header advert
Results 1 - 2 of 2
Results per page:
Applied filters
Content I can access

Hip

Include Proceedings
Dates
Year From

Year To
Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 101-B, Issue SUPP_12 | Pages 22 - 22
1 Oct 2019
Ayers DC Zheng H Yang W Franklin PD
Full Access

Introduction

US payers offer incentives to hospitals to report patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) for total hip arthroplasty (THA). We report THA norms for pre-op and one-year PROMs in a large multi-center cohort and compare global, hip specific scores, and abbreviated PROM measures acceptable to meet payer requirements. The HOOS 12 is a new form of the HOOS containing 12 questions that allows separate determination of pain and ADL sub-scores in addition to the total score.

Methods

Between 2011–2015, 7895 primary elective THA patients enrolled in the FORCE-TJR research consortium from over 200 surgeons in 28 states. Patients completed pre-op demographics, clinical risks, PROMs, and one-year outcomes. Over 95% completed pre-op PROMs; 83% post-op. Generic and hip specific (HOOS full and HOOS-12 sub-scores, and HOOS JR global) PROMs were compared.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 100-B, Issue SUPP_13 | Pages 65 - 65
1 Oct 2018
Ayers DC Zheng H Lemay C Yang W Franklin PD
Full Access

Introduction

Historically, US arthroplasty revision rates are based on CMS data that cannot verify initial surgery date in patients under 65 years or laterality of revision. We calculated US one-year revision rates for primary total hip replacement (THR) using a representative cohort. Reasons for revision were documented.

Methods

A multi-center cohort from US surgeons in 28 states collected sociodemographic data; medical, emotional, musculoskeletal comorbidities; BMI; and patient-reported pain and function (SF36, HOOS) for elective THR patients. Cases in 2011–2013 were matched with CMS data to ascertain 1 year revision through 2014. Predictors of revision were identified. Chart reviews to verify reasons for revision were performed.