Objective: To evaluate four rating systems designed to assess patients following provision of a thrust plate prosthesis.
Subjects: Sixty-one patients undergoing total hip replacement with thrust plate prosthesis.
Design: Patients were evaluated preoperatively and six months postoperatively by four different hip rating systems (Harris, Iowa, Charnley and Merle d'Aubigne), both on a categorical and on a numerical basis.
Setting: Department of orthopaedics and traumatology in a university hospital.
Main outcome measures: Patients were evaluated by four rating systems preoperatively and postoperatively either on a categorical or a numerical basis.
Results: All patients showed significant improvement after surgery in all rating systems. Although preoperative categorical evaluation revealed that the strongest correlation was between Charnley and Merle d'Aubigne scores (r =0.876), numerical comparison of the rating systems showed strong correlation among all systems, both pre-and postoperatively. Responsiveness analysis revealed larger effect size for the Iowa and Harris hip scores.
Conclusions: Our results suggest that hip rating systems should be compared numerically rather than by categorical evaluation and that the Iowa and Harris hip scores are more convenient in evaluating thrust plate prosthesis patients because they have larger effect sizes without floor and ceiling effects.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
1 Callaghan JJ, Dysart SH, Savory CF, Hopkinson WJ. Assessing the results of hip replacement: a comparison of five different rating systems. J Bone Joint Surg1990; 72B: 1008-1009.
2.
2 Andersson G. Hip assessment: a comparison of nine different methods. J Bone Joint Surg1972; 54B: 621-625.
3.
3 Callaghan JJ, Dennis DA, Paprosky WG, Rosenberg AG eds. Orthopaedic knowledge update: hip and knee reconstruction. Am Acad Orthop Surg1995: 121-126.
4.
4 Bryant MJ, Kernohan WG, Nixon JR, Mollan RAB. A statistical analysis of hip scores. J Bone Joint Surg1993: 75B: 705-709.
5.
5 Ritter MA, Fechtman RW, Keating EM, Faris PM. The use of a hip score for evaluation of the results of total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty1990: 5: 187-189.
6.
6 Bach CM, Feizelmeier H, Kaufmann G et al. Categorization diminishes the reliability of hip scores. Clin Orthop2003; 411: 166-173.
7.
7 Fink B, Siegmüller C, Scheider T et al. Short-and medium-term results of the thrust plate prosthesis in patients with poliarthritis. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg2000: 120: 294-298.
8.
8 Jacob HAC. Biomechanical principles and design details of the thrust plate prosthesis. In: Huggler AH, Jacob HAC eds. The thrust plate hip prosthesis. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer, 1997: 25-47.
9.
9 Karatosun V, Gunal I, Unver B. Thrust plate hip prosthesis: early results of a new concept in the femoral component of total hip arthroplasty. Acta Orthop Traumatol Turc2001; 35:35-40.
10.
10 Menge M. Bone remodelling of the proximal femur after implantation of a thrust plate prosthesis. In: Huggler AH, Jacob HAC eds. The thrust plate hip prosthesis. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York: Springer, 1997: 98-106.
11.
11 Harris WH. Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty: a new method of evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg1969; 51A: 737-755.
12.
12 Larson CB. Rating scale for hip disabilities. Clin Orthop1963; 31:85-93.
13.
13 Charnley J. The long term results of low-friction arthroplasty of the hip performed as a primary intervention. J Bone Joint Surg1972; 54B:61-76.
14.
14 Merle d'Aubigne R, Postel M. Functional results of hip arthroplasty with acrylic prosthesis. J Bone Joint Surg1954; 36A: 451-475.
15.
15 Kocher MS, Steadman JR, Briggs KK, Sterett WI, Hawkins RJ. Reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the Lysholm knee scale for various chondral disorders of the knee. J Bone Joint Surg2004; 86A: 1139-1145.
16.
16 Söderman P, Malchau H. Is the Harris hip score system useful to study the outcome of total hip replacement?Clin Orthop2001; 384: 189-197.
17.
17 Garellick G, Herberts P, Malchau H. The value of clinical data scoring systems: are traditional hip scoring systems adequate to use in evaluation after total hip surgery?J Arthroplasty1999; 14: 1024-1029.
18.
18 Johanson NA, Charlson ME, Szatrowski TP, Ranawat CS. A self-administered hip-rating questionnaire for the assessment of outcome after total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg1992; 74A: 587-597.
19.
19 Johnston RC, Fitzgerald RH, Harris WH et al. Clinical and radiographic evaluation of total hip replacement: a standart system of terminology for reporting results. J Bone Joint Surg1990; 72A: 161-168.
20.
20 Lieberman JR, Dorey F, Shekelle P et al. Differences between patients' and physicians' evaluations of outcome after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg1996; 78A: 835-838.
21.
21 Murray D. The hip. In: Pynsent P, Fairbank J, Carr A eds. Outcome measures in orthopaedics. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1993: 199-215.
22.
22 Wright JG, Young NL. The patient-specific index: asking patients what they want. J Bone Joint Surg1997; 79A: 974-983.
