Objective: To investigate the correlation between objective and subjective evaluation of patients with total hip replacement.
Design: Prospective preliminary trial comparing the Western Ontario and McMaster University questionnaire (WOMAC) and gait analysis preoperatively and three months postoperatively.
Setting: A German academic orthopaedic centre specializing in total hip replacement surgery.
Subjects: Seventeen patients (median age 70 years) with hip osteoarthritis.
Intervention: All patients had had a primary unilateral total hip replacement.
Main measures: WOMAC questionnaire to assess self-perceived health status and gait analysis to determine objective gait parameters.
Results: Performance of walking as well as subjective judgement of health status improved following surgery (gait speed P = 0.0222; stride length P = 0.038; stance phase ratio P = 0.0466; WOMAC P < 0.0001). However, the correlation between gait parameters and WOMAC was poor (r = -0.27 or less). Correlation between changes of walking parameters and WOMAC was bad to good (r = 0.01 to r = -0.72).
Conclusion: The WOMAC questionnaire might not reflect walking performance. The addition of gait analysis is recommended to gain objective information about the quality of gait.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
1 The burden of musculoskeletal conditions at the start of the new millenium: report of a WHO scientific group. World Health Organization, 2003.
2.
2 Murray D.Surgery and joint replacement for joint disease. Acta Orthop Scand Suppl1998; 281:17-20.
3.
3 Faulkner A, Kennedy LG, Baxter K, Donovan J, Wilkinson M, Bevan G.Effectiveness of hip prostheses in primary total hip replacement: a critical review of evidence and an economic model. Health Technol Assess1998; 2:1-133.
4.
4 Malchau H, Herberts P, Eisler T, Garellick G, Soderman P.The Swedish Total Hip Replacement Register. J Bone Joint Surg Am2002; 84 - A (suppl 2): 2-20.
5.
5 Morris RW, Fitzpatrick R, Hajat S et al. Primary total hip replacement: variations in patient management in Oxford & Anglia, Trent, Yorkshire & Northern ‘regions’. Ann R Coll Surg Engl2001; 83: 190-196.
6.
6 Bryant MJ, Kernohan WG, Nixon JR, Mollan RA.A statistical analysis of hip scores. J Bone Joint Surg Br1993; 75: 705-709.
7.
7 Callaghan JJ, Dysart SH, Savory CF, Hopkinson WJ.Assessing the results of hip replacement. A comparison of five different rating systems. J Bone Joint Surg Br1990; 72: 1008-1009.
8.
8 Lieberman JR, Dorey F, Shekelle P et al. Differences between patients' and physicians' evaluations of outcome after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am1996; 78: 835-838.
9.
9 Nilsdotter AK, Petersson IF, Roos EM, Lohmander LS.Predictors of patient relevant outcome after total hip replacement for osteoarthritis: a prospective study. Ann Rheum Dis2003; 62: 923-930.
10.
10 MacWilliam CH, Yood MU, Verner JJ, McCarthy BD, Ward RE.Patient-related risk factors that predict poor outcome after total hip replacement. Health Serv Res1996; 31: 623-638.
11.
11 Soderman P, Malchau H, Herberts P, Zugner R, Regner H, Garellick G.Outcome after total hip arthroplasty: Part II. Disease-specific follow-up and the Swedish National Total Hip Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop Scand2001; 72: 113-119.
12.
12 Jones CA, Voaklander DC, Johnston DW, Suarez-Almazor ME.Health related quality of life outcomes after total hip and knee arthroplasties in a community based population. J Rheumatol2000; 27: 1745-1752.
13.
13 Bombardier C, Melfi CA, Paul J, Green R, Hawker G, Wright J, Coyte P.Comparison of a generic and a disease-specific measure of pain and physical function after knee replacement surgery. Med Care1995; 33 (suppl): AS131-AS144.
14.
14 Bellamy N, Kirwan J, Boers M et al. Recommendations for a core set of outcome measures for future phase III clinical trials in knee, hip, and hand osteoarthritis. Consensus development at OMERACT III. J Rheumatol1997; 24: 799-802.
15.
15 Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW.Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol1988; 15: 1833-1840.
16.
16 Dougados M, Leclaire P, van der Heijde D, Bloch DA, Bellamy N, Altman RD.Response criteria for clinical trials on osteoarthritis of the knee and hip: a report of the Osteoarthritis Research Society International Standing Committee for Clinical Trials response criteria initiative. Osteoarthritis Cartilage2000; 8: 395-403.
17.
17 Dieppe PA.Recommended methodology for assessing the progression of osteoarthritis of the hip and knee joints. Osteoarthritis Cartilage1995; 3: 73-77.
18.
18 Faucher M, Poiraudeau S, Lefevre-Colau MM, Rannou F, Fermanian J, Revel M.Algo-functional assessment of knee osteoarthritis: comparison of the test-retest reliability and construct validity of the WOMAC and Lequesne indexes. Osteoarthritis Cartilage2002; 10: 602-610.
19.
19 Faucher M, Poiraudeau S, Lefevre-Colau MM, Rannou F, Fermanian J, Revel M.Assessment of the test-retest reliability and construct validity of a modified WOMAC index in knee osteoarthritis. Joint Bone Spine2004; 71: 121-127.
20.
20 Thumboo J, Chew LH, Soh CH.Validation of the Western Ontario and Mcmaster University osteoarthritis index in Asians with osteoarthritis in Singapore. Osteoarthritis Cartilage2001; 9: 440-446.
21.
21 Stratford PW, Kennedy DM.Does parallel item content on WOMAC's Pain and Function Subscales limit its ability to detect change in functional status?BMC Musculoskelet Disord2004; 5: 17-17.
22.
22 Aminian K, Najafi B, Bula C, Leyvraz PF, Robert P.Spatio-temporal parameters of gait measured by an ambulatory system using miniature gyroscopes. J Biomech2002; 35: 689-699.
23.
23 Cutlip RG, Mancinelli C, Huber F, DiPasquale J.Evaluation of an instrumented walkway for measurement of the kinematic parameters of gait. Gait Posture2000; 12: 134-138.
24.
24 Berman AT, Quinn RH, Zarro VJ.Quantitative gait analysis in unilateral and bilateral total hip replacements. Arch Phys Med Rehabil1991; 72: 190-194.
25.
25 Kyriazis V, Rigas C.Temporal gait analysis of hip osteoarthritic patients operated with cementless hip replacement. Clin Biomech (Bristol, Avon)2002; 17: 318-321.
26.
26 Lord SR, Lloyd DG, Li SK.Sensori-motor function, gait patterns and falls in communitydwelling women. Age Ageing1996; 25: 292-299.
27.
27 Maki BE.Gait changes in older adults: predictors of falls or indicators of fear. J Am Geriatr Soc1997; 45: 313-320.
28.
28 Hausdorff JM, Rios DA, Edelberg HK.Gait variability and fall risk in community-living older adults: a 1-year prospective study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil2001; 82: 1050-1056.
29.
29 Aminian K, Trevisan C, Najafi B et al. Evaluation of an ambulatory system for gait analysis in hip osteoarthritis and after total hip replacement. Gait Posture2004; 20: 102-107.
30.
30 Stucki G, Meier D, Stucki S et al. Evaluation einer deutschen Version des WOMAC (Western Ontario und McMaster Universities) Arthroseindex. Z Rheumatol1996; 55:40-49.
31.
31 Boardman DL, Dorey F, Thomas BJ, Lieberman JR.The accuracy of assessing total hip arthroplasty outcomes: a prospective correlation study of walking ability and 2 validated measurement devices. J Arthroplasty2000; 15: 200-204.
32.
32 Bachmeier CJ, March LM, Cross MJ et al.A comparison of outcomes in osteoarthritis patients undergoing total hip and knee replacement surgery. Osteoarthritis Cartilage2001; 9: 137-146.
33.
33 Angst F, Aeschlimann A, Steiner W, Stucki G.Responsiveness of the WOMAC osteoarthritis index as compared with the SF-36 in patients with osteoarthritis of the legs undergoing a comprehensive rehabilitation intervention. Ann Rheum Dis2001; 60: 834-840.
34.
34 Dreinhofer K, Stucki G, Ewert T et al. ICF Core Sets for osteoarthritis. J Rehabil Med2004; 44 (suppl): 75-80.
