Are Range of Motion Measurements Needed When Calculating the Harris Hip Score?

被引:41
作者
Edwards, Paul K. [1 ]
Queen, Robin M. [2 ]
Butler, Robert J. [3 ,4 ]
Bolognesi, Michael P. [5 ]
Barnes, C. Lowry [6 ]
机构
[1] Univ Arkansas Med Sci, Dept Orthopaed Surg, 4301 West Markham,Slot 531, Little Rock, AR 72205 USA
[2] Virginia Tech, Kevin P Granata Biomech Lab, Blacksburg, VA USA
[3] Duke Univ, Dept Orthopaed Surg, Michael W Krzyzewski Human Performance Lab, Durham, NC USA
[4] Dept Community Hlth & Family Med, Div Phys Therapy, Durham, NC USA
[5] Duke Univ, Med Ctr, Dept Orthopaed Surg, Durham, NC USA
[6] Univ Arkansas Med Sci, Dept Orthopaed Surg, HipKnee Arkansas Fdn, Little Rock, AR 72205 USA
关键词
Harris Hip Score; modified Harris Hip Score; HHS; mHHS; outcomes; 5-YEAR FOLLOW-UP; OUTCOME MEASURES; ARTHROPLASTY; REVISION; STEM; REPLACEMENT; RESPONSIVENESS; QUESTIONNAIRES; OSTEOARTHRITIS; COMPLICATIONS;
D O I
10.1016/j.arth.2015.10.016
中图分类号
R826.8 [整形外科学]; R782.2 [口腔颌面部整形外科学]; R726.2 [小儿整形外科学]; R62 [整形外科学(修复外科学)];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: Often the patient-reported outcome (PRO) component of the Harris Hip Score (HHS) is completed, but the physician-assessed range of motion (ROM) component is not. The PRO component only is called a modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS). The purpose of this study was to determine if a statistically significant or clinically meaningful difference existed when calculating the HHS with and without the physician-reported ROM portion. Methods: Included patients had complete HHS data (both physician and PRO components). Surgical procedure (primary or revision) was recorded for each subject. American Society of Anesthesiologists score was divided into low and high groups. Body mass index was divided into 4 categories. The study used a repeated measures design. Results: Data on 483 patients were collected between 12 and 60 months postoperatively (mean follow-up: 32.5 months, mean age: 55.9 +/- 13.5 years). A mean difference of 4 points existed between the 2 groups: HHS group average score was 84.56 +/- 13.18, and mHHS group average score was 88.74 +/- 13.77. American Society of Anesthesiologists score, body mass index, and surgical type demonstrated a significant interaction with the HHS calculation method (P < .001). Primary total joint patients demonstrated a greater difference between the 2 scoring methods compared with revision patients. Conclusion: No clinically meaningful difference in outcomes was found between the mHHS and the HHS. The calculation of the HHS is dependent on the inclusion of the ROM measurement. However, the small point difference between the HHS and mHHS indicates that the mHHS is still useful as an accurate determinant of patient clinical outcome, and ROM assessment is not essential. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:815 / 819
页数:5
相关论文
共 41 条
  • [31] Söderman P, 2001, CLIN ORTHOP RELAT R, P163
  • [32] Söderman P, 2001, CLIN ORTHOP RELAT R, P189
  • [33] Mid-term results of revision total hip arthroplasty using the oval-shaped uncemented Trc-Cingr cup
    St'astny, Eduard
    Trc, Tomas
    Handl, Milan
    Kos, Petr
    Kautzner, Jakub
    Philippou, Theodoros
    Lisy, Jiri
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL ORTHOPAEDICS, 2014, 38 (05) : 935 - 940
  • [34] Minimum clinically important improvement and patient acceptable symptom state in pain and function in rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, chronic back pain, hand osteoarthritis, and hip and knee osteoarthritis: Results from a prospective multinational study
    Tubach, F.
    Ravaud, P.
    Martin-Mola, E.
    Awada, H.
    Bellamy, N.
    Bombardier, C.
    Felson, D. T.
    Hajjaj-Hassouni, N.
    Hochberg, M.
    Logeart, I.
    Matucci-Cerinic, M.
    van de Laar, M.
    van der Heijde, D.
    Dougados, M.
    [J]. ARTHRITIS CARE & RESEARCH, 2012, 64 (11) : 1699 - 1707
  • [35] The Harris hip score: Do ceiling effects limit its usefulness in orthopedics?
    Wamper, Kim E.
    Sierevelt, Inger N.
    Poolman, Rudolf W.
    Bhandari, Mohit
    Haverkamp, Daniel
    [J]. ACTA ORTHOPAEDICA, 2010, 81 (06) : 703 - 707
  • [36] Fourth-generation ceramic-on-ceramic total hip arthroplasty in patients of 55 years or younger: short-term results and complications analysis
    Wang Weiguo
    Guo Wanshou
    Yue Debo
    Shi Zhencai
    Zhang Nianfei
    Liu Zhaohui
    Sun Wei
    Wang Bailiang
    Li Zirong
    [J]. CHINESE MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2014, 127 (12) : 2310 - 2315
  • [37] Extra-large uncemented hemispherical acetabular components for revision total hip arthroplasty
    Whaley, AL
    Berry, DJ
    Harmsen, WS
    [J]. JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY-AMERICAN VOLUME, 2001, 83A (09) : 1352 - 1357
  • [38] World Health Organization, Obesity and overweight
  • [39] A comparison of different indices of responsiveness
    Wright, JG
    Young, NL
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 1997, 50 (03) : 239 - 246
  • [40] Wu Li-dong, 2004, Chin J Traumatol, V7, P7