Abstract
Patients may be able to return to higher level activities following hip arthroplasty with modern techniques and prostheses, but the Oxford hip score, the standard PROM used by the NJS exhibits severe skew and kurtosis. The commonest score is 48/48. Most patients score above 40 preventing any discrimination between approaches or prostheses. We therefore sought both subjective and objective metrics which were relevant and valid without skew or high kurtosis in postoperative patients. The Metabolic Equivalent of Task (MET) reports energy usage in kcal/min burnt across a range of activities, condensed into a score of 0–25. A MET over 8 is considered ‘conditioning exercise’ tethered to life expectancy. A 2 point difference in average MET is considered a clinically relevant difference. Walking speed is a simple valid metric tethered to life expectancy, with a 0.1m/sec difference in walking speed equates to a clinically important difference.
Oxford Hip Score (OHS), and the MET were prospectively recorded in 221 primary hip arthroplasty procedures pre-operatively and at 1-year using a web based application. Pre and postoperative Gait analysis was undertaken on a subgroup of 34 patients, in comparison with age and sex matched controls.
Post-operatively, the OHS demonstrated significant skewed distributions with ceiling effects of 41% scoring 48/48. The MET was normally distributed around a mean of 10.3, with a standard deviation of 3.8 and no ceiling effect. Walking speed was normally distributed around a mean of 1.8m/sec, with a standard deviation was 0.15 m/sec
The MET is a simple patient reported score, which is normally distributed in patients following hip arthroplasty, around a mean of 10.3 with a standard deviation of 3.8. This valid activity metric correlates well with fast walking speed. This is also normally distributed with a standard deviation of over 0.1m/sec confirming low kurtosis. These simple measures have face validity: undertaking less active pastimes and being unable to keep up with other walkers are obviously inadvisable. The normal kurtosis of these metrics suggest that they may able to detect clinically relevant differences in outcome which are undetectable with commonly used PROMs. For surgeons developing less invasive approaches or using novel stems, these measures may detect clinically important improvements undetectable by the Oxford Hip Score.
