Patient Satisfaction and Function After Primary and Revision Total Hip Replacement

Espehaug, Birgitte; Havelin, Leif Ivar; Engesæter, Lars B.; Langeland, Norvald; Vollset, Stein Emil

doi:10.1097/00003086-199806000-00017

Cited by 90 publications

(88 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It consumed much time and effort and was made more difficult by the closure of two large orthopaedic hospitals. The overall rate of response of 85.9% was encouraging and the percentage of patients agreeing to some form of assessment (66.8%) compares favourably with similar registers 12 and large audit studies. 13 The ONS tracing service was essential for the follow-up of the remaining patients, informing as to whether they were still alive and the name of each patient's general practitioner via the FHSA.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 55%

The Trent regional arthroplasty study

Fender

Harper

Gregg

2000

The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British volume

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

W e have assessed the usefulness of a regional hip register in the assessment of the outcome of primary total hip replacement (THR). Over 97% of THRs performed in the Trent region in 1990 were captured onto the register and the inaccuracies recorded were less than 1.8%. In an independent assessment of 2111 patients five years after THR, 85.9% of those available for assessment responded, and 66.8% agreed to an assessment.The cost of this independent assessment at five years, utilising a regional hip register, was approximately £50 per implant. This is a reasonable outlay to identify problems early. Some form of registration and outcome assessment should be performed on a national level.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 55%

The Trent regional arthroplasty study

Fender

Harper

Gregg

2000

The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British volume

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…At an average followup of 4 years (range, 2-6 years), Strömberg et al [16] reported that 54% of their patients 55 years or younger had poor clinical outcomes, as defined by the Harris hip score. A study of the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register, which directly compared 531 revision THAs with 1087 primary THA controls, reported poorer self-reported satisfaction and postoperative function among patients with revision THA [2]. Sixty-one percent of patients with revision THAs (median age, 67 years), compared with 84% with primary THAs had good or very good overall postoperative satisfaction [2].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A study of the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register, which directly compared 531 revision THAs with 1087 primary THA controls, reported poorer self-reported satisfaction and postoperative function among patients with revision THA [2]. Sixty-one percent of patients with revision THAs (median age, 67 years), compared with 84% with primary THAs had good or very good overall postoperative satisfaction [2]. Lübbeke et al [8] compared outcomes of 85 revision THAs (average patient age, 71 years) with 349 primary THAs and found that Harris hip, WOMAC, and SF-12 scores at 5 years followup were significantly lower after revision [8].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

What is the Prognosis of Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty in Patients 55 Years and Younger?

Adelani

Crook

Barrack

et al. 2014

Clinical Orthopaedics &Amp; Related Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Revision THAs are expected to increase; however, few studies have characterized the prognosis of revision THAs in younger patients. Questions/purposes We performed a case-control study to evaluate intermediate-term survivorship, complications, and hip and activity scores after revision THAs in patients 55 years and younger, compared these outcomes with the results of primary THAs in a matched patient population, and evaluated risk factors for failed revisions.Methods Ninety-three patients (103 hips) had a minimum of 4 years after revision THA, died, or had rerevision surgery. They were matched with 98 patients (103 hips) with primary THAs. Survivorship, complications, and clinical outcomes were compared between the groups using t-tests. Risk factors for failure also were assessed with chisquare analysis.

show abstract

“…This suggests the results of outcome measures in patients with bilateral disease may not be comparable to those with unilateral disease. Other studies have described older age groups achieving better pain scores at the same time as attaining lower functional scores when compared with their younger counterparts [5,8,14,25]. Similarly, it has been suggested that some outcome measures are not appropriate for patients older than 65 years as a result of poor response rates [16].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%