Patient Functional Status as an Indication for Primary Total Hip Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

  • Peter Dust
    Correspondence
    Address correspondence to: Peter Dust MD, MSc, Jewish General Hospital, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, 3755 Chemin de la Côte-Sainte-Catherine, Montréal, Québec, Canada, H3T 1E2.
    Affiliations
    Jewish General Hospital, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada

    Department of Experimental Surgery, McGill University, JSS Medical Research, Montréal, Québec, Canada
    Search for articles by this author
  • Jason Corban
    Affiliations
    Jewish General Hospital, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada
    Search for articles by this author
  • John Sampalis
    Affiliations
    Department of Experimental Surgery, McGill University, JSS Medical Research, Montréal, Québec, Canada
    Search for articles by this author
  • John Antoniou
    Affiliations
    Jewish General Hospital, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada

    Department of Experimental Surgery, McGill University, JSS Medical Research, Montréal, Québec, Canada
    Search for articles by this author
  • Stephane G. Bergeron
    Affiliations
    Jewish General Hospital, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada

    Department of Experimental Surgery, McGill University, JSS Medical Research, Montréal, Québec, Canada
    Search for articles by this author
Published:August 19, 2021DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2021.08.016

      Abstract

      Background

      The number of total hip arthroplasties performed per year is increasing for reasons not fully explained by a growing and aging population. The purpose of this study was to determine the role of patient functional status as an indication for surgery and determine if patients are undergoing surgery at a better functional status than in the past.

      Methods

      A systematic review and meta-analysis of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Functional status was assessed using the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey’s Physical Component Summary score. Only primary procedures were included; revisions were excluded. Articles were screened by 2 independent reviewers with conflicts resolved with a third reviewer. Meta-regression analysis was performed to determine the effect of time, patient age, and gender. Subgroup analysis was performed to compare geographic regions.

      Results

      A total of 1504 articles were identified. Data from 172 groups representing 18,644 patients recruited from 1990 to 2013 and identified from 107 articles were included. The mean preoperative Physical Component Summary score was 31.2 (95% confidence interval 30.5-31.9) with a 95% prediction interval of 22.6-39.8. The variance across studies was statistically significant (P = .000) with 97.25% true variance. Year of enrollment, age, and the percentage of females were not found to have any significant effect. There were no differences between countries.

      Conclusion

      Patients are undergoing total hip arthroplasty at a similar preoperative physical functional status as in the past. Patient age, gender, and location do not influence the functional status at which patients are indicated for surgery.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic and Personal
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to The Journal of Arthroplasty
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Learmonth I.D.
        • Young C.
        • Rorabeck C.
        The operation of the century: total hip replacement.
        Lancet (London, England). 2007; 370: 1508-1519https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(07)60457-7
        • Pivec R.
        • Johnson A.J.
        • Mears S.C.
        • Mont M.A.
        Hip arthroplasty.
        Lancet (London, England). 2012; 380: 1768-1777https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(12)60607-2
        • Kurtz S.
        • Mowat F.
        • Ong K.
        • Chan N.
        • Lau E.
        • Halpern M.
        Prevalence of primary and revision total hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 1990 through 2002.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005; 87: 1487-1497https://doi.org/10.2106/jbjs.d.02441
        • Kurtz S.M.
        • Ong K.L.
        • Schmier J.
        • Zhao K.
        • Mowat F.
        • Lau E.
        Primary and revision arthroplasty surgery caseloads in the United States from 1990 to 2004.
        J Arthroplasty. 2009; 24: 195-203https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2007.11.015
        • Kurtz S.
        • Ong K.
        • Lau E.
        • Mowat F.
        • Halpern M.
        Projections of primary and revision hip and knee arthroplasty in the United States from 2005 to 2030.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007; 89: 780-785https://doi.org/10.2106/jbjs.f.00222
        • Hip and Knee Replacements in Canada
        Canadian joint replacement registry 2015 annual report.
        Canadian Institute for Health Information, Ottawa, Ontario2015
        • Birrell F.
        • Johnell O.
        • Silman A.
        Projecting the need for hip replacement over the next three decades: influence of changing demography and threshold for surgery.
        Ann Rheum Dis. 1999; 58: 569-572
        • Kurtz S.M.
        • Lau E.
        • Ong K.
        • Zhao K.
        • Kelly M.
        • Bozic K.J.
        Future young patient demand for primary and revision joint replacement: national projections from 2010 to 2030.
        Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009; 467: 2606-2612https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-009-0834-6
        • Ware Jr., J.E.
        • Sherbourne C.D.
        The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection.
        Med Care. 1992; 30: 473-483
        • Laucis N.C.
        • Hays R.D.
        • Bhattacharyya T.
        Scoring the SF-36 in orthopaedics: a Brief guide.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015; 97: 1628-1634https://doi.org/10.2106/jbjs.o.00030
        • Tarlov A.R.
        • Ware Jr., J.E.
        • Greenfield S.
        • Nelson E.C.
        • Perrin E.
        • Zubkoff M.
        The Medical Outcomes Study. An application of methods for monitoring the results of medical care.
        JAMA. 1989; 262: 925-930
        • Ware J.E.
        • Kosinski M.
        • Bayliss M.S.
        • McHorney C.A.
        • Rogers W.H.
        • Raczek A.
        Comparison of methods for the scoring and statistical analysis of SF-36 health profile and summary measures: summary of results from the medical outcomes study.
        Med Care. 1995; 33: AS264-AS279
        • Ware Jr., J.E.
        SF-36 health survey update.
        Spine. 2000; 25: 3130-3139
        • Mistry J.B.
        • Jauregui J.J.
        • Lerner A.L.
        • Chughtai M.
        • Elmallah R.K.
        • Mont M.A.
        An assessment of the comprehensiveness of various hip outcome scores.
        Surg Technol Int. 2016; 28: 267-274
        • Donna R.
        • John B.
        • Jennifer R.
        Mapping SF-36 onto the EQ-5D index: how reliable is the relationship?.
        Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2009; 7: 27
        • Nilsdotter A.
        • Bremander A.
        Measures of hip function and symptoms: Harris Hip Score (HHS), Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS), Oxford Hip Score (OHS), Lequesne Index of Severity for Osteoarthritis of the Hip (LISOH), and American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS) Hip and Knee Questionnaire.
        Arthritis Care Res. 2011; 63: S200-S207https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.20549
        • Liberati A.
        • Altman D.G.
        • Tetzlaff J.
        • Mulrow C.
        • Gøtzsche P.C.
        • Ioannidis J.P.
        • et al.
        The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2009; 62: 1-34https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006
        • Marx R.G.
        • Wilson S.M.
        • Swiontkowski M.F.
        Updating the assignment of levels of evidence.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2015; 97: 1-3https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.N.01112
        • Furukawa T.A.
        • Barbui C.
        • Cipriani A.
        • Brambilla P.
        • Watanabe N.
        Imputing missing standard deviations in meta-analyses can provide accurate results.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2006; 59: 7-10https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.06.006
      1. Higgins J.P.T. Green S. Cochrane Handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. The Cochrane Collaboration, Online2011 ([accessed 08.08.20])
      2. Higgins J.P.T. Thomas J. Chandler J. Cumpston M. Li T. Page M.J. Cochrane Handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Cochrane, Online2019 ([accessed 08.08.20])
        • Mangione C.M.
        • Goldman L.
        • Orav E.J.
        • Marcantonio E.R.
        • Pedan A.
        • Ludwig L.E.
        • et al.
        Health-related quality of life after elective surgery: Measurement of longitudinal changes.
        J Gen Intern Med. 1997; 12: 686-697https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.1997.07142.x
        • Ware J.E.
        • Snow K.K.
        • Kosinski M.
        • Gandek B.
        SF-36 health survey: manual and interpretation guide.
        Nimrod Press, Boston, Massachusetts1993
      3. Obesity and overweight.
        ([accessed 10.08.20])
        • IntHout J.
        • Ioannidis J.P.
        • Rovers M.M.
        • Goeman J.J.
        Plea for routinely presenting prediction intervals in meta-analysis.
        BMJ open. 2016; 6: e010247https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010247
        • Escobar A.
        • Quintana J.M.
        • Bilbao A.
        • Aróstegui I.
        • Lafuente I.
        • Vidaurreta I.
        Responsiveness and clinically important differences for the WOMAC and SF-36 after total knee replacement.
        Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2007; 15: 273-280https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2006.09.001
      4. Orthopedic Surgery Profile.
        ([accessed 10.08.20])
        • AAOS Department of Research and Scientific Affairs
        Orthopaedic Practice in the U.S. 2012.
        ([accessed 10.08.20])
        • AAOS Department of Research and Scientific Affairs
        Orthopaedic Practice in the U.S. 2014.
        ([accessed 10.08.20])
        • AAOS Department of Research, Quality, and Scientific Affairs
        Orthopaedic Practice in the U.S. 2016.
        ([accessed 10.08.20])
        • AAOS Department of Clinical Quality and Value
        Orthopaedic Practice in the U.S. 2018.
        ([accessed 10.08.20])
      5. Statistics Explained - Healthcare personnel statistics - physicians.
        ([accessed 10.08.20])
        • Hawker G.A.
        • Wright J.G.
        • Coyte P.C.
        • Williams J.I.
        • Harvey B.
        • Glazier R.
        • et al.
        Differences between men and women in the rate of use of hip and knee arthroplasty.
        N Engl J Med. 2000; 342: 1016-1022
        • Steel N.
        • Melzer D.
        • Gardener E.
        • McWilliams B.
        Need for and receipt of hip and knee replacement--a national population survey.
        Rheumatology (Oxford). 2006; 45: 1437-1441https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/kel131
        • Tikkanen R.A.
        • Melinda K.
        U.S. Health Care from a Global Perspective, 2019: Higher Spending, Worse Outcomes?.
        ([accessed 10.08.20])
        • Quintana J.M.
        • Escobar A.
        • Bilbao A.
        • Arostegui I.
        • Lafuente I.
        • Vidaurreta I.
        Responsiveness and clinically important differences for the WOMAC and SF-36 after hip joint replacement.
        Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2005; 13: 1076-1083https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2005.06.012
        • Rampazo-Lacativa M.K.
        • dos Santos A.A.
        • Coimbra A.M.V.
        • D’Elboux M.J.
        WOMAC and SF-36: instruments for evaluating the health-related quality of life of elderly people with total hip arthroplasty. A descriptive study.
        Sao Paulo Med J. 2015; 133: 290-297
        • Shields R.K.
        • Enloe L.J.
        • Leo K.C.
        Health related quality of life in patients with total hip or knee replacement.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1999; 80: 572-579
        • Tutarel O.
        Geographical distribution of publications in the field of medical education.
        BMC Med Educ. 2002; 2: 3
        • Kremer J.A.
        • Braat D.D.
        • Evers J.L.
        Geographical distribution of publications in human reproduction and fertility and sterility in the 1990s.
        Hum Reprod (Oxford). 2000; 15: 1653-1656
        • Sorrentino D.
        • De Biase F.
        • Trevisi A.
        • Bartoli E.
        Scientific publications in gastroenterology and hepatology in Western Europe, USA and Japan in the years 1992-1996: a global survey.
        Digestion. 2000; 61: 77-83https://doi.org/10.1159/000007738
        • Maged N.K.B.
        On geography and medical journalology: a study of the geographical distribution of articles published in a leading medical informatics journal between 1999 and 2004.
        Int J Health Geogr. 2005; 4: 7
        • Horton R.
        North and South: bridging the information gap.
        Lancet. 2000; 355: 2231-2236https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(00)02414-4
        • Antoniou J.
        • Martineau P.A.
        • Filion K.B.
        • Haider S.
        • Zukor D.J.
        • Huk O.L.
        • et al.
        In-hospital cost of total hip arthroplasty in Canada and the United States.
        J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2004; 86: 2435-2439
        • Meara J.G.
        • Leather A.J.
        • Hagander L.
        • Alkire B.C.
        • Alonso N.
        • Ameh E.A.
        • et al.
        Global Surgery 2030: evidence and solutions for achieving health, welfare, and economic development.
        Lancet (London). 2015; 386: 569-624https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60160-X