PATIENT-PERCEIVED LEG LENGTH DISCREPANCY AFTER THR: PREVALENCE AND IMPACT ON FUNCTIONAL OUTCOME

Abstract

Introduction: Although THR can provide excellent pain relief and restore functional ability for most patients, there is a proportion of patients who experience a poor functional outcome after THR. One factor that could contribute to a poor outcome after THR is leg length discrepancy (LLD). Restoration of leg length is important in optimising hip biomechanics and LLD has several consequences for the patient, including back pain and a limp. Assessment of LLD using radiographs is time consuming and labour intensive, and therefore limits large scale studies of LLD. However, patients self-report of perceived LLD may be a useful tool to study LLD on a large scale. Therefore, the aim of this postal audit survey was to determine the prevalence of patient-perceived LLD after primary THR and its impact on mid-term functional outcomes.

Methods: A cross-sectional postal audit survey of all consecutive patients who had a primary, unilateral THR at the Avon Orthopaedic Centre 5–8 years previously was conducted. Several questions about LLD were included on the questionnaire. Firstly, patients were asked if they thought that their legs were the same length. For those who thought their legs were different lengths, they were asked if the difference bothered them, whether the difference in length leg was enough to comment upon, and whether they used a shoe raise. Participants also completed an Oxford hip score (OHS), which is a self-report measure that assesses functional ability and pain after THR, including limping

Results: 1,114 THR patients returned a completed questionnaire, giving a response rate of 73%. 329 patients (30%) reported that they thought their legs were different lengths. The median OHS for patients with a perceived LLD was 22, which was significantly worse than the OHS of 18 for patients who thought their legs were the same length (p< 0.001). Of the 329 patients with a perceived LLD, 161 patients (51%) were bothered by the difference, 65 patients (20%) thought the discrepancy was sufficient to comment upon and 101 patients (31%) used a shoe raise. 31% of patients with LLD limped most or all of the time compared to only 9% of patients without LLD.

Conclusion: In conclusion, this study found that the prevalence of perceived LLD at 5–8 years after THR was 30%. Of the patients with LLD, over 50% were bothered by the LLD and over a third used a shoe raise to equalise leg lengths. Patients with perceived LLD have a significantly poorer self-report functional outcome than those patients without LLD. It is therefore important that patients are informed pre-operatively of the high risk of LLD after THR and the associated negative impact this may have on their outcome.