Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38512535›Full record

ArticleJournal of patient-reported outcomes2024

Hip-specific and generic patient-reported outcome measure scores after primary hip replacement are associated with early revision surgery: a national registry study.

Ilana N Ackerman, Kara Cashman, Michelle Lorimer, Emma Heath, Ian A Harris

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Ilana N AckermanSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, 553 St Kilda Road, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia. ilana.ackerman@monash.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-6028-1612
Kara CashmanSouth Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, North Terrace, Adelaide, South Australia, 5000, Australia.
Michelle LorimerSouth Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, North Terrace, Adelaide, South Australia, 5000, Australia.
Emma HeathSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, 553 St Kilda Road, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia.
Ian A HarrisSchool of Clinical Medicine, UNSW Medicine and Health, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia.

Funding

State Government of Victoria Victorian Health and Medical Research Fellowship
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe ability to efficiently identify patients at higher risk of poor outcomes after joint replacement would enable limited resources for post-operative follow-up to be directed to those with the greatest clinical need. This is particularly important as joint replacement rates continue to grow internationally, stretching health system capabilities. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are routinely administered in many settings and offer an opportunity to detect suboptimal patient outcomes early. This study aimed to determine whether hip-specific and generic PROM scores are associated with early revision hip replacement within six to 24 months after the primary procedure.

methodsPre-operative and six-month post-operative PROM scores for patients undergoing primary total hip replacement (THR) were obtained from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry and Arthroplasty Clinical Outcomes Registry National and linked to revision surgery data. Clinically important improvement was defined using anchor-based thresholds. Associations between PROM scores (hip pain, Oxford Hip Score, HOOS-12, EQ-5D-5L, EQ VAS, patient-perceived change, satisfaction) and revision surgery were evaluated using t-tests, chi-square tests and regression models.

resultsData were analysed for 21,236 primary THR procedures between 2013 and 2022. Eighty-eight revision procedures were performed at six to 24 months. Patients who were revised had more back pain and worse HOOS-12 scores pre-operatively but between-group differences were small. Worse post-operative PROM scores (hip pain, Oxford, HOOS-12, EQ-5D-5L, EQ VAS) were associated with early revision, after adjusting for age and sex (p < 0.001 for all analyses). Patient dissatisfaction (relative risk (RR) 10.18, 95%CI 6.01-17.25) and patient-perceived worsening (RR 19.62, 95%CI 11.33-33.98) were also associated with a higher likelihood of revision. Patients who did not achieve clinically important improvement in hip pain, function, or quality of life had a higher revision risk (RRs 2.54-5.64), compared with those who did (reference).

conclusionSix-month hip-specific and generic PROM scores can identify patients at higher risk of early revision surgery. Our data highlight the utility of routine post-operative PROM assessment for signaling suboptimal surgical outcomes.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, HipAustraliaBack PainHumansPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresQuality of LifeRegistriesReoperationTreatment OutcomePatient-reported outcome measuresRevision hip arthroplastyRevision hip replacementTotal hip arthroplastyTotal hip replacement

Identifiers

PMID38512535
PMCPMC10957851

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.