Ignacio Pasqualini, Satia Sinclair, Shujaa T Khan, Khaled A Elmenawi, Yuxuan Jin, Alison K Klika, John P McLaughlin, Nathan W Mesko, Peter J Brooks, Nicolas S Piuzzi
{"title":"Patient-reported outcomes among age-matched hip resurfacing and total hip arthroplasty: an analysis of 622 patients with a minimum 2-year follow-up.","authors":"Ignacio Pasqualini, Satia Sinclair, Shujaa T Khan, Khaled A Elmenawi, Yuxuan Jin, Alison K Klika, John P McLaughlin, Nathan W Mesko, Peter J Brooks, Nicolas S Piuzzi","doi":"10.1177/11207000251388865","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>The purpose of this study was to investigate differences in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) among patients who underwent THA in comparison to Birmingham hip resurfacing (BHR) for the treatment of osteoarthritis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A prospective cohort of 1414 patients who underwent BHR (<i>n</i> = 707) or THA (<i>n</i> = 707) for the treatment of primary osteoarthritis in a single healthcare system between July 2015 and December 2017 were included and propensity score matched on age. Differences between groups in the Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS) pain subscale, HOOS-Physical Function Shortform (PS), and the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) activity score at 2 years follow-up were evaluated. Minimal clinically important differences (MCID) were based on previous studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the total 622 patients (THA, <i>n</i> = 311; BHR, <i>n</i> = 311) who completed the 2-year follow-up, BHR patients reported less pain (2-year HOOS pain: BHR, 100; THA, 95; <i>p</i> < 0.001), higher function (2-year HOOS PS: BHR, 95.4; THA, 91.2; <i>p</i> < 0.001), and greater activity levels (2-year UCLA activity: BHR, 7.5; THA, 6; <i>p</i> < 0.001) compared to THA patients. After adjusting for demographic variables, no significant difference in estimated median HOOS pain scores was found between cohorts. BHR patients exhibited significantly higher median HOOS-PS scores (HOOS-PS score difference: 2.5, 95% CI, 0.38-5.4; <i>p</i> = 0.03) and higher median UCLA activity scores (UCLA activity score difference: 0.79, 95% CI, 0.33-1.24; <i>p</i> < 0.001) compared to THA patients. No differences were observed in the proportion of patients achieving MCID thresholds in all PROMs between groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>BHR and THA have both been shown to significantly ameliorate pain and enhance functional capacity in patients with end-stage osteoarthritis. Interestingly, at the 2-year postoperative follow-up, BHR patients exhibited higher activity levels and improved physical function compared to those who underwent THA; however, the extent of this improvement may not reach clinical relevance.</p>","PeriodicalId":12911,"journal":{"name":"HIP International","volume":" ","pages":"423-428"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2026-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"HIP International","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/11207000251388865","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/11/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Aim: The purpose of this study was to investigate differences in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) among patients who underwent THA in comparison to Birmingham hip resurfacing (BHR) for the treatment of osteoarthritis.
Methods: A prospective cohort of 1414 patients who underwent BHR (n = 707) or THA (n = 707) for the treatment of primary osteoarthritis in a single healthcare system between July 2015 and December 2017 were included and propensity score matched on age. Differences between groups in the Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS) pain subscale, HOOS-Physical Function Shortform (PS), and the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) activity score at 2 years follow-up were evaluated. Minimal clinically important differences (MCID) were based on previous studies.
Results: Of the total 622 patients (THA, n = 311; BHR, n = 311) who completed the 2-year follow-up, BHR patients reported less pain (2-year HOOS pain: BHR, 100; THA, 95; p < 0.001), higher function (2-year HOOS PS: BHR, 95.4; THA, 91.2; p < 0.001), and greater activity levels (2-year UCLA activity: BHR, 7.5; THA, 6; p < 0.001) compared to THA patients. After adjusting for demographic variables, no significant difference in estimated median HOOS pain scores was found between cohorts. BHR patients exhibited significantly higher median HOOS-PS scores (HOOS-PS score difference: 2.5, 95% CI, 0.38-5.4; p = 0.03) and higher median UCLA activity scores (UCLA activity score difference: 0.79, 95% CI, 0.33-1.24; p < 0.001) compared to THA patients. No differences were observed in the proportion of patients achieving MCID thresholds in all PROMs between groups.
Conclusion: BHR and THA have both been shown to significantly ameliorate pain and enhance functional capacity in patients with end-stage osteoarthritis. Interestingly, at the 2-year postoperative follow-up, BHR patients exhibited higher activity levels and improved physical function compared to those who underwent THA; however, the extent of this improvement may not reach clinical relevance.
目的:本研究的目的是研究与伯明翰髋关节表面置换(BHR)治疗骨关节炎相比,接受THA患者报告的结果测量(PROMs)的差异。方法:纳入2015年7月至2017年12月在单一医疗保健系统中接受BHR (n = 707)或THA (n = 707)治疗原发性骨关节炎的1414例前瞻性队列,并根据年龄进行倾向评分匹配。评估两组间髋关节残疾和骨关节炎结局评分(HOOS)疼痛亚量表、HOOS-身体功能短表(PS)和加州大学洛杉矶分校(UCLA) 2年随访时活动评分的差异。最小临床重要差异(MCID)是基于以往的研究。结果:在完成2年随访的622例患者(THA, n = 311; BHR, n = 311)中,BHR患者报告的疼痛较少(2年HOOS疼痛:BHR, 100; THA, 95; p p p p = 0.03), UCLA活动评分中位数较高(UCLA活动评分差:0.79,95% CI, 0.33-1.24; p结论:BHR和THA均被证明可显著改善终末期骨关节炎患者的疼痛和增强功能能力。有趣的是,在术后2年随访中,与THA患者相比,BHR患者表现出更高的活动水平和改善的身体功能;然而,这种改善的程度可能没有达到临床意义。
期刊介绍:
HIP International is the official journal of the European Hip Society. It is the only international, peer-reviewed, bi-monthly journal dedicated to diseases of the hip. HIP International considers contributions relating to hip surgery, traumatology of the hip, prosthetic surgery, biomechanics, and basic sciences relating to the hip. HIP International invites reviews from leading specialists with the aim of informing its readers of current evidence-based best practice.
The journal also publishes supplements containing proceedings of symposia, special meetings or articles of special educational merit.
HIP International is divided into six independent sections led by editors of the highest scientific merit. These sections are:
• Biomaterials
• Biomechanics
• Conservative Hip Surgery
• Paediatrics
• Primary and Revision Hip Arthroplasty
• Traumatology