Ibaseta Alvaro, Pasqualini Ignacio, Khan Shujaa T, Zhang Chao, Klika Alison K, Piuzzi Nicolas S
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, OH, USA.
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2025 May 1;483(5):832-842. doi: 10.1097/CORR.0000000000003339. Epub 2024 Dec 6.
Patients who undergo a second THA at least 1 year after the first one may experience different recovery courses after each THA. It is unknown what the clinically relevant improvements and healthcare utilization are after each THA in patients undergoing contralateral THA > 1 year apart.
QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Do patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) differ at baseline and 1 year after THA for the first and second hip arthroplasty? (2) Does the likelihood of achieving minimum clinically important difference (MCID) and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) thresholds differ for the first and second hip arthroplasty? (3) Does utilization of healthcare within 90 days of THA, using discharge disposition, length of stay (LOS), and 90-day readmission risk as proxies, differ between the first and second hip arthroplasty?
Between January 2016 and December 2021, a total of 14,023 primary THAs for hip osteoarthritis were performed at a large tertiary academic center, and data from each were longitudinally maintained in an institutional database. In this retrospective study, we excluded nonelective (n = 265), simultaneous bilateral (n = 89), staged bilateral < 1 year apart (n = 1856), unilateral THAs (n = 7541), and those who were lost prior to the minimum study follow-up of 1 year or had incomplete data sets (n =3618), leaving 654 contralateral THAs > 1 year apart (327 patients) for analysis here. The median (range) patient age was 64 years (26 to 88) at the time of the first THA and 66 years (27 to 88) at the second THA. The mean (IQR) time from first THA to second THA was 696 days (488 to 1008). In all, 62% (204 of 327) of patients were women, and 89% (286 of 321) were White. The median (range) BMI was 29 kg/m 2 (first THA 16 to 60, second THA 18 to 56) at both THAs. PROMs were obtained preoperatively and at 1 year after each of the THAs and included Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score pain (HOOS-pain), physical function (HOOS-PS), and joint replacement (HOOS-JR) scores, as well as the Veterans Rand 12-Item Health Survey mental component summary score. Each was scored from 0 to 100, with higher scores representing better patient perceived outcomes. A distribution-based method was used to calculate the MCID thresholds (HOOS-pain 8.35, HOOS-PS 9.47, and HOOS-JR 7.76), while an anchor-based method was utilized for the PASS thresholds (HOOS-pain 80.6, HOOS-PS 83.6, and HOOS-JR 83.6). Healthcare utilization outcomes included discharge disposition, LOS, and 90-day readmission rates.
Patients had slightly lower baseline PROM scores in all HOOS subdomains before the first THA compared with the second THA (median HOOS-pain 38 versus 42, p < 0.001; HOOS-PS 54 versus 58, p < 0.001; HOOS-JR 43 versus 47, p < 0.001). The difference between baseline and 1-year postoperative scores was slightly larger in all HOOS subdomains after the first THA (median HOOS-pain difference 52 versus 50, p < 0.001; HOOS-PS difference 38 versus 31, p < 0.001; HOOS-JR difference 42 versus 39, p < 0.001). There was no difference in the percentage of patients achieving the MCID in HOOS-pain (97% versus 97%; p = 0.93), HOOS-PS (92% versus 88%; p = 0.17), and HOOS-JR (96% versus 94%; p = 0.18) between the first and second THAs. Although there was also no difference in the percentage of patients achieving PASS thresholds in HOOS-pain (81% versus 77%; p = 0.11), HOOS-PS (82% versus 79%; p = 0.055), and HOOS-JR (71% versus 71%; p = 0.39) between the first and second THAs, considerably fewer patients were reaching the PASS threshold in both THAs. After the second THA, slightly more patients were discharged home (95% versus 91%; p = 0.03) and had a very slightly shorter LOS (1.28 versus 1.35 days; p < 0.001). There was no difference in 90-day readmission rates between the first and second THA (4% versus 5%; p = 0.84).
In patients undergoing contralateral THA > 1 year apart, baseline PROMs were slightly worse before the first THA, and improvements were slightly greater compared with the second THA, although these differences were likely not clinically significant. Clinically meaningful improvements, based on MCID and PASS thresholds, were similar at 1 year for both THAs, yet 20% to 25% of patients reported inadequate pain relief after both surgeries. Healthcare utilization was also comparable between both procedures. Surgeons can use these findings to counsel patients on the likely similar outcomes following both their THAs. Future studies should explore factors contributing to inadequate pain relief and identify strategies to improve patient outcomes after both THAs.Level of Evidenc e Level III, therapeutic study.
在首次全髋关节置换术(THA)至少1年后接受第二次THA的患者,每次THA后的恢复过程可能不同。对于间隔超过1年接受对侧THA的患者,每次THA后临床上相关的改善情况和医疗保健利用情况尚不清楚。
问题/目的:(1)第一次和第二次髋关节置换术时,患者报告的结局指标(PROMs)在基线和THA后1年时是否存在差异?(2)第一次和第二次髋关节置换术达到最小临床重要差异(MCID)和患者可接受症状状态(PASS)阈值的可能性是否不同?(3)以出院处置、住院时间(LOS)和90天再入院风险为代表,THA后90天内的医疗保健利用情况在第一次和第二次髋关节置换术之间是否存在差异?
2016年1月至2021年12月期间,一家大型三级学术中心共进行了14,023例用于治疗髋骨关节炎的初次THA,每例数据都纵向保存在机构数据库中。在这项回顾性研究中,我们排除了非选择性手术(n = 265)、同期双侧手术(n = 89)、间隔小于1年的分期双侧手术(n = 1856)、单侧THA(n = 7541)以及在至少1年的最小研究随访之前失访或数据集不完整的患者(n = 3618),留下654例间隔超过1年的对侧THA(327例患者)用于此处分析。第一次THA时患者的年龄中位数(范围)为64岁(26至88岁),第二次THA时为66岁(27至88岁)。从第一次THA到第二次THA的平均(IQR)时间为696天(488至1008天)。总体而言,62%(327例中的204例)的患者为女性,89%(321例中的286例)为白人。两次THA时的BMI中位数(范围)均为29 kg/m²(第一次THA为16至60,第二次THA为18至56)。在每次THA术前和术后1年获取PROMs,包括髋关节残疾和骨关节炎结局评分疼痛(HOOS - pain)、身体功能(HOOS - PS)和关节置换(HOOS - JR)评分,以及退伍军人兰德12项健康调查心理成分汇总评分。每项评分从0到100,分数越高表示患者感知的结局越好。采用基于分布的方法计算MCID阈值(HOOS - pain为8.35,HOOS - PS为9.47,HOOS - JR为7.76),同时采用基于锚定的方法计算PASS阈值(HOOS - pain为80.6,HOOS - PS为83.6,HOOS - JR为83.6)。医疗保健利用结局包括出院处置、LOS和90天再入院率。
与第二次THA相比,患者在第一次THA前所有HOOS子领域的基线PROM评分略低(HOOS - pain中位数38对42,p < 0.001;HOOS - PS 54对58,p < 0.001;HOOS - JR 43对47,p < 0.001)。第一次THA后所有HOOS子领域基线与术后1年评分之间的差异略大(HOOS - pain差异中位数52对50,p < 0.001;HOOS - PS差异38对31,p < 0.001;HOOS - JR差异42对39,p < 0.001)。第一次和第二次THA之间,达到HOOS - pain的MCID的患者百分比(97%对97%;p = 0.93)、HOOS - PS(92%对88%;p = 0.17)和HOOS - JR(96%对94%;p = 0.18)没有差异。虽然第一次和第二次THA之间达到HOOS - pain的PASS阈值的患者百分比(81%对77%;p = 0.11)、HOOS - PS(82%对79%;p = 0.0