The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American). 2006;88:685-691.
doi:10.2106/JBJS.E.00150
© 2006 The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Inc.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow CME: Take the activities for this article:
Adult Hip Reconstruction Test 20: Summer 2006 (publication date August 15, ...
CME 2: April, May, June 2006 (publication date July 5, 2006; expiration dat...
Right arrow [Supplementary Material]
Right arrow Letters to the Editor: Submit a response
Right arrow Letters to the Editor: View responses
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Letters to the Editor are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowReprints and Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Davis, A. M.
Right arrow Articles by Gross, A. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Davis, A. M.
Right arrow Articles by Gross, A. E.
Related Collections
Right arrow Adult Hip
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

Predictors of Functional Outcome Two Years Following Revision Hip Arthroplasty

Aileen M. Davis, PhD1, Zoe Agnidis, MScPT2, Elizabeth Badley, PhD3, Alex Kiss, PhD4, James P. Waddell, MD, FRCSC5 and Allan E. Gross, MD, FRCSC2

1 Toronto Western Hospital, MP 11-322, 399 Bathurst Street, Toronto, ON M5T 2S8, Canada. E-mail address: adavis{at}uhnresearch.ca
2 Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Mount Sinai Hospital, 600 University Avenue, Suite 476A, Toronto, ON M5G 1X5, Canada. E-mail address for Z. Agnidis: zoe.agnidis{at}utoronto.ca. E-mail address for A.E. Gross: allan.gross{at}utoronto.ca
3 Arthritis Community Research and Evaluation Unit, University Health Network, Toronto Western Hospital, 399 Bathurst Street, Toronto, ON M5T 2S8, Canada. E-mail address for E. Badley: badley{at}uhnres.utoronto.ca
4 Sunnybrook and Women's College Health Sciences Centre, 2075 Bayview Avenue, G Wing, 1st Floor, Room 144, Toronto, ON M4N 3M5, Canada. E-mail address for A. Kiss: kiss{at}ices.on.ca
5 University of Toronto, St. Michael's Hospital, 30 Bond Street, Room 5013, Bond Wing, Toronto, ON M5B 1W8, Canada. E-mail address for J.P. Waddell: waddellj{at}smh.toronto.on.ca

Investigation performed at Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto Western Hospital—University Health Network, Sunnybrook and Women's College Health Sciences Centre, and St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

A commentary is available with the electronic versions of this article, on our web site (www.jbjs.org) and on our quarterly CD-ROM (call our subscription department, at 781-449-9780, to order the CD-ROM).

NOTE: The following surgeons enrolled patients in this study: J. Roderick Davey, Toronto Western Hospital of University Health Network; Jeffrey Gollish, Sunnybrook and Women's College Hospital; Allan E. Gross, Mount Sinai Hospital; Caroline Hutchinson, formerly of Mount Sinai Hospital; Hans Kreder, Sunnybrook and Women's College Hospital; Nizar Mahomed, Toronto Western Hospital of University Health Network; Emil Schemitisch, St. Michael's Hospital; and, James Waddell, St. Michael's Hospital. The authors also acknowledge the contributions of Dr. Khaled Saleh and Dr. Amiram Gafni to this study.

In support of their research for or preparation of this manuscript, one or more of the authors received an Operating Grant (No. 98/0012) from The Arthritis Society (Canada). A.M. Davis is supported by a Health Career Award from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. None of the authors received payments or other benefits or a commitment or agreement to provide such benefits from a commercial entity. No commercial entity paid or directed, or agreed to pay or direct, any benefits to any research fund, foundation, educational institution, or other charitable or nonprofit organization with which the authors are affiliated or associated.


Background: Little is known about factors that might predict functional outcome following revision hip arthroplasty. The purpose of this study was to identify predictors of pain and physical function at two years following revision total hip arthroplasty and to evaluate whether the time that the patient waited for the surgery and whether the patient had complications were significant predictors of outcome.

Methods: One hundred and twenty-six patients (126 hips) were entered prospectively into the study when their name was placed on the waiting list for surgery. Baseline measures included demographic factors, comorbidities, and the responses to the Short Form-36 (SF-36) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis (WOMAC) questionnaires. Follow-up was carried out at six-month intervals while the patient was waiting for the surgery; within one week prior to the surgery; and at six, twelve, and twenty-four months after the surgery. Patient age and gender, the preoperative WOMAC pain and function scores, the physical and mental component scores of the SF-36, comorbidities, the number of revisions, bilateral joint replacement, and the severity of the revision were evaluated as possible predictors of ultimate pain and function as measured with the WOMAC instrument.

Results: The mean age of the patients was 68.6 years. Improvement in WOMAC pain and function scores plateaued at six months. The mean pain score (and standard deviation) improved from 9.4 ± 4.1 points preoperatively to 3.9 ± 3.9 points at six months postoperatively, and the mean function score improved from 35.4 ± 14.1 to 19.1 ± 13.2 points. Preoperative pain (p = 0.002) and comorbidity (p = 0.02) were significant predictors of pain at two years. There was a trend toward preoperative function predicting function at twenty-four months (p = 0.07). There was no significant deterioration in the WOMAC pain or function score while the patients waited for surgery. Twenty-eight patients had complications. When the time that the patient waited for the surgery and complications were added to the models, only complications were found to be predictive of outcome (p = 0.04 for pain and p = 0.05 for function). Four patients required repeat revision during the follow-up period.

Conclusions: Patients with better preoperative pain scores and fewer comorbidities have better outcomes following revision total hip arthroplasty. Although the time that the patient waited for the revision was not predictive of the ultimate WOMAC pain and function scores, we believe that performing revision arthroplasty before the patient has substantial functional compromise potentially improves the outcome.

Level of Evidence: Prognostic Level I. See Instructions to Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
JBJSHome page
M. H. Huo, N. F. Gilbert, and J. Parvizi
What's New in Total Hip Arthroplasty
J. Bone Joint Surg. Am., August 1, 2007; 89(8): 1874 - 1885.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Letters to the Editor:

Read all Letters to the Editor

Predictors of Functional Outcome Two Years Following Revision Hip Arthroplasty
Mohamed A El Masry, et al.
JBJS Online, 15 May 2006 [Full text]
Dr. Davis et al respond to Dr El Masry et al
Aileen M. Davis, Ph.D., et al.
JBJS Online, 5 Jun 2006 [Full text]