ArticleClinical orthopaedics and related research2019
What Preoperative Factors are Associated With Not Achieving a Minimum Clinically Important Difference After THA? Findings from an International Multicenter Study.
Article in Clinical orthopaedics and related research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Association between preoperative radiographic osteoarthritis severity and patient-reported outcomes after total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review and meta-analysis.International orthopaedics · 2026Pooled it
- When Does Hip Dysfunction and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement Peak After Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty?Arthroplasty today · 2026Article
- Defining clinically meaningful values in the oxford hip score and factors associated with their achievement following aseptic revision total hip arthroplasty.International orthopaedics · 2026Article
- Evaluating a semiquantitative magnetic resonance imaging-based scoring system to predict hip preservation or arthroplasty in patients with an intact preoperative joint space.Journal of hip preservation surgery · 2025Article
- Measuring Short-Term Outcomes Following Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Value-Based Healthcare Approach.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- A Consistent Lack of Consistency: Definitions, Evidentiary Expectations and Potential Use of Meaningful Change Data in Clinical Outcome Assessments Across Stakeholders. Results from a DIA Working Group Literature Review and Survey.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2025Review
- Comparison Between Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty on Short-Term Performance-Based Outcomes and Factors Associated with the Improvement of Gait Function During Post-Acute Inpatient Rehabilitation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Global mapping of institutional and hospital-based (Level II-IV) arthroplasty registries: a scoping review.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2024Article
- Do You PROMIS (Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System)? Physical Function and Pain Interference Scores After Total Knee and Hip Arthroplasty.Arthroplasty today · 2023Article
- Reverse dynamics analysis of contact force and muscle activities during the golf swing after total hip arthroplasty.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Clinical and radiographic outcomes of primary total hip arthroplasty with the revelation hip system using density mapping.European journal of orthopaedic surgery & traumatology : orthopedie traumatologie · 2023Article
- Outcomes Vary Significantly Using a Tiered Approach To Define Success After Total Hip Arthroplasty.The Iowa orthopaedic journal · 2023Article
- Effects of preexisting depression and anxiety on postoperative outcomes following arthroscopic rotator cuff repair.JSES international · 2022Article
- Functional and clinical outcome with modified lateral approach total hip arthroplasty in stiff hips with ankylosing spondylitis.World journal of orthopedics · 2022Article
- Spinopelvic Mobility Pattern and Acetabular Anteversion in Stiff Hips With Ankylosing Spondylitis After Total Hip Arthroplasty.Arthroplasty today · 2022Article
- Improving multimorbidity measurement using individualized disease-specific quality of life impact assessments: predictive validity of a new comorbidity index.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2022Article
- Implant positioning in total hip arthroplasty: influence of horizontal and vertical offset on functionality of prosthetic hip joint.International orthopaedics · 2022Article
- Patient-reported outcome after primary and aseptic revision hip arthroplasty: 1-year follow-up of 3,559 primary and 406 revision THAs in an institutional registry.Acta orthopaedica · 2022Article
- Failure to Achieve Threshold Scores on Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Within 1 Year Has a Predictive Risk of Subsequent Hip Surgery Within 5 Years of Primary Hip Arthroscopy: A Case-Control Study.Orthopaedic journal of sports medicine · 2021Article
- Opinion Piece: Patient-Specific Implants May Be the Next Big Thing in Spinal Surgery.Journal of personalized medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite innovations in THA, there remains a subgroup of patients who experience only modest pain relief and/or functional improvement after the procedure. Although several studies have previously sought to identify factors before surgery that were associated with achieving or not achieving a meaningful improvement after THA, there is no consensus on which factors are most associated; many studies have relied on single-center or single-country multicenter studies for their cohorts. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We sought to identify (1) the proportion of patients who do not achieve a minimum clinically important difference (MCID) in pain and function 1 year after THA, and (2) the preoperative factors that were associated with not achieving MCIDs in pain and function 1 year after THA.
methodsThis retrospective study analyzed data gathered from a prospective international, multicenter study examining the long-term clinical outcomes of two different polyethylene liners and two different acetabular shells. A total of 814 patients from 12 centers across four countries were enrolled in the study, with the final cohort consisting of 594 patients (73%) who all had complete preoperative and 1-year PROMs as well as a valid preoperative radiograph used to measure minimum joint space width. The outcomes in this study were achieving evidence-derived MCIDs in (1) pain, defined as a reduction of two points on an 11-point (0 = very little, 10 = worst imaginable) numerical rating scale (NRS) for hip-related pain or reporting a 1 year NRS-pain score of 0, and (2) function, defined as an increase equal to or greater than 8.3 on the SF-36 Physical Function subscore (range: 0 to 100; 0 = maximum disability, 100 = no disability) or reporting a 1-year SF-36 Physical Function subscore within the 95th percentile of scores in our cohort. All demographic variables, such as age, sex, country; surgical factors, including body mass index (BMI), surgical approach, acetabular liner type, and preoperative PROMs, were included as covariates in a binary logistic regression model. We used a backwards stepwise elimination algorithm to reach the simplest, best-fit model.
resultsIn the final analysis cohort of 594 patients, 54 patients (9%) did not achieve the MCID in pain and 146 (25%) patients did not achieve the MCID in physical function after THA. After controlling for potential confounding variables such as age, BMI, and preoperative PROMs, we found that higher joint space width (odds ratio (OR) = 2.19; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.49-3.22; p < 0.001), lower preoperative SF-36 Mental Component Summary (MCS) (OR = 0.95; 95% CI = 0.93-0.98; p = 0.001), and female sex (OR = 2.04; 95% CI = 1.08-3.82; p = 0.027) were associated with failing to achieve a MCID in pain. It is important to note that the effect size of having a higher preoperative SF-36 MCS is small, with a 1- or 10-point increase in SF-36 MCS decreasing the odds of a patient not achieving the pain MCID by 5% or 63%, respectively.In a separate multivariable model, after controlling for potential confounding variables such as age, BMI, and preoperative PROMs, we found that higher joint space width (OR = 1.54; 95% CI = 1.18-2.02; p = 0.002), higher preoperative Harris hip score (HHS) (OR = 1.01; 95% CI = 1.00-1.03; p = 0.019) and undergoing surgery in Scandinavia (OR = 1.73; 95% CI = 1.17-2.55; p = 0.006) were associated with failing to achieve a MCID in physical function. It is important to note that the effect size of having a higher preoperative HHS is very small, with a 1- or t10-point increase in HHS increasing the odds of not achieving the physical function MCID by only 1% or 15%, respectively.
conclusionsThese findings suggest that surgeons should counsel patients with high joint space width, female patients, and patients undergoing surgery in Scandinavia that they may be much less likely to experience meaningful pain relief or functional improvement after THA, and in light of that, determine whether indeed surgery should be postponed or avoided in those patients. Lower SF-36 MCS score and higher HHS before surgery were also found to be associated with not achieving MCIDs in pain and physical function, respectively, after surgery, but both had relatively small effect sizes. Future prospective studies may consider exploring the relationship between less pain relief or functional improvement and the risk factors identified in this study, such as high joint space width, to validate our findings and determine if the variables we identified are truly predictive of worse postoperative outcomes. Future retrospective studies of regional or national registry data should use the analysis methods presented within this study to both identify the portion of the THA patients who do not achieve a MCID in pain or physical function after surgery and confirm if the preoperative risk factors for poor improvement identified within our international, multicenter cohort are also found in a larger patient population with more diverse implants and comorbidities. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level III, therapeutic study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.