Arbab D, van Ochten JHM, Schnurr C et al (2017) Assessment of reliability, validity, responsiveness and minimally important change of the German hip dysfunction and osteoarthritis outcome score (HOOS) in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip. Rheumatol Int 37:2005–2011. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-017-3834-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Pabinger C, Lothaller H, Portner N, Geissler A (2018) Projections of hip arthroplasty in OECD countries up to 2050. Hip Int 28:498–506. https://doi.org/10.1177/1120700018757940

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Sloan M, Premkumar A, Sheth NP (2018) Projected volume of primary total joint arthroplasty in the U.S., 2014 to 2030. J Bone Jt Surg Am Vol. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.17.01617

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Michael E, Porter P (2010) Perspective - what is value in health care? N Engl J Med 363:1–3. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1002530

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Collins NJ, Roos EM (2012) Patient-reported outcomes for total hip and knee arthroplasty. Commonly used instruments and attributes of a “good” measure. Clin Geriatr Med 28:367–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cger.2012.05.007

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hung M, Saltzman CL, Greene T et al (2018) Evaluating instrument responsiveness in joint function: the HOOS JR, the KOOS JR, and the PROMIS PF CAT. J Orthop Res 36:1178–1184. https://doi.org/10.1002/jor.23739

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Alviar MJ, Olver J, Brand C et al (2011) Do patient-reported outcome measures in hip and knee arthroplasty rehabilitation have robust measurement attributes? A systematic review. J Rehabil Med 43:572–583. https://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-0828

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Wilson I, Bohm E, Lübbeke A et al (2019) Orthopaedic registries with patient-reported outcome measures. EFORT Open Rev 4:357–367. https://doi.org/10.1302/2058-5241.4.180080

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Vajapey SP, Morris J, Spitzer AI et al (2020) Outcome reporting patterns in total knee arthroplasty: a systematic review. J Clin Orthop Trauma. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcot.2020.05.014

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Konopka JF, Lee Y-Y, Su EP, McLawhorn AS (2018) Quality-adjusted life years after hip and knee arthroplasty: health-related quality of life after 12,782 joint replacements. JBJS Open Access 3:e0007. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.OA.18.00007

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Murphy L, Helmick CG (2012) The impact of osteoarthritis in the United States: a population-health perspective. Am J Nurs. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NAJ.0000412646.80054.21

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Molloy IB, Yong TM, Keswani A et al (2020) Do medicare’s patient-reported outcome measures collection windows accurately reflect academic clinical practice? J Arthroplasty 35:911–917. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2019.11.006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Bozic KJ, Pui CM, Ludeman MJ et al (2010) Do the potential benefits of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing justify the increased cost and risk of complications? Clin Orthop Relat Res 468:2301–2312. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-010-1301-0

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Mújica Mota RE (2013) Cost-effectiveness analysis of early versus late total hip replacement in Italy. Value Health 16:267–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2012.10.020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Lodhia P, Gui C, Chandrasekaran S et al (2016) The economic impact of acetabular labral tears. Am J Sports Med 44:1771–1780. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546516645532

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Siljander MP, McQuivey KS, Fahs AM et al (2018) Current trends in patient-reported outcome measures in total joint arthroplasty: a study of 4 major orthopaedic journals. J Arthroplasty 33:3416–3421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2018.06.034

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Pulikottil-Jacob R, Connock M, Kandala NB et al (2015) Cost effectiveness of total hip arthroplasty in osteoarthritis: comparison of devices with differing bearing surfaces and modes of fixation. Bone Jt J 97-B:449–457. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.97B4.34242

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Varnum C (2017) Outcomes of different bearings in total hip arthroplasty - implant survival, revision causes, and patient-reported outcome. Dan Med J 64(3):B5350

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ponnusamy KE, Vasarhelyi EM, Somerville L et al (2018) Cost-effectiveness of total knee arthroplasty vs nonoperative management in normal, overweight, obese, severely obese, morbidly obese, and super-obese patients: a markov model. J Arthroplasty 33:S32–S38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2018.02.031

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Ponnusamy KE, Vasarhelyi EM, McCalden RW et al (2018) Cost-effectiveness of total hip arthroplasty versus nonoperative management in normal, overweight, obese, severely obese, morbidly obese, and super obese patients: a Markov model. J Arthroplasty 33:3629–3636. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2018.08.023

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Gaffney CJ, Pelt CE, Gililland JM, Peters CL (2017) Perioperative pain management in hip and knee arthroplasty. Orthop Clin N Am 48:407–419

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Pennington M, Grieve R, Sekhon JS et al (2013) Cemented, cementless, and hybrid prostheses for total hip replacement: cost effectiveness analysis. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f1026

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Jansen JA, Kruidenier J, Spek B, Snoeker BAM (2020) A cost-effectiveness analysis after implementation of a fast-track protocol for total knee arthroplasty. Knee. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knee.2019.09.014

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lovelock TM, Broughton NS, Williams CM (2018) The popularity of outcome measures for hip and knee arthroplasties. J Arthroplasty 33:273–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Kamaruzaman H, Kinghorn P, Oppong R (2017) Cost-effectiveness of surgical interventions for the management of osteoarthritis: a systematic review of the literature. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 18:1–17. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-017-1540-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Rosenlund S, Broeng L, Holsgaard-Larsen A et al (2017) Patient-reported outcome after total hip arthroplasty: comparison between lateral and posterior approach: a randomized controlled trial in 80 patients with 12-month follow-up. Acta Orthop 88:239–247. https://doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2017.1291100

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Shim J, Hamilton DF (2019) Comparative responsiveness of the PROMIS-10 global health and EQ-5D questionnaires in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty. Bone Jt J 101 B:832–837. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620X.101B7.BJJ-2018-1543.R1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Finch DJ, Pellegrini VD, Franklin PD et al (2020) The effects of bundled payment programs for hip and knee arthroplasty on patient-reported outcomes. J Arthroplasty 35:918-925.e7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2019.11.028

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Faschingbauer M, Kasparek M, Schadler P et al (2017) Predictive values of WOMAC, KOOS, and SF-12 score for knee arthroplasty: data from the OAI. Knee Surg Sport Traumatol Arthrosc 25:3333–3339. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-016-4369-6

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Rolfson O, Eresian Chenok K, Bohm E et al (2016) Patient-reported outcome measures in arthroplasty registries: report of the Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Working Group of the International Society of Arthroplasty Registries: part I. Overview and rationale for patient-reported outcome measures. Acta Orthop 87:3–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/17453674.2016.1181815

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Cooper ME, Torre-Healy LA, Alentado VJ et al (2018) Heterogeneity of reporting outcomes in the spine surgery literature. Clin Spine Surg 31:E221–E229. https://doi.org/10.1097/BSD.0000000000000578

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Torre M, Luzi I, Mirabella F et al (2018) Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Italian version of the Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS). Health Qual Life Outcomes 16:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-018-0935-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Lyman S, Lee YY, Franklin PD et al (2016) Validation of the HOOS, JR: a short-form hip replacement survey. Clin Orthop Relat Res 474:1472–1482. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-016-4718-2

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Nilsdotter A, Bremander A (2011) Measures of hip function and symptoms: Harris Hip Score (HHS), Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS), Oxford Hip Score (OHS), Lequesne Index of Severity for Osteoarthritis of the Hip (LISOH), and American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS) hip and knee questionnaire. Arthritis Care Res 63:200–207. https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.20549

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Trathitiphan W, Paholpak P, Sirichativapee W et al (2016) Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the reliability of the Thai version of the Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS). Rheumatol Int 36:1455–1458. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-016-3505-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Kumar P, Sen R, Aggarwal S et al (2019) Reliability of modified Harris Hip Score as a tool for outcome evaluation of total hip replacements in Indian population. J Clin Orthop Trauma 10:128–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcot.2017.11.019

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Ramisetty N, Kwon Y, Mohtadi N (2015) Patient-reported outcome measures for hip preservation surgery–a systematic review of the literature. J Hip Preserv Surg 2:15–27. https://doi.org/10.1093/jhps/hnv002

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Quah C, Holmes D, Khan T et al (2018) The variability in Oxford hip and knee scores in the preoperative period: Is there an ideal time to score? Ann R Coll Surg Engl 100:16–20. https://doi.org/10.1308/rcsann.2017.0090

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Bienstock DM, Snyder DJ, Kroshus TR et al (2019) Relationship between baseline patient-reported outcomes and demographic, psychosocial, and clinical characteristics. JAAOS Glob Res Rev 3:e039. https://doi.org/10.5435/jaaosglobal-d-19-00039

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Matsumoto M, Baba T, Ochi H et al (2017) Influence of the contralateral hip state after total hip arthroplasty on patient-reported outcomes measured with the Forgotten Joint Score-12. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 27:929–936. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-017-1963-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Hamilton DF, Giesinger JM, MacDonald DJ et al (2016) Responsiveness and ceiling effects of the Forgotten Joint Score-12 following total hip arthroplasty. Bone Jt Res 5:87–91. https://doi.org/10.1302/2046-3758.53.2000480

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Behrend H, Zdravkovic V, Giesinger J, Giesinger K (2016) Factors predicting the forgotten joint score after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 31:1927–1932. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2016.02.035

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Webster KE, Feller JA (2016) Comparison of the short form-12 (SF-12) health status questionnaire with the SF-36 in patients with knee osteoarthritis who have replacement surgery. Knee Surg Sport Traumatol Arthrosc 24:2620–2626. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-015-3904-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Jenkinson C, Layte R, Jenkinson D et al (1997) A shorter form health survey: Can the sf-12 replicate results from the sf-36 in longitudinal studies? J Public Health 19:179–186. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.pubmed.a024606

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Schmitz PP, van Susante JLC, Hol A et al (2019) No decline in high patient satisfaction after total hip arthroplasty at long-term follow-up. Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol 29:91–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00590-018-2243-6

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Naal FD, Impellizzeri FM, Leunig M (2009) Which is the best activity rating scale for patients undergoing total joint arthroplasty? Clin Orthop Relat Res 467:958–965. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-008-0358-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Lan RH, Bell JW, Samuel LT, Kamath AF (2020) Evolving Outcome Measures in Total Knee Arthroplasty: Trends and Utilization Rates Over the Past 15 Years. J Arthroplasty. 35(11):3375–3382. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2020.06.036

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

There are no acknowledgements within this study.

Funding

There is no funding source.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Medicine, University of Tennessee Health Science Center, 910 Madison Ave, Memphis, TN, 38163, USA

    Roy H. Lan & Jack W. Bell

  2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Center for Hip Preservation, Orthopaedic and Rheumatologic Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, 9500 Euclid Avenue Mail Code A40, Cleveland, OH, 44195, USA

    Linsen T. Samuel & Atul F. Kamath

Authors
  1. Roy H. Lan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jack W. Bell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Linsen T. Samuel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Atul F. Kamath
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Atul F. Kamath.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

RHL, JWB, and LTS have nothing to declare. AFK declares the following: AAOS: Board or committee member; American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons: Board or committee member; Anterior Hip Foundation: Board or committee member; BodyCad: paid consultant; DePuy, A Johnson & Johnson Company: paid consultant; paid presenter or speaker; Innomed: IP royalties; Johnson & Johnson: stock or stock options; Procter & Gamble: stock or stock options; Signature Orthopaedics: research support; Zimmer: paid consultant; paid presenter or speaker; stock or stock options.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Informed consent was not required for this study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lan, R.H., Bell, J.W., Samuel, L.T. et al. Outcome measures in total hip arthroplasty: have our metrics changed over 15 years?. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg 142, 1753–1762 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-021-03809-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00402-021-03809-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation