Background. Assessment of functional outcome after total hip arthroplasty (THA) often involves subjective patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) whereas analysis of gait allows more objective assessment. The aims of the study were to compare longitudinal changes of WOMAC function score and ambulatory gait analysis after THA, between patients with low and high self-reported levels of physical function. Methods. Patients undergoing primary THA (n=36; m/f=18/18; mean age=63.9; SD=9.8yrs; BMI=26.3 SD=3.5) were divided in a high and low function group, on their preoperative WOMAC function score. Patients were prospectively measured preoperatively and 3 and 12 months postoperatively. WOMAC function scores 0–100) were compared to inertial sensor based ambulatory gait analysis. Results. WOMAC function scores significantly improved in both low and high groups at 3 months postoperatively whereas gait parameters only improved in with a low pre-operative function. Between 3 and 12 months postoperatively, function scores had not significantly further improved whereas several gait parameters significantly improved in the low function group. WOMAC function scores parameters were only moderately correlated (Spearman's r = 0.33–0.51). Discussion. In routine longitudinal assessment of physical function following THA, ambulatory gait analysis can be supplementary to WOMAC. As gait significantly improved during the first 3 months and following 9 months after THA in patients with a low preoperative level of physical function only, assessment of more demanding tasks than gait may be more sensitive to capture functional improvement in patients with high preoperative function. Acknowledgements. This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Programme Grants for Applied Research programme (RP-PG-0407-10070). The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health. The research team acknowledges the support of the NIHR, through the Comprehensive
Background. Total hip replacement (THR) and total knee replacement (TKR) are usually effective at relieving pain; however, 7–23% of patients experience chronic post-surgical pain. These trials aimed to investigate the effect of local anaesthetic wound infiltration on pain severity at 12 months after primary THR or TKR for osteoarthritis. Methods. Between November 2009 and February 2012, 322 patients listed for THR and 316 listed for TKR were recruited into a single-centre double-blind randomised controlled trial. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive local anaesthetic infiltration and standard care or standard care alone. Participants and outcomes assessors were masked to group allocation. The primary outcome was pain severity on the WOMAC Pain scale at 12 months post-surgery. Analyses were conducted using intention-to-treat and per-protocol approaches. Ethics approval was obtained from Southampton and South West Hampshire Research Ethics Committee. Results. In the hip trial, patients in the intervention group had significantly less pain at 12 months post-operative than patients in the standard care group (differences in means 4.74; 95% CI 0.95, 8.54; p=0.015), although the difference was not clinically significant. Post-hoc analysis found that patients in the intervention group were more likely to have none to moderate pain than severe pain at 12 months than those in the standard care group (odds ratio 10.19; 95% CI 2.10, 49.55; p=0.004). In the knee trial, there was no strong evidence that the intervention influenced pain severity at 12 months post-operative (difference in means 3.83; 95% CI −0.83, 8.49; p=0.107). Conclusions. In conclusion, routine use of infiltration could be beneficial in improving long-term pain relief for some patients after THR. Level of evidence. Randomised controlled trial. Funding. This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) in England under its Programme Grants for Applied Research programme (RP-PG-0407-10070). The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health. The research team acknowledge the support of the NIHR, through the Comprehensive
Trauma and orthopaedics is the largest of the
surgical specialties and yet attracts a disproportionately small
fraction of available national and international funding for health
research. With the burden of musculoskeletal disease increasing,
high-quality research is required to improve the evidence base for
orthopaedic practice. Using the current research landscape in the
United Kingdom as an example, but also addressing the international
perspective, we highlight the issues surrounding poor levels of
research funding in trauma and orthopaedics and indicate avenues
for improving the impact and success of surgical musculoskeletal
research. Cite this article:
