3种常用的全髋关节置换手术方法对中长期患者疗效的影响。

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q3 ORTHOPEDICS HIP International Pub Date : 2024-03-01 Epub Date: 2023-09-25 DOI:10.1177/11207000231199342
Isaac Rhee, Oren Tirosh, Andy Ho, Andrew Griffith, Lily Salehi, Amalie Jensen, Libby Spiers, Phong Tran
{"title":"3种常用的全髋关节置换手术方法对中长期患者疗效的影响。","authors":"Isaac Rhee, Oren Tirosh, Andy Ho, Andrew Griffith, Lily Salehi, Amalie Jensen, Libby Spiers, Phong Tran","doi":"10.1177/11207000231199342","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The most effective surgical approach for total hip arthroplasty (THA) remains controversial. Comparisons of surgical approach based on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have been limited to short- to mid-term outcomes or the comparison of only 2 approaches. The aim of this study was to compare PROMs for the 3 main approaches for THA with up to 10 years follow-up.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 906 patients who underwent primary THA at a single hospital between 2009 and 2020 through an anterior (312), lateral (211) or posterior (383) approach were evaluated using the Oxford Hip Score (OHS), EuroQoL-5-Dimension (EQ-5D-5L) and visual analogue scale/verbal rating scale for pain (VAS/VRS). PROMs were prospectively collected before surgery and routinely at 6 weeks, 6 months and 1, 2, 5 and 10 years after surgery.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was no significant difference in demographics or comorbidities between the 3 groups. All 3 approaches resulted in a significant improvement in overall PROMs after THA, and plateaued after 6 months postoperatively, with no difference between the approaches (OHS, <i>p</i> < 0.01;EQ-5D-5L Index, <i>p</i> < 0.01;VAS/VRS, <i>p</i> < 0.01). The EQ-5D-5L mobility dimension showed that the lateral approach resulted in 20% more patients reporting problems with mobility than the posterior and anterior approaches at the 6-week, 6-month, 2-year and 10-year follow-up.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study shows that all 3 common THA approaches substantially and similarly improve the OHS, EQ-5D-5L Index and VRS between 6 months and 10 years postoperatively. However, patient-reported mobility was poorer after a lateral approach and continued to be so at long-term follow-up.</p>","PeriodicalId":12911,"journal":{"name":"HIP International","volume":" ","pages":"161-167"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The effect of 3 commonly used surgical approaches for total hip arthroplasty on mid- to long-term patient-reported outcome measures.\",\"authors\":\"Isaac Rhee, Oren Tirosh, Andy Ho, Andrew Griffith, Lily Salehi, Amalie Jensen, Libby Spiers, Phong Tran\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/11207000231199342\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The most effective surgical approach for total hip arthroplasty (THA) remains controversial. Comparisons of surgical approach based on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have been limited to short- to mid-term outcomes or the comparison of only 2 approaches. The aim of this study was to compare PROMs for the 3 main approaches for THA with up to 10 years follow-up.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 906 patients who underwent primary THA at a single hospital between 2009 and 2020 through an anterior (312), lateral (211) or posterior (383) approach were evaluated using the Oxford Hip Score (OHS), EuroQoL-5-Dimension (EQ-5D-5L) and visual analogue scale/verbal rating scale for pain (VAS/VRS). PROMs were prospectively collected before surgery and routinely at 6 weeks, 6 months and 1, 2, 5 and 10 years after surgery.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was no significant difference in demographics or comorbidities between the 3 groups. All 3 approaches resulted in a significant improvement in overall PROMs after THA, and plateaued after 6 months postoperatively, with no difference between the approaches (OHS, <i>p</i> < 0.01;EQ-5D-5L Index, <i>p</i> < 0.01;VAS/VRS, <i>p</i> < 0.01). The EQ-5D-5L mobility dimension showed that the lateral approach resulted in 20% more patients reporting problems with mobility than the posterior and anterior approaches at the 6-week, 6-month, 2-year and 10-year follow-up.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study shows that all 3 common THA approaches substantially and similarly improve the OHS, EQ-5D-5L Index and VRS between 6 months and 10 years postoperatively. However, patient-reported mobility was poorer after a lateral approach and continued to be so at long-term follow-up.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12911,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"HIP International\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"161-167\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"HIP International\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/11207000231199342\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/9/25 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"HIP International","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/11207000231199342","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/9/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

引言:全髋关节置换术(THA)最有效的手术方法仍然存在争议。基于患者报告结果测量(PROM)的手术方法的比较仅限于短期到中期结果或仅比较两种方法。本研究的目的是比较THA的3种主要方法的PROMs与多达10种 方法:使用Oxford髋关节评分(OHS)、EuroQoL-5-Dimension(EQ-5D-5L)和疼痛视觉模拟量表/言语评定量表(VAS/VRS),对2009年至2020年间在一家医院通过前路(312)、外侧(211)或后路(383)行原发性THA的906名患者进行评估。PROM在手术前进行前瞻性收集,并在6岁时进行常规收集 周,6 月和1、2、5和10 手术后数年。结果:三组之间的人口统计学或合并症没有显著差异。所有3种方法均导致THA后PROMs的总体改善,并在6后趋于平稳 术后数月,两种入路之间无差异(OHS,p p p 结论:本研究表明,所有3种常见的THA方法都能显著且相似地改善6 月和10 术后数年。然而,患者报告称,侧入路后活动能力较差,在长期随访中继续如此。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The effect of 3 commonly used surgical approaches for total hip arthroplasty on mid- to long-term patient-reported outcome measures.

Introduction: The most effective surgical approach for total hip arthroplasty (THA) remains controversial. Comparisons of surgical approach based on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have been limited to short- to mid-term outcomes or the comparison of only 2 approaches. The aim of this study was to compare PROMs for the 3 main approaches for THA with up to 10 years follow-up.

Methods: A total of 906 patients who underwent primary THA at a single hospital between 2009 and 2020 through an anterior (312), lateral (211) or posterior (383) approach were evaluated using the Oxford Hip Score (OHS), EuroQoL-5-Dimension (EQ-5D-5L) and visual analogue scale/verbal rating scale for pain (VAS/VRS). PROMs were prospectively collected before surgery and routinely at 6 weeks, 6 months and 1, 2, 5 and 10 years after surgery.

Results: There was no significant difference in demographics or comorbidities between the 3 groups. All 3 approaches resulted in a significant improvement in overall PROMs after THA, and plateaued after 6 months postoperatively, with no difference between the approaches (OHS, p < 0.01;EQ-5D-5L Index, p < 0.01;VAS/VRS, p < 0.01). The EQ-5D-5L mobility dimension showed that the lateral approach resulted in 20% more patients reporting problems with mobility than the posterior and anterior approaches at the 6-week, 6-month, 2-year and 10-year follow-up.

Conclusions: This study shows that all 3 common THA approaches substantially and similarly improve the OHS, EQ-5D-5L Index and VRS between 6 months and 10 years postoperatively. However, patient-reported mobility was poorer after a lateral approach and continued to be so at long-term follow-up.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
HIP International
HIP International 医学-整形外科
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
70
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: HIP International is the official journal of the European Hip Society. It is the only international, peer-reviewed, bi-monthly journal dedicated to diseases of the hip. HIP International considers contributions relating to hip surgery, traumatology of the hip, prosthetic surgery, biomechanics, and basic sciences relating to the hip. HIP International invites reviews from leading specialists with the aim of informing its readers of current evidence-based best practice. The journal also publishes supplements containing proceedings of symposia, special meetings or articles of special educational merit. HIP International is divided into six independent sections led by editors of the highest scientific merit. These sections are: • Biomaterials • Biomechanics • Conservative Hip Surgery • Paediatrics • Primary and Revision Hip Arthroplasty • Traumatology
期刊最新文献
A prospective multicentre study of 82 prosthetic joint infections treated with a standardised debridement and implant retention (DAIR) protocol followed by 6 weeks of antimicrobial therapy: favourable results. Hounsfield unit values are useful for predicting early outcomes after acetabular fractures: a retrospective study. Total hip arthroplasty in patients under 35 years: a systematic review of the last 2 decades studies. Patients with multiple sclerosis have higher rates of worsening following total hip arthroplasty: a propensity-matched analysis. A multicentre prospective assessment of the utility of robotic assisted total hip arthroplasty with virtual range of motion on intraoperative implant positioning.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1