Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Outcome Instruments for Assessment of Hip Function

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Hip Joint Restoration

  • 329 Accesses

Abstract

Many hip outcome tools have been developed in the past, primarily for assessment of the impact of hip pathology in the older, less-active patient with hip osteoarthritis and, to a lesser extent, the child with Legg-Calve-Perthes, slipped capital femoral epiphysis, polio, or cerebral palsy. Recent efforts have focused on developing valid and reliable instruments for measuring hip function in young active patients with nonarthritic hip pain undergoing hip arthroscopy. A previous focus on clinician-based outcome tools has given way to patient-reported outcome measures, in recognition of the importance of defining outcomes from the patient’s perspective. Criteria for developing and assessing the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of such instruments have been defined. This chapter summarizes the common outcome tools currently in use for assessment of both arthritic and nonarthritic hip pain and discusses current recommendations regarding their use.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 279.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. 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;51:737–55.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. D’Aubigne RM, Postel M. Functional results of hip arthroplasty with acrylic prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1954;36-A:451–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Nilsdotter AK, Lohmander LS, Klässbo M, Roos EM. Hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score (HOOS)—validity and responsiveness in total hip replacement. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2003;4:10.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Klässbo M, Larsson E, Mannevik E. Hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score. An extension of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index. Scand J Rheumatol. 2003;32:46–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Murray DW, Fitzpatrick R, Rogers K, Pandit H, Beard DJ, Carr AJ, et al. The use of the Oxford hip and knee scores. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007;89:1010–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Söderman P, Malchau H. Validity and reliability of Swedish WOMAC osteoarthritis index: a self-administered disease-specific questionnaire (WOMAC) versus generic instruments (SF-36 and NHP). Acta Orthop Scand. 2000;71:39–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Stucki G, Sangha O, Stucki S, Michel BA, Tyndall A, Dick W, et al. Comparison of the WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities) osteoarthritis index and a self-report format of the self-administered Lequesne-Algofunctional index in patients with knee and hip osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 1998;6:79–86.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Safran MR, Hariri S. Hip arthroscopy assessment tools and outcomes. Oper Tech Orthop. 2010;20(4):264–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Byrd JW, Jones KS. Prospective analysis of hip arthroscopy with 2-year follow-up. Arthroscopy. 2000;16:578–87.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Christensen CP, Althausen PL, Mittleman MA, Lee J-A, McCarthy JC. The nonarthritic hip score: reliable and validated. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;(406):75–83.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Thorborg K, Holmich P, Christensen R, Petersen J, Roos EM. The Copenhagen Hip and Groin Outcome Score (HAGOS): development and validation according to the COSMIN checklist. Br J Sports Med. 2011;45:478–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Mohtadi NGH, Griffin DR, Pedersen ME, Chan D, Safran MR, Parsons N, et al. The development and validation of a self-administered quality-of-life outcome measure for young, active patients with symptomatic hip disease: the International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-33). Arthroscopy. 2012;28:595–605. quiz 606–10.e1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Martin RL, Mohtadi NG, Safran MR, Leunig M, Martin HD, McCarthy J, et al. Differences in physician and patient ratings of items used to assess hip disorders. Am J Sports Med. 2009;37:1508–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Lieberman JR, Dorey F, Shekelle P, Schumacher L, Thomas BJ, Kilgus DJ, et al. Differences between patients “and physicians” evaluations of outcome after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1996;78:835–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, et al. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:737–45.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Terwee CB, Bot SDM, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60:34–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL, Ostelo RW, Bouter LM, de Vet HC. Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: a scoring system for the COSMIN checklist. Qual Life Res. 2012;21:651–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Thorborg K, Roos EM, Bartels EM, Petersen J, Holmich P. Validity, reliability and responsiveness of patient-reported outcome questionnaires when assessing hip and groin disability: a systematic review. Br J Sports Med. 2010;44:1186–96.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Nilsdotter A, Bremander A. 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 (Hoboken). 2011;63 Suppl 11:S200–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Söderman P, Malchau H. Is the Harris hip score system useful to study the outcome of total hip replacement? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001;384:189–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Söderman P, Malchau H, Herberts P. Outcome of total hip replacement: a comparison of different measurement methods. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2001;390:163–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Matta JM, Mehne DK, Roffi R. Fractures of the acetabulum. Early results of a prospective study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1986;205:241–50.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Øvre S, Sandvik L, Madsen JE, Røise O. Comparison of distribution, agreement and correlation between the original and modified Merle d’Aubigné-Postel Score and the Harris Hip Score after acetabular fracture treatment: moderate agreement, high ceiling effect and excellent correlation in 450 patients. Acta Orthop. 2005;76:796–802.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Wamper KE, Sierevelt IN, Poolman RW, Bhandari M, Haverkamp D. The Harris hip score: do ceiling effects limit its usefulness in orthopedics? Acta Orthop. 2010;81:703–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Callaghan JJ, Dysart SH, Savory CF, Hopkinson WJ. Assessing the results of hip replacement. A comparison of five different rating systems. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1990;72-B:1008–9.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Kirmit L, Karatosun V, Unver B, Bakirhan S, Sen A, Gocen Z. The reliability of hip scoring systems for total hip arthroplasty candidates: assessment by physical therapists. Clin Rehabil. 2005;19:659–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Carr A. Questionnaire on the perception of patients about shoulder surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1996;78-B:593–600.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Kalairajah Y, Azurza K, Hulme C, Molloy S, Drabu KJ. Health outcome measures in the evaluation of total hip arthroplasties—a comparison between the Harris hip score and the Oxford hip score. J Arthroplasty. 2005;20:1037–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Garbuz DS, Xu M, Sayre EC. Patients’ outcome after total hip arthroplasty: a comparison between the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities index and the Oxford 12-item hip score. J Arthroplasty. 2006;21:998–1004.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Ostendorf M, van Stel HF, Buskens E, Schrijvers AJP, Marting LN, Verbout AJ, et al. Patient-reported outcome in total hip replacement. A comparison of five instruments of health status. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2004;86:801–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. 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;83:1125–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Baker PN, van der Meulen JH, Lewsey J, Gregg PJ, National Joint Registry for England and Wales. The role of pain and function in determining patient satisfaction after total knee replacement. Data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007;89:893–900.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Dunbar MJ, Robertsson O, Ryd L, Lidgren L. Appropriate questionnaires for knee arthroplasty. Results of a survey of 3600 patients from The Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Registry. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2001;83:339–44.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Rothwell AG, Hooper GJ, Hobbs A, Frampton CM. An analysis of the Oxford hip and knee scores and their relationship to early joint revision in the New Zealand Joint Registry. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2010;92:413–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Davis AM, Perruccio AV, Canizares M, Tennant A, Hawker GA, Conaghan PG, et al. The development of a short measure of physical function for hip OA HOOS-Physical Function Shortform (HOOS-PS): an OARSI/OMERACT initiative. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2008;16:551–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Ornetti P, Parratte S, Gossec L, Tavernier C, Argenson J-N, Roos EM, et al. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the French version of the Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS) in hip osteoarthritis patients. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2010;18:522–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. de Groot IB, Reijman M, Terwee CB, Bierma-Zeinstra SMA, Favejee M, Roos EM, et al. Validation of the Dutch version of the Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2007;15:104–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Hetaimish BM, Khan M, Crouch S, Simunovic N, Bedi A, Mohtadi N, et al. Consistency of reported outcomes after arthroscopic management of femoroacetabular impingement. Arthroscopy. 2013;29(4):780–7. doi:10.1016/j.arthro.2012.11.011.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Martin R, Kelly BT, Philippon MJ. Evidence of validity for the hip outcome score. Arthroscopy. 2006;22(12):1304–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Martin RL, Philippon MJ. Evidence of validity for the hip outcome score in hip arthroscopy. Arthroscopy. 2007;23:822–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Martin RL, Philippon MJ. Evidence of reliability and responsiveness for the hip outcome score. Arthroscopy. 2008;24:676–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Griffin DR, Parsons N, Mohtadi NGH, Safran MR, Multicenter Arthroscopy of the Hip Outcomes Research Network. A short version of the International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12) for use in routine clinical practice. Arthroscopy. 2012;28:611–6. quiz 616–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Riddle DL, Stratford PW, Bowman DH. Findings of extensive variation in the types of outcome measures used in hip and knee replacement clinical trials: a systematic review. Arthritis Rheum. 2008;59:876–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Lodhia P, Slobogean GP, Noonan VK, Gilbart MK. Patient-reported outcome instruments for femoroacetabular impingement and hip labral pathology: a systematic review of the clinimetric evidence. Arthroscopy. 2011;27:279–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Tijssen M, van Cingel R, van Melick N, de Visser E. Patient-Reported Outcome questionnaires for hip arthroscopy: a systematic review of the psychometric evidence. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2011;12:117.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of Interest

All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Sports Medicine, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Stanford University, Redwood City, CA, USA

    Simon W. Young FRACS

  2. Division of Sports Medicine, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Stanford University, 450 Broadway St, M/C 6342, Redwood City, CA, 94063, USA

    Marc R. Safran MD

Authors
  1. Simon W. Young FRACS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marc R. Safran MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marc R. Safran MD .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Orthopedic Surgery, Hip Joint Arthroplasty, Hip Arthroscopy Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA

    Joseph C. McCarthy

  2. Institute of Orthopedic Research and Education, Houston, Texas, USA

    Philip C. Noble

  3. Consultant Orthopedic Surgeon Orthopedics, The Villar Bajwa Practice, Spire Cambridge Lea Hospital, Cambridge, United Kingdom

    Richard N. Villar

Appendices

Appendix 1

figure a

Appendix 2

figure b

Appendix 3

figure c

Appendix 4

figure d

Appendix 5

figure e

Appendix 6

figure ffigure ffigure ffigure ffigure ffigure ffigure ffigure ffigure ffigure ffigure ffigure f

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer Science+Business Media LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Young, S.W., Safran, M.R. (2017). Outcome Instruments for Assessment of Hip Function. In: McCarthy, J., Noble, P., Villar, R. (eds) Hip Joint Restoration. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-0694-5_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-0694-5_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4614-0693-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4614-0694-5

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation