Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 2 of 2
Results per page:
The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 102-B, Issue 6 | Pages 683 - 692
1 Jun 2020
Arnold N Anis H Barsoum WK Bloomfield MR Brooks PJ Higuera CA Kamath AF Klika A Krebs VE Mesko NW Molloy RM Mont MA Murray TG Patel PD Strnad G Stearns KL Warren J Zajichek A Piuzzi NS

Aims. Thresholds for operative eligibility based on body mass index (BMI) alone may restrict patient access to the benefits of arthroplasty. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between BMI and improvements in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and to determine how many patients would have been denied improvements in PROMs if BMI cut-offs were to be implemented. Methods. A prospective cohort of 3,449 primary total hip arthroplasties (THAs) performed between 2015 and 2018 were analyzed. The following one-year PROMs were evaluated: hip injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (HOOS) pain, HOOS Physical Function Shortform (PS), University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) activity, Veterans Rand-12 Physical Component Score (VR-12 PCS), and VR-12 Mental Component Score (VR-12 MCS). Positive predictive values for failure to improve and the number of patients denied surgery in order to avoid a failed improvement were calculated for each PROM at different BMI cut-offs. Results. There was a trend to improved outcomes in terms of pain and function improvements with higher BMI. Patients with BMI ≥ 40 kg/m. 2. had median (Q1, Q3) HOOS pain improvements of 58 points (interquartile range (IQR) 41 to 70) and those with BMI 35 to 40 kg/m. 2. had median improvements of 55 (IQR 40 to 68). With a BMI cut-off of 30 kg/m. 2. , 21 patients would have been denied a meaningful improvement in HOOS pain score in order to avoid one failed improvement. At a 35 kg/m. 2. cut-off, 18 patients would be denied improvement, at a 40 kg/m. 2. cut-off 21 patients would be denied improvement, and at a 45 kg/m. 2. cut-off 21 patients would be denied improvement. Similar findings were observed for HOOS-PS, UCLA, and VR-12 scores. Conclusion. Patients with higher BMIs show greater improvements in PROMs. Using BMI alone to determine eligibility criteria did not improve the rate of clinically meaningful improvements. BMI thresholds prevent patients who may benefit the most from surgery from undergoing THA. Surgeons should consider PROMs improvements in determining eligibility for THA while balancing traditional metrics of preoperative risk stratification. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(6):683–692


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 101-B, Issue 8 | Pages 902 - 909
1 Aug 2019
Innmann MM Merle C Gotterbarm T Ewerbeck V Beaulé PE Grammatopoulos G

Aims

This study of patients with osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip aimed to: 1) characterize the contribution of the hip, spinopelvic complex, and lumbar spine when moving from the standing to the sitting position; 2) assess whether abnormal spinopelvic mobility is associated with worse symptoms; and 3) identify whether spinopelvic mobility can be predicted from static anatomical radiological parameters.

Patients and Methods

A total of 122 patients with end-stage OA of the hip awaiting total hip arthroplasty (THA) were prospectively studied. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs; Oxford Hip Score, Oswestry Disability Index, and Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey Score) and clinical data were collected. Sagittal spinopelvic mobility was calculated as the change from the standing to sitting position using the lumbar lordosis angle (LL), sacral slope (SS), pelvic tilt (PT), pelvic-femoral angle (PFA), and acetabular anteinclination (AI) from lateral radiographs. The interaction of the different parameters was assessed. PROMs were compared between patients with normal spinopelvic mobility (10° ≤ ∆PT ≤ 30°) or abnormal spinopelvic mobility (stiff: ∆PT < ± 10°; hypermobile: ∆PT > ± 30°). Multiple regression and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analyses were used to test for possible predictors of spinopelvic mobility.