Abstract
Any arthroplasty that offers superior function needs to be assessed using metrics that are capable of detecting those functions. The Oxford Hip Score (OHS), the Harris Hip Score (HHS) and WOMAC are patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) with well documented ceiling effects: following hip arthroplasty, many patients are clustered close to full marks following surgery. Two recent well conducted randomised clinical trials made exactly this error, by using OHS and WOMAC to detect a differences in outcome between hip resurfacing and hip arthroplasty despite published data already showing in single arm studies that these two procedures score close to full marks using either of these PROMS.
We have already reported that patients with hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA) were able to walk faster and with more normal stride length than patients with well performing hip replacements. In an attempt to relate this functional superiority to an outcome measure that does not rely upon the use of expensive machinery, we developed a patient centred outcome measure (PCOM) based upon a method developed by Philip Noble's group, and the University of Arizona's Metabolic Equivalent of Task Index (MET). This PCOM allows patients to select the functions that matter to them personally against which the success of their own operation will be measured, with greater sensitivity to intensity than is achieved by the UCLA.
Our null hypothesis was that this PCOM would be no more successful than the PROMs in routine use in discriminating between types of hip arthroplasty, and that there would be no difference in gait between patients following these procedures.
From our database of over 800 patients whose gait has been assessed in the lab, we identified 22 patients with a well performing conventional THAs, and matched them for age, sex, BMI, height, preop diagnosis with 22 patients with a well performing conventional THA. Both were compared with healthy controls using the novel PCOM and in a gait lab.
Results
PROMs for the two groups were almost identical, while HRA scored higher in the PCOM. The 9% difference was significant (p<0.05). At top walking speed, HRA were 10% faster, with a 9% longer stride length, both of these metrics also reached significance.
Discussion
Function following hip replacement is very good, with high satisfaction rates, but the use of a PCOM, and objective measures of function reveal substantial inferiority of THA over THR in two well matched groups. This 9% difference is well over the 5% difference that is considered ‘clinically relevant’. When coupled with the very strong data regarding life expectancy and infection, this functional data makes a compelling case for the use of resurfacing in active adults.
