Aims. As our population ages, the number of octogenarians who will require a total hip arthroplasty (THA) rises. In a value-based system where operative outcomes are linked to hospital payments, it is necessary to assess the outcomes in this population. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes of elective, primary THA in patients ≥ 80 years old to those aged < 80. Methods. A retrospective review of 10,251 consecutive THA cases from 2011 to 2019 was conducted.
United Classification System (UCS) B2 and B3 periprosthetic fractures in total hip arthroplasties (THAs) have been commonly managed with modular tapered stems. No study has evaluated the use of monoblock fluted tapered titanium stems for this indication. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of a monoblock stems on implant survivorship, postoperative outcomes, radiological outcomes, and osseointegration following treatment of THA UCS B2 and B3 periprosthetic fractures. A retrospective review was conducted of all patients who underwent revision THA (rTHA) for periprosthetic UCS B2 and B3 periprosthetic fracture who received a single design monoblock fluted tapered titanium stem at two large, tertiary care, academic hospitals. A total of 72 patients met inclusion and exclusion criteria (68 UCS B2, and four UCS B3 fractures). Primary outcomes of interest were radiological stem subsidence (> 5 mm), radiological osseointegration, and fracture union. Sub-analysis was also done for 46 patients with minimum one-year follow-up.Aims
Methods
This study aims to answer the following questions in patients with hip osteoarthritis (OA) who underwent total hip arthroplasty (THA): are patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) affected by the location of the maximum severity of pain?; are PROMs affected by the presence of non-groin pain?; are PROMs affected by the severity of pain?; and are PROMs affected by the number of pain locations? We reviewed 336 hips (305 patients) treated with THA for hip OA from December 2016 to November 2019 using pain location/severity questionnaires, modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Hip Outcome Score (HOS), international Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12) score, and radiological analysis. Descriptive statistics, analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), and Spearman partial correlation coefficients were used.Aims
Methods
This study uses prospective registry data to compare early patient outcomes following arthroscopic repair or debridement of the acetabular labrum. Data on adult patients who underwent arthroscopic labral debridement or repair between 1 January 2012 and 31 July 2019 were extracted from the UK Non-Arthroplasty Hip Registry. Patients who underwent microfracture, osteophyte excision, or a concurrent extra-articular procedure were excluded. The EuroQol five-dimension (EQ-5D) and International Hip Outcome Tool 12 (iHOT-12) questionnaires were collected preoperatively and at six and 12 months post-operatively. Due to concerns over differential questionnaire non-response between the two groups, a combination of random sampling, propensity score matching, and pooled multivariable linear regression models were employed to compare iHOT-12 improvement.Aims
Methods
The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) has demonstrated faster administration, lower burden of data capture and reduced floor and ceiling effects compared to traditional Patient Reported Outcomes Measurements (PROMs). We investigated the suitability of PROMIS Mobility score in assessing physical function in the sequelae of childhood hip disease. In all, 266 adolscents (aged ≥ 12 years) and adults were identified with a prior diagnosis of childhood hip disease (either Perthes’ disease (n = 232 (87.2%)) or Slipped Capital Femoral Epiphysis (n = 34 (12.8%)) with a mean age of 27.73 years (SD 12.24). Participants completed the PROMIS Mobility Computer Adaptive Test, the Non-Arthritic Hip Score (NAHS), EuroQol five-dimension five-level questionnaire, and the Numeric Pain Rating Scale. We investigated the correlation between the PROMIS Mobility and other tools to assess use in this population and any clustering of outcome scores.Aims
Methods
