Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Oxford Hip Scores at 6 Months and 5 Years Are Associated With Total Hip Revision Within the Subsequent 2 Years

  • Symposium: 2012 International Hip Society Proceedings
  • Published:
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

Abstract

Background

The Oxford hip score (OHS) is commonly reported in research studies as a reflection of pain and function but it is unclear whether it predicts subsequent prosthesis failure.

Questions/purposes

We determined whether OHS obtained at 6 months and 5 years after surgery predicts risk of revision within the subsequent 2 years.

Methods

We reviewed data from the New Zealand Joint Registry between January 1999 and December 2010. OHS at 6 months was available for 17,831 total hip patients. Patients were separated into four categories based on their OHS: 10,458 (59%) scored 42–48, 4726 (26%) scored 34–41, 1592 (9%) scored 27–33, and 1028 (6%) scored 0–26. Five-year OHSs were available for 3665 patients. Of these patients, 2619 (72%) scored 42–48, 657 (18%) scored 34–41, 225 (6%) scored 27–33, and 164 (4%) scored 0–26.

Results

For patients with a 6-month OHS, revision risk within 2 years was 0.4% in the 42–48 group, 1.0% in the 34–41 group, 1.7% in the 27–33 group, and 6.2% in the 0–27 group. For patients with 5-year OHS, revision risk within 2 years was 0.3%, 1.1%, 3.6%, and 6.1%, respectively. Increase in revision risk for the 0–27 versus the 42–48 OHS group was 15-fold at 6 months and 18-fold at 5 years.

Conclusions

Our data suggest patients with an OHS of 42–48 at 6 months need a 5-year postoperative appointment. Those patients with a 5-year OHS of 42–48 need not be followed up for a further 5 years.

Level of Evidence

Level III, retrospective, comparative study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ahmad MA, Xypnitos FN, Giannoudis PV. Measuring hip outcomes: common scales and checklists. Injury. 2011;42:259–264.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Altman DG, Royston P. The cost of dichotomising continuous variables. BMJ. 2006;332:1080.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bolz KM, Crawford RW, Donnelly B, Whitehouse SL, Graves N. The cost-effectiveness of routine follow-up after primary total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2010;25:191–196.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Braeken AM, Lochhaas-Gerlach JA, Gollish JD, Myles JD, Mackenzie TA. Determinants of 6–12 month postoperative functional status and pain after elective total hip replacement. Int J Qual Health Care. 1997;9:413–418.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Bullens PH, van Loon CJ, de Waal Malefijt MC, Laan RF, Veth RP. Patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty: a comparison between subjective and objective outcome assessments. J Arthroplasty. 2001;16:740–747.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Carr A, Murray D. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1996;78:185–190.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Field RE, Cronin MD, Singh PJ. The Oxford hip scores for primary and revision hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2005;87:618–622.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Fortin PR, Clarke AE, Joseph L, Liang MH, Tanzer M, Ferland D, Phillips C, Partridge AJ, Belisle P, Fossel AH, Mahomed N, Sledge CB, Katz JN. Outcomes of total hip and knee replacement: preoperative functional status predicts outcomes at six months after surgery. Arthritis Rheum. 1999;42:1722–1728.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Froslie KF, Roislien J, Laake P, Henriksen T, Qvigstad E, Veierod MB. Categorisation of continuous exposure variables revisited. A response to the Hyperglycaemia and Adverse Pregnancy Outcome (HAPO) Study. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010;10:103.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 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;20:1037–1041.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kane RL, Saleh KJ, Wilt TJ, Bershadsky B. The functional outcomes of total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87:1719–1724.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Lieberman JR, Dorey F, Shekelle P, Schumacher L, Thomas BJ, Kilgus DJ, Finerman GA. Differences between patients’ and physicians’ evaluations of outcome after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1996;78:835–838.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Lieberman JR, Leger RR, Tao JC, Clohisy JC, Meneghini RM. Total hip arthroplasty surveillance: when do we see our patients postoperatively? J Arthroplasty. 2011;26:1161–1164.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. MacWilliam CH, Yood MU, Verner JJ, McCarthy BD, Ward RE. Patient-related risk factors that predict poor outcome after total hip replacement. Health Serv Res. 1996;31:623–638.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Medalla GA, Moonot P, Peel T, Kalairajah Y, Field RE. Cost-benefit comparison of the Oxford Knee score and the American Knee Society score in measuring outcome of total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2009;24:652–656.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Murray DW, Fitzpatrick R, Rogers K, Pandit H, Beard DJ, Carr AJ, Dawson J. The use of the Oxford hip and knee scores. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007;89:1010–1014.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. New Zealand Joint Registry: Twelve Year Report—January 1999 to December 2010. Available at: www.nzoa.org.nz/files/NJR%2012%20Year%20Report%20Jan%2099%20-%20Dec%202010.pdf. Accessed January 15, 2013..

  18. Nilsdotter AK, Petersson IF, Roos EM, Lohmander LS. Predictors of patient relevant outcome after total hip replacement for osteoarthritis: a prospective study. Ann Rheum Dis. 2003;62:923–930.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Pocock SJ, Collier TJ, Dandreo KJ, de Stavola BL, Goldman MB, Kalish LA, Kasten LE, McCormack VA. Issues in the reporting of epidemiological studies: a survey of recent practice. BMJ. 2004;329:883.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Quintana JM, Escobar A, Aguirre U, Lafuente I, Arenaza JC. Predictors of health-related quality-of-life change after total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467:2886–2894.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 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;92:413–418.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Sethuraman V, McGuigan J, Hozack WJ, Sharkey PF, Rothman RH. Routine follow-up office visits after total joint replacement: do asymptomatic patients wish to comply? J Arthroplasty. 2000;15:183–186.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Professor Alastair Rothwell, MD, and Toni Hobbs for the supervision and compilation of data from the New Zealand Joint Registry.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopedics, CCDHB–Wellington Hospital, Riddiford Street, Wellington, New Zealand

    Peter Devane MD & Geoffrey Horne MD

  2. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Toledo, Toledo, OH, USA

    Daniel J. Gehling MD

Authors
  1. Peter Devane MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Geoffrey Horne MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Daniel J. Gehling MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Devane MD.

Additional information

Each author certifies that he or she, or a member of his or her immediate family, has no funding or commercial associations (eg, consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article.

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.

Each author certifies that his or her institution approved the human protocol for this investigation, that all investigations were conducted in conformity with ethical principles of research, and that informed consent for participation in the study was obtained.

This work was performed at the Wellington Hospital, Department of Orthopedics, Wellington, New Zealand.

About this article

Cite this article

Devane, P., Horne, G. & Gehling, D.J. Oxford Hip Scores at 6 Months and 5 Years Are Associated With Total Hip Revision Within the Subsequent 2 Years. Clin Orthop Relat Res 471, 3870–3874 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-013-2880-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-013-2880-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation