Suppr超能文献

实现初次全髋关节置换术最小临床重要差异的时间:前路与后路手术入路的比较。

Time to Achieve the Minimal Clinically Important Difference in Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: Comparison of Anterior and Posterior Surgical Approaches.

机构信息

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.

Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts.

出版信息

J Arthroplasty. 2024 Sep;39(9S2):S314-S321. doi: 10.1016/j.arth.2024.04.038. Epub 2024 Apr 18.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Controversy remains over outcomes between total hip arthroplasty approaches. This study aimed to compare the time to achieve the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Physical Function Short Form (HOOS-PS) and the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Global-Physical for patients who underwent anterior and posterior surgical approaches in primary total hip arthroplasty.

METHODS

Patients from 2018 to 2021 with preoperative and postoperative HOOS-PS or PROMIS Global-Physical questionnaires were grouped by approach. Demographic and MCID achievement rates were compared, and survival curves with and without interval-censoring were used to assess the time to achieve the MCID by approach. Log-rank and weighted log-rank tests were used to compare groups, and Weibull regression analyses were performed to assess potential covariates.

RESULTS

A total of 2,725 patients (1,054 anterior and 1,671 posterior) were analyzed. There were no significant differences in median MCID achievement times for either the HOOS-PS (anterior: 5.9 months, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.6 to 6.4; posterior: 4.4 months, 95% CI: 4.1 to 5.1, P = .65) or the PROMIS Global-Physical (anterior: 4.2 months, 95% CI: 3.5 to 5.3; posterior: 3.5 months, 95% CI: 3.4 to 3.8, P = .08) between approaches. Interval-censoring revealed earlier times of achieving the MCID for both the HOOS-PS (anterior: 1.509 to 1.511 months; posterior: 1.7 to 2.3 months, P = .87) and the PROMIS Global-Physical (anterior: 3.0 to 3.1 weeks; posterior: 2.7 to 3.3 weeks, P = .18) for both surgical approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

The time to achieve the MCID did not differ by surgical approach. Most patients will achieve clinically meaningful improvements in physical function much earlier than previously believed.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, Retrospective Comparative Study.

摘要

背景

全髋关节置换术的各种入路方式的结果仍存在争议。本研究旨在比较初次全髋关节置换术采用前侧和后侧手术入路的患者达到髋关节残疾和骨关节炎结果评分-物理功能简表(HOOS-PS)和患者报告的结局测量信息系统(PROMIS)全球-物理功能量表的最小临床重要差异(MCID)的时间,并对其进行比较。

方法

2018 年至 2021 年期间,根据手术入路将接受术前和术后 HOOS-PS 或 PROMIS 全球-物理功能量表问卷的患者分组。比较两组患者的人口统计学和 MCID 达标率,并使用有和无区间删失的生存曲线来评估两种手术入路达到 MCID 的时间。采用对数秩和加权对数秩检验比较组间差异,进行威布尔回归分析以评估潜在的协变量。

结果

共分析了 2725 例患者(前侧 1054 例,后侧 1671 例)。HOOS-PS 方面,两种手术入路的 MCID 达标中位时间均无显著差异(前侧:5.9 个月,95%置信区间[CI]:4.6 至 6.4;后侧:4.4 个月,95%CI:4.1 至 5.1,P=0.65);PROMIS 全球-物理功能量表方面,两种手术入路的 MCID 达标中位时间也无显著差异(前侧:4.2 个月,95%CI:3.5 至 5.3;后侧:3.5 个月,95%CI:3.4 至 3.8,P=0.08)。区间删失表明,两种手术入路的 HOOS-PS(前侧:1.509 至 1.511 个月;后侧:1.7 至 2.3 个月,P=0.87)和 PROMIS 全球-物理功能量表(前侧:3.0 至 3.1 周;后侧:2.7 至 3.3 周,P=0.18)达到 MCID 的时间更早。

结论

手术入路对达到 MCID 的时间没有影响。大多数患者将在更早的时间获得有临床意义的功能改善,比之前认为的要早。

证据等级

III 级,回顾性比较研究。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验