HSS Journal ®

, Volume 8, Issue 3, pp 198–205 | Cite as

The Development and Validation of a More Discriminating Functional Hip Score for Research

Current Topics Concerning Joint Preservation and Minimally Invasive Surgery of the Hip



Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a commonly performed procedure with increasing frequency in the young adult. While most available outcome measures can document postoperative improvement in pain and function, they do not measure the ability to perform high-demand activities.


We present and validate a user-friendly discriminating hip scoring system (the functional hip score) for use in younger, “high-demand” patients undergoing hip arthroplasty surgery.


We studied 38 subjects without any hip symptoms and 72 patients undergoing THA for osteoarthritis of the hip. Preprocedure and postprocedure scores were collected in the latter cohort of patients. SF-36 and WOMAC scores were used to validate our functional scoring system. The functional hip score was tested for internal consistency, reliability, and criterion validity.


The functional hip score had high test–retest reliability, internal consistency, and criterion validity. This can be used to measure functional outcome in the younger high-demand adult patient undergoing THA.


Our discriminating functional hip score can reliably measure improvement in hip function in the younger high-demand adult. Current scoring systems have ceiling effects and are unable to differentiate a high performing hip replacement from the routine hip replacement. The use of functional tasks that are measured objectively allows better documentation of improvement in hip function.


outcomes functional scores hip outcomes young adult hip 


  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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ashby E, Grocott MPW, Haddad FS. Outcome measures for orthopaedic interventions on hip. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90:545-549.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bachmeier CJ, March LM, Cross MJ, Lapsley HM, Tribe KL, Courtenay BG, Brooks PM; Arthritis Cost and Outcome Project Group. A comparison of outcomes in osteoarthritis patients undergoing total hip and knee replacement surgery. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2001;9:137-146.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bardakos NV, Vasconcelos JC, Villar RN. Early outcome of hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement: the role of femoral osteoplasty in symptomatic improvement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2008;90(12):1570-5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Beaulé PE, Dorey FJ, Hoke R, Leduff M, Amstutz HC. The value of patient activity level in the outcome of total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2006;21:547-552.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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;15:1833-1840.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brazier JE, Harper R, Jones NM, O'Cathain A, Thomas KJ, Usherwood T, Westlake L. Validating the SF-36 health survey questionnaire: new outcome measure for primary care. BMJ. 1992;305:160-164.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Christensen CP, Althausen PL, Mittleman MA, Lee JA, McCarthy JC. The nonarthritic hip score: reliable and validated. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;406:75-83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Murray D, Carr A. Comparison of measures to assess outcomes in total hip replacement surgery. Qual Health Care. 1996;5:81-88.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Frost S, Gundle R, McLardy-Smith P, Murray D. Evidence for the validity of a patient-based instrument for assessment of outcome after revision hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2001;83:1125-1129.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Feeny D, Wu L, Eng K. Comparing Short Form 6D, standard gamble, and Health Utilities Index Mark 2 and Mark 3 utility scores: results from total hip arthroplasty patients. Qual Life Res. 2004;13:1659-1670.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Katz JN, Larson MG, Phillips CB, Fossel AH, Liang MH. Comparative measurement sensitivity of short and longer health status instruments. Med Care. 1992;30:917-925.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kennedy D, Stratford PW, Pagura SMC, et al. Exploring the factorial validity and clinical interpretability of the WOMAC. Physiotherapy Canada. 2003;55:160-168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Laupacis A, Bourne R, Rorabeck C, Feeny D, Wong C, Tugwell P, Leslie K, Bullas R. The effect of elective total hip replacement on health-related quality of life. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1993;75:1619-1626.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mahomed NN, Arndt DC, McGrory BJ, Harris WH. The Harris hip score: comparison of patient self-report with surgeon assessment. J Arthroplasty. 2001;16:575-580.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Martin DP, Engelberg R, Agel J, Swiontkowski MF. Comparison of the Musculoskeletal Function Assessment questionnaire with the Short Form-36, the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, and the Sickness Impact Profile health-status measures. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997;79:1323-1335.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    McHorney CA, Ware JE Jr, Rogers W, Raczek AE, Lu JF. The validity and relative precision of MOS short- and long-form health status scales and Dartmouth COOP charts. Results from the Medical Outcomes Study. Med Care. 1992;30(Suppl):MS253-265.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ostendorf M, van 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;86:801-808.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Söderman P, Malchau H. Is the Harris hip score system useful to study the outcome of total hip replacement? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001;384:189-197.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stucki G, Sangha O, Stucki S, Michel BA, Tyndall A, Dick W, Theiler R. Comparison of the WOMAC osteoarthritis index and self-report format of the self administered Lequesne-Algo functional index in patients with knee and hip osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 1998;6:79-86.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36 item short-form health survey (SF-36). Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30:473-483.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ware J Jr, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-item short-form health survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care. 1996;34:220-233.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Hospital for Special Surgery 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sujith Konan
    • 1
  • Jenni Tahmassebi
    • 1
  • Fares S. Haddad
    • 1
  1. 1.Trauma and Orthopaedics, University College London HospitalsLondonUK

Personalised recommendations