Comparison of clinical outcomes between total hip replacement and total knee replacement

IF 2 Q2 ORTHOPEDICS
Alexander Green, Alex Walsh, O. Al-Dadah
{"title":"Comparison of clinical outcomes between total hip replacement and total knee replacement","authors":"Alexander Green, Alex Walsh, O. Al-Dadah","doi":"10.5312/wjo.v14.i12.853","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\n Total hip replacements (THR) and total knee replacements (TKR) are effective treatments for severe osteoarthritis (OA). Some studies suggest clinical outcomes following THR are superior to TKR, the reason for which remains unknown. This study compares clinical outcomes between THR and TKR.\n AIM\n To compare the clinic outcomes of THR anad TKR using a comprehensive range of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs).\n METHODS\n A prospective longitudinal observational study of patients with OA undergoing THR and TKR were evaluated using a comprehensive range of generic and joint specific PROMs pre- and post-operatively.\n RESULTS\n A total of 131 patients were included in the study which comprised the THR group (68 patients) and the TKR group (63 patients). Both groups demonstrated significant post-operative improvements in all PROM scores (P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in post-operative PROM scores between the two groups: Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis Outcome scores (P = 0.140), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index pain (P = 0.297) stiffness (P = 0.309) and function (P = 0.945), Oxford Hip and Knee Score (P = 0.076), EuroQol-5D index (P = 0.386) and Short-Form 12-item survey physical component score (P = 0.106). Subgroup analyses showed no significant difference (P > 0.05) between cruciate retaining and posterior stabilised prostheses in the TKR group and no significant difference (P > 0.05) between cemented and uncemented fixation in the THR group. Obese patients had poorer outcomes following TKR but did not significantly influence the outcome following THR.\n CONCLUSION\n Contrary to some literature, THR and TKR are equally efficacious in alleviating the pain and disability of OA when assessed using a comprehensive range of PROMs. The varying knee prosthesis types and hip fixation techniques did not significantly influence clinical outcome. Obesity had a greater influence on the outcome following TKR than that of THR.","PeriodicalId":47843,"journal":{"name":"World Journal of Orthopedics","volume":" 38","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World Journal of Orthopedics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5312/wjo.v14.i12.853","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BACKGROUND Total hip replacements (THR) and total knee replacements (TKR) are effective treatments for severe osteoarthritis (OA). Some studies suggest clinical outcomes following THR are superior to TKR, the reason for which remains unknown. This study compares clinical outcomes between THR and TKR. AIM To compare the clinic outcomes of THR anad TKR using a comprehensive range of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs). METHODS A prospective longitudinal observational study of patients with OA undergoing THR and TKR were evaluated using a comprehensive range of generic and joint specific PROMs pre- and post-operatively. RESULTS A total of 131 patients were included in the study which comprised the THR group (68 patients) and the TKR group (63 patients). Both groups demonstrated significant post-operative improvements in all PROM scores (P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in post-operative PROM scores between the two groups: Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis Outcome scores (P = 0.140), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index pain (P = 0.297) stiffness (P = 0.309) and function (P = 0.945), Oxford Hip and Knee Score (P = 0.076), EuroQol-5D index (P = 0.386) and Short-Form 12-item survey physical component score (P = 0.106). Subgroup analyses showed no significant difference (P > 0.05) between cruciate retaining and posterior stabilised prostheses in the TKR group and no significant difference (P > 0.05) between cemented and uncemented fixation in the THR group. Obese patients had poorer outcomes following TKR but did not significantly influence the outcome following THR. CONCLUSION Contrary to some literature, THR and TKR are equally efficacious in alleviating the pain and disability of OA when assessed using a comprehensive range of PROMs. The varying knee prosthesis types and hip fixation techniques did not significantly influence clinical outcome. Obesity had a greater influence on the outcome following TKR than that of THR.
全髋关节置换术与全膝关节置换术的临床效果比较
背景全髋关节置换术(THR)和全膝关节置换术(TKR)是治疗严重骨关节炎(OA)的有效方法。一些研究表明,全髋关节置换术的临床疗效优于全膝关节置换术,其原因尚不清楚。本研究比较了全膝关节置换术和全膝关节置换术的临床疗效。目的 采用一系列全面的患者报告结果指标(PROMs),比较THR和TKR的临床疗效。方法 对接受全膝关节置换术和全膝关节置换术的 OA 患者进行前瞻性纵向观察研究,术前和术后使用一系列通用和关节特异性 PROM 进行评估。结果 共有131名患者参与了研究,其中包括THR组(68名患者)和TKR组(63名患者)。两组患者术后所有 PROM 评分均有明显改善(P < 0.001)。两组患者术后的 PROM 评分无明显差异:髋关节和膝关节骨关节炎结果评分(P = 0.140)、西安大略和麦克马斯特大学骨关节炎指数疼痛(P = 0.297)、僵硬度(P = 0.309)和功能(P = 0.945)、牛津髋关节和膝关节评分(P = 0.076)、EuroQol-5D 指数(P = 0.386)和短表格 12 项调查身体成分评分(P = 0.106)。亚组分析显示,在TKR组中,十字韧带固定假体和后方稳定假体之间无显著差异(P > 0.05),在THR组中,骨水泥固定和非骨水泥固定之间无显著差异(P > 0.05)。肥胖患者在 TKR 术后的预后较差,但对 THR 术后的预后没有明显影响。结论 与一些文献相反,在使用一系列全面的 PROMs 进行评估时,THR 和 TKR 在减轻 OA 疼痛和残疾方面具有同等疗效。不同的膝关节假体类型和髋关节固定技术对临床结果没有显著影响。与全膝关节置换术相比,肥胖对全膝关节置换术的疗效影响更大。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
814
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信