Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Medical Center Leeuwarden, Leeuwarden, The Netherlands; Department of Orthopedic Surgery, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Department of Orthopedic Surgery, OLVG, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
J Arthroplasty. 2018 Jun;33(6):1786-1793. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2018.01.055. Epub 2018 Mar 2.
Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are used to evaluate the outcome of total hip arthroplasty (THA). We determined the effect of surgical approach on PROMs after primary THA.
All primary THAs, with registered preoperative and 3 months postoperative PROMs were selected from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register. Based on surgical approach, 4 groups were discerned: (direct) anterior, anterolateral, direct lateral, and posterolateral approaches. The following PROMs were recorded: Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Physical function Short form (HOOS-PS); Oxford Hip Score; EQ-5D index score; EQ-5D thermometer; and Numeric Rating Scale measuring pain, both active and in rest. The difference between preoperative and postoperative scores was calculated (delta-PROM) and used as primary outcome measure. Multivariable linear regression analysis was performed for comparisons. Cohen's d was calculated as measure of effect size.
All examined 4 approaches resulted in a significant increase of PROMs after primary THA in the Netherlands (n = 12,274). The anterior and posterolateral approaches were associated with significantly more improvement in HOOS-PS scores compared with the anterolateral and direct lateral approaches. Furthermore, the posterolateral and anterior approaches showed greater improvement on Numeric Rating Scale pain scores compared with the anterolateral approach. No relevant differences in delta-PROM were seen between the anterior and posterolateral surgical approaches.
Anterior and posterolateral surgical approaches showed more improvement in self-reported physical functioning (HOOS-PS) compared with anterolateral and direct lateral approaches in patients receiving a primary THA. However, clinical differences were only small.
患者报告的结果测量(PROMs)用于评估全髋关节置换术(THA)的结果。我们确定了手术入路对初次 THA 后 PROMs 的影响。
从荷兰关节置换登记处中选择了所有具有术前和术后 3 个月登记的初次 THA。根据手术入路,将患者分为 4 组:(直接)前路、前外侧、直接外侧和后外侧入路。记录以下 PROMs:髋关节残疾和骨关节炎结果评分躯体功能短表(HOOS-PS);牛津髋关节评分;EQ-5D 指数评分;EQ-5D 温度计;以及主动和休息时疼痛的数字评分量表。计算术前和术后评分之间的差值(PROM 差值),并将其作为主要观察指标。采用多变量线性回归分析进行比较。使用 Cohen's d 作为效应量的度量。
荷兰所有 4 种手术入路在初次 THA 后均显著提高了 PROMs(n=12274)。前路和后外侧入路与前外侧和直接外侧入路相比,HOOS-PS 评分的改善更为显著。此外,与前外侧入路相比,后外侧和前路入路在数字评分量表疼痛评分上的改善更为明显。在前路和后外侧手术入路之间,PROM 差值没有明显差异。
与前外侧和直接外侧入路相比,初次 THA 患者接受前路和后外侧手术入路时,自我报告的躯体功能(HOOS-PS)改善更为明显。然而,临床差异较小。