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":null,"pages":null},"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.
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