No clinically significant differences in patient-reported outcome measures across total hip arthroplasty approaches.

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q3 ORTHOPEDICS
HIP International Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2023-06-01 DOI:10.1177/11207000231178722
Andrew G Kim, Adam A Rizk, Austin M Chiu, William Zuke, Alexander J Acuña, Atul F Kamath
{"title":"No clinically significant differences in patient-reported outcome measures across total hip arthroplasty approaches.","authors":"Andrew G Kim, Adam A Rizk, Austin M Chiu, William Zuke, Alexander J Acuña, Atul F Kamath","doi":"10.1177/11207000231178722","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>As recent studies demonstrate an ongoing debate surrounding outcomes and complications with respect to different total hip arthroplasty (THA) approaches, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) may provide valuable information for clinician and patient decision-making. Therefore, our systematic review aimed to assess how surgical approach influences patient-reported outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>5 online databases were queried for all studies published between January 1, 1997 and March 4, 2022 that reported on PROMs across various surgical approaches to THA. Studies reporting on PROMs in primary THA patients segregated by surgical approach were included. Articles reporting on revision THA, hip resurfacing, and arthroscopy were excluded. Mantel-Haenszel (M-H) models were utilised to calculate the pooled mean difference (MDs) and 95% confidence interval (CIs).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No differences between the DAA and other approaches were observed when evaluating HOOS (MD -0.28; 95% CI, -1.98-1.41; <i>p</i> = 0.74), HHS (MD 2.38; 95% CI, -0.27-5.03; <i>p</i> = 0.08), OHS (MD 1.35; 95% CI, -2.00-4.71; <i>p</i> = 0.43), FJS-12 (MD 5.88; 95% CI, -0.36-12.12; <i>p</i> = 0.06), VAS-pain (MD -0.32; 95% CI, -0.68-0.04; <i>p</i> = 0.08), and WOMAC-pain (MD -0.73; 95% CI, -3.85-2.39; <i>p</i> = 0.65) scores. WOMAC (MD 2.47; 95% CI, 0.54-4.40; <i>p</i> = 0.01) and EQ-5D Index (MD 0.03; 95% CI, 0.01-0.06; <i>p</i> = 0.002) scores were found to significantly favour the DAA cohort over the other approaches. Only the EQ-5D index score remained significant following sensitivity analysis.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Superiority of any 1 approach could not be concluded based on the mixed findings of the present analysis. Although our pooled analysis found no significant differences in outcomes except for those measured by the EQ-5D index, a few additional metrics, notably the WOMAC, HHS, FJS-12, and VAS-pain scores, leaned in favour of the DAA.</p>","PeriodicalId":12911,"journal":{"name":"HIP International","volume":" ","pages":"21-32"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","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/10.1177/11207000231178722","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/6/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: As recent studies demonstrate an ongoing debate surrounding outcomes and complications with respect to different total hip arthroplasty (THA) approaches, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) may provide valuable information for clinician and patient decision-making. Therefore, our systematic review aimed to assess how surgical approach influences patient-reported outcomes.

Methods: 5 online databases were queried for all studies published between January 1, 1997 and March 4, 2022 that reported on PROMs across various surgical approaches to THA. Studies reporting on PROMs in primary THA patients segregated by surgical approach were included. Articles reporting on revision THA, hip resurfacing, and arthroscopy were excluded. Mantel-Haenszel (M-H) models were utilised to calculate the pooled mean difference (MDs) and 95% confidence interval (CIs).

Results: No differences between the DAA and other approaches were observed when evaluating HOOS (MD -0.28; 95% CI, -1.98-1.41; p = 0.74), HHS (MD 2.38; 95% CI, -0.27-5.03; p = 0.08), OHS (MD 1.35; 95% CI, -2.00-4.71; p = 0.43), FJS-12 (MD 5.88; 95% CI, -0.36-12.12; p = 0.06), VAS-pain (MD -0.32; 95% CI, -0.68-0.04; p = 0.08), and WOMAC-pain (MD -0.73; 95% CI, -3.85-2.39; p = 0.65) scores. WOMAC (MD 2.47; 95% CI, 0.54-4.40; p = 0.01) and EQ-5D Index (MD 0.03; 95% CI, 0.01-0.06; p = 0.002) scores were found to significantly favour the DAA cohort over the other approaches. Only the EQ-5D index score remained significant following sensitivity analysis.

Conclusions: Superiority of any 1 approach could not be concluded based on the mixed findings of the present analysis. Although our pooled analysis found no significant differences in outcomes except for those measured by the EQ-5D index, a few additional metrics, notably the WOMAC, HHS, FJS-12, and VAS-pain scores, leaned in favour of the DAA.

不同全髋关节置换术方法的患者报告结果无明显临床差异。
导言:最近的研究表明,围绕不同全髋关节置换术(THA)方法的结果和并发症的争论仍在继续,患者报告的结果测量(PROMs)可为临床医生和患者的决策提供有价值的信息。因此,我们的系统性综述旨在评估手术方法如何影响患者报告的结果。方法:我们在 5 个在线数据库中查询了 1997 年 1 月 1 日至 2022 年 3 月 4 日期间发表的所有研究,这些研究报告了 THA 不同手术方法的 PROMs。按照手术方法分类,纳入了报告初治 THA 患者 PROMs 的研究。不包括报告翻修THA、髋关节置换术和关节镜手术的文章。采用Mantel-Haenszel(M-H)模型计算汇总的平均差(MDs)和95%置信区间(CIs):在评估 HOOS(MD -0.28;95% CI,-1.98-1.41;p = 0.74)、HHS(MD 2.38;95% CI,-0.27-5.03;p = 0.08)、OHS(MD 1.35;95% CI,-2.00-4.71;p = 0.43)、FJS-12(MD 5.88;95% CI,-0.36-12.12;p = 0.06)、VAS-疼痛(MD -0.32;95% CI,-0.68-0.04;p = 0.08)和 WOMAC-疼痛(MD -0.73;95% CI,-3.85-2.39;p = 0.65)评分。研究发现,WOMAC(MD 2.47;95% CI,0.54-4.40;p = 0.01)和 EQ-5D 指数(MD 0.03;95% CI,0.01-0.06;p = 0.002)得分明显优于其他方法。在进行敏感性分析后,只有EQ-5D指数得分仍具有显著性:结论:根据本分析的混合结果,无法得出任何一种方法具有优越性的结论。尽管我们的汇总分析发现,除EQ-5D指数测量的结果外,其他结果无显著差异,但其他一些指标,尤其是WOMAC、HHS、FJS-12和VAS疼痛评分,则倾向于DAA。
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
HIP International
HIP International 医学-整形外科
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
70
审稿时长
2 months
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
×
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