Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Identification of patients with suboptimal results after hip arthroplasty: development of a preliminary prediction algorithm

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders201516:279

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-015-0720-1

Received: 15 March 2015

Accepted: 16 September 2015

Published: 5 October 2015

Abstract

Background

The ability to predict preoperatively the identity of patients undergoing hip arthroplasty at risk of suboptimal outcomes could help implement interventions targeted at improving surgical results. The objective was to develop a preliminary prediction algorithm (PA) allowing the identification of patients at risk of unsatisfactory outcomes one to two years following hip arthroplasty.

Methods

Retrospective data on a cohort of 265 patients having undergone primary unilateral hip replacement (188 total arthroplasties and 77 resurfacing arthroplasties) from 2004 to 2010 were collected from our arthroplasty database. Hip pain and function, as measured by the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) were collected, as well as self-reported hip joint perception after surgery. Demographic and clinical variables recorded at the time of the surgery were considered as potential predictors. Patients were considered as having a suboptimal surgical outcome if they were in the worst quartile of the postoperative total WOMAC score and perceived their operated hip as artificial with minimal or major limitations. The PA was developed using recursive partitioning.

Results

Mean postoperative surgical follow-up was 446 ± 171 days. Forty patients (15.1 %) had a postoperative total WOMAC score in the worst quartile (>11.5/100) and perceived their joint as artificial with minimal or major restrictions. A PA consisting of the following variables achieved the most acceptable level of prediction: gender, age at the time of surgery, body mass index (BMI), and three items of the preoperative WOMAC (degree of pain with walking on a flat surface and during the night as well as degree of difficulty with putting socks or stockings). The rule had a sensitivity of 75.0 % (95 % CI: 59.8-85.8), a specificity of 77.8 % (95 % CI: 71.9–82.7), a positive predictive value of 37.5 % (95 % CI: 27.7–48.5), a negative predictive value of 94.6 % (95 % CI: 90.3–97.0) and positive and negative likelihood ratios of 3.38 (95 % CI: 2.49–4.57) and 0.34 (95 % CI: 0.19–0.55) respectively.

Conclusions

The preliminary PA shows promising results at identifying patients at risk of significant functional limitations, increased pain and inadequate joint perception after hip arthroplasty. Clinical use should not be implemented before additional validation and refining.

Keywords

Hip arthroplasty Joint perception Osteoarthritis Prediction Surgical outcomes

Background

Recent recommendations suggest that total hip arthroplasty (THA) is indicated when the patients’ functional limitations and pain levels due to hip osteoarthritis (OA) are refractory to pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments [1, 2]. Resurfacing hip arthroplasty (HR) is an alternative to THA in patients who are younger, more active, with normal renal function and appropriate proximal femoral bone morphology and quality [3]. Both THA and HR are considered efficacious for the great majority of patients undergoing these procedures [47]. Although generally successful at alleviating coxarthrosis-related ailments, hip arthroplasty can yield subpar results in terms of pain and functional outcomes as well as degree of satisfaction in a non-negligible proportion of patients. For example, a recent systematic review reports that 7 to 23 % of the patients undergoing THA experience unfavourable pain outcomes 3 months to 5 years after the procedure [8]. Moreover, up to 15 % of the patients report dissatisfaction with surgery [9, 10] . To our knowledge, no formal data on proportions of patients with poor pain, functional and satisfaction levels after HR exists. However, it can be posited that these proportions are similar to the ones observed among patients undergoing THA, as studies indicate that these outcomes are similar between the two procedures [11, 12].

In light of these observations, careful case management must be implemented in order to minimize unsuccessful outcomes. Potential interventions directed at improving surgical outcomes include patient education and intensive rehabilitation. However, identification of patients at risk of severe pain and functional limitations after THA or HR is difficult. A multitude of factors related to poor functional and pain outcomes following hip arthroplasty have been identified. These include worse preoperative levels of pain and function, lower educational level, comorbidities, presence of back pain or higher body mass index (BMI) among others [1322]. Nevertheless, regardless of the quantity of the evidence of potential risk factors, no definitive consensus has been reached concerning their identity and the magnitude of their association with postoperative pain, functioning and satisfaction. In light these observations, an algorithm aimed at identifying with sufficient accuracy which patients present the greatest risk of unsuccessful outcomes may assist in the care process. Therefore, the objective of this study was to develop a preliminary prediction algorithm (PA) used to identify patients at risk of unfavourable functional status, pain and joint perception one to two years following THA or HR.

Methods

Study design

This study entailed a retrospective analysis of longitudinal, prospectively collected data. The methodology adheres to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines for observational cohort studies (Additional file 1).

Data collection

Our prospective arthroplasty database was consulted in order to identify patients eligible for inclusion in the study. The database contains extensive baseline and follow-up data on patients undergoing hip procedures, including THA and HR. All patients provide informed consent to participate. Independent assessors who are not involved in the medical care of the patients collect the prospective data.

Inclusion criteria were 1) patients undergoing primary unilateral THA or HR, 2) diagnosis of primary hip OA, 3) complete preoperative and one to two-year postoperative self-reported outcome questionnaire responses. The main exclusion criteria were 1) THA or HR of the contralateral hip before the relevant follow-up evaluation, 2) revision of the implant before the one to two-year follow-up, 3) diagnosis of inflammatory hip arthritis, pediatric hip disease, post-traumatic hip or any hip disease other than primary OA. Data on all patients having undergone hip interventions were assessed for inclusion. All patients were initially interviewed just before their intervention. Postoperative outcomes were collected 12 to 24 months after the surgery.

Dependent variables

Functional status and pain levels were assessed preoperatively and at follow-up with the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) [23]. The WOMAC consists of the following domains: pain (5 items), stiffness (2 items) and functional limitation (17 items). Items are scored on a 5-point Likert scale representing different degrees of intensity (none, mild, moderate, severe or extreme). The scores of each domain as well as the total score were standardized on a 0 to 100 scale, with a greater score indicating more pain, stiffness or functional limitation. The psychometric qualities of the WOMAC, including its responsiveness, convergent construct validity and reliability have been found excellent for evaluating patients with hip OA undergoing hip arthroplasty [24, 25].

At follow-up, self-perceived joint perception was measured by asking the patient a multiple-choice question: “How do you perceive your operated hip?” with the possible responses being ”Like a native or natural joint”, ”Like an artificial joint with no restriction”, ”Like an artificial joint with minimal restriction”, ”Like an artificial joint with major restriction” and ”Like a non-functional joint” [26]. Evaluation of joint perception has been strongly associated with validated clinical scores of patient-reported outcome measures and can be employed as a measure of patient satisfaction [26].

No consensus exists regarding what represents poor outcome following hip arthroplasty. Hence, patients of risk of suboptimal outcomes were defined as the ones in the worst quartile of the total WOMAC score at follow-up (i.e. WOMAC score >11.5) and perceiving their hip ”Like an artificial joint with minimal restriction”, "Like an artificial joint with major restriction” or "Like a non-functional joint”.

Independent variables

Potential preoperative predictors

Several of the variables that were collected preoperatively and available in the database were considered as potential predictors of suboptimal hip arthroplasty outcome. Demographic variables included age and gender. Clinical variables included BMI, previous hip interventions and medical comorbidities (diabetes, gastrointestinal disease, immunosuppression secondary to corticosteroid use or other causes, cardiac disease, obesity, pulmonary disease, neurologic disease, urologic disease, and other comorbidities). Pain localization (back, radicular, buttocks, trochanter, groin, thigh, knee and/or calf) as well as whether hip pain was present at rest, after the first few steps, after a long walk and during sexual relations were also considered. Answers to the 24 individual items of the pre-operative WOMAC questionnaire were additionally included in the analysis as potential predictors.

Statistical analysis

Baseline and follow-up mean WOMAC scores along with their standard deviations were calculated. Differences between time points in relation to total WOMAC scores and the respective domains was assessed using paired samples Student-t tests, with a significance level set at 0.05.

The classification and regression tree approach was used to build the PA as it is one of the most effective algorithms of recursive partitioning [27]. It is based on maximizing the within-node homogeneity by evaluating all combinations of potential predictors, thus minimizing the within-node error. The Gini impurity measure was used as a splitting criterion to develop the decision trees [28]. Data for all the patients in the training set was used to develop the PA. Firstly, all the potential predictor variables were employed to develop models using an automated approach. Secondly, a manual approach entailed the development of additional models by inputting independent variables that were judged to be more readily available and easier to employ in a clinical setting. For example, age and gender were favoured over the number of comorbidities and previous hip interventions because the latter two could be affected by a recall bias or would require extensive medical file review. The predictive values of every model were calculated along with their 95 % confidence intervals, namely sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values as well as positive and negative likelihood ratios [29]. Among all the proposed models, the one that showed the highest level of sensitivity and an acceptable level of specificity and that fit the ease-of-use criterion was selected in order to develop the screening tool. Internal validity of the model was then evaluated by the use of 1,000 bootstrap resamples [30]. All analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics Version 20.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago).

Ethics

The research ethics committee of our centre approved the study annually.

Results

Participants

Our database yielded 2963 entries with at least some preoperative data on hip arthroplasty procedures performed from October 2004 to February 2014. Out of these, 1207 procedures (40.7 %) fit the inclusion criteria. Incomplete preoperative and/or postoperative data required for the purposes of the current study obliged the exclusion of a further 942 entries. Thus, a total of 265 primary hip arthroplasty interventions (60 classical THAs, 128 large-femoral head diameter THAs, and 77 h) with complete preoperative and postoperative data were included in the study (follow-up mean ± SD: 446.3 ± 171.1 days), representing a participation proportion of 22.0 %.

Table 1 shows selected characteristics of the 265 patients included in the study. The mean age of the participants was 52.0 (SD 9.0) and 67.4 % were male. The mean BMI was 28.2 (SD 5.1) and each patient had on average 0.79 comorbidities (SD 0.96).
Table 1

Selected characteristics of the participants who underwent hip arthroplasty (n = 265)

Variables considered for PA development

n (%)

Mean (SD)

Other collected variables

n (%)

Demographics

  

Contralateral hip status

 

 Age (years)

 

52 (9.0)

  Unaffected

134 (50.4)

 Female

89 (33.6)

 

  Affected, not operated

105 (39.7)

Clinical characteristics

  

  Unavailable

26 (9.9)

 BMI ¬ (kg/m2)

 

28.2 (5.1)

Charnley class

 

 Medical comorbidities

  

  Charnley A

124 (46.8)

  Diabetes

19 (7.2)

 

  Charnley B

87 (32.8)

  Gastrointestinal disease

16 (6.0)

 

  Charnley C

13 (4.9)

  Immunosuppression

3 (3.0)

 

  Unavailable

41 (15.5)

  Cardiac disease

21 (7.9)

 

Employment status

 

  Obesity

41 (15.5)

 

  Employed

163 (61.5)

  Osteoporosis

2 (0.8)

 

  Household

44 (16.6)

  Pulmonary disease

15 (5.7)

 

  Retired

9 (3.4)

  Neurological disease

1 (0.4)

 

  Other

11 (4.2)

  Urological disease

1 (0.4)

 

  Unavailable

38 (14.3)

  Other

91 (34.3)

 

Walking aid

 

  None

124 (46.8)

 

  Incapable with aid

5 (1.9)

 Presence of back pain

40 (15.1)

 

  Crutches

1 (0.4)

 Pain localization

  

  Two canes

31 (11.7)

  Buttocks

128 (48.3)

 

  Cane on a permanent basis, instability

118 (44.5)

  Trochanter

164 (61.9)

 

  Cane for outdoor activities

42 (15.8)

  Groin

177 (66.8)

 

  Cane for long distance walking

43 (16.2)

  Thigh

124 (46.8)

 

  Unavailable

25 (9.5)

  Knee

111 (41.9)

 

  Knee(s) status

 

  Calf

36 (13.6)

 

  Affected

28 (10.5)

  Radicular

6 (2.2)

 

  Unaffected

204 (77.0)

  Elsewhere

3 (1.1)

 

  Unavailable

33 (12.5)

 Presence of hip pain

  

Level of activity in the 3 months before surgery

 

  At rest

148 (55.8)

 

  Heavy work/sport

26 (9.8)

  After first few steps

182 (68.8)

 

  Moderate work

53 (20.0)

  After a long walk

224 (84.5)

 

  Mild work/walking

112 (42.3)

  During sexual intercourse

156 (58.9)

 

  Sedentary

34 (12.8)

   

  Immobile

6 (2.3)

   

  Unavailable

34 (12.8)

   

Duration of walking before eliciting pain

 
   

  Walking unaffected

37 (14.0)

   

  31–60 min

51 (19.2)

   

  11–30 min

82 (30.9)

   

  2–10 min

53 (20.0)

   

  <2 min

16 (6.0)

   

  Walking impossible

1 (0.4)

   

  Unavailable

25 (9.5)

SD standard deviation, BMI body mass index

Mean follow-up was 446 (SD 171) days and ranged from 253 to 1638 days. Postoperatively, the patients had significantly improved on pain (−44.9, SD 22.6, 95 % CI −42.1 to −47.6), stiffness (−44.6, SD 25.1, 95 % CI −41.6 to −47.7), function (−43.6, SD 21.9, 95 % CI −40.9 to −46.2) as well as total WOMAC score (−43.9, SD 21.1, 95 % CI −41.4 to −46.5) (Table 2). Seventy-six patients (29 %) reported that they perceived their prosthetic joint as artificial with minimal or major restrictions (Table 3).
Table 2

Changes in WOMAC scores of the participants between preoperative measurement and following hip arthroplasty (n = 265)

 

Mean preoperative scorea (SD)

Mean preoperative scorea (SD)

Change in scoreb (SD)

95 % CI

Comparison between time points (p value)

WOMAC

     

 Pain

55.4 (19.2)

10.5 (16.7)

- 44.9 (22.6)

- 42.1 to–47.6

<0.001*

 Stiffness

57.1 (19.4)

12.5 (18.1)

- 44.6 (25.1)

- 41.6 to–47.7

<0.001*

 Function

53.2 (20.0)

9.6 (15.3)

- 43.6 (21.9)

- 40.9 to–46.2

<0.001*

 Total score

54.0 (18.7)

10.1 (15.1)

- 43.9 (21.1)

- 41.4 to–46.5

<0.001*

SD standard deviation

CI confidence interval

aScores presented as standardized scores. Lower scores sign a better condition. Scores were measured on the day of the surgery

bNegative changes in score indicate an improvement of the condition. Scores were measured on a mean of 446 ± 171 days following the intervention

*p < 0.05

Table 3

Postoperative joint perception of the patients who underwent hip arthroplasty according to the distribution of their postoperative total WOMAC scores (n = 265)

Joint perception

WOMAC quartile

Native/Natural

Artificial with no restrictions

Artificial with minimal restrictions

Artificial with major restrictions

Non-functional

TOTAL

First

56

21

4

0

0

81

Second

32

9

6

0

0

47

Third

28

14

25

1

0

68

Fourth

17

12

35a

5a

0

69

TOTAL

133

56

70

6

0

265

apatients considered at risk of suboptimal outcome (n = 40); a higher quartile indicates a worse total WOMAC score at follow-up

Out of the 265 patients eligible for inclusion in the study, 40 (15.1 %) had a total WOMAC score > 11.5 and perceived their joint as artificial with minimal or major restrictions. Hence, these patients were considered as having suboptimal surgical outcomes.

Final prediction algorithm

After developing several prediction rules, the algorithm with the highest level of sensitivity and an appropriate level of specificity was chosen. It consists of patient gender, age at the time of surgery, body mass index (BMI), and 3 items of the preoperative WOMAC, namely degree of pain with walking on a flat surface and during night and degree of difficulty with putting socks or stockings (Fig. 1). Patients respond sequentially to the questions and their risk status is determined according to the classification algorithm (Fig. 2).
Fig. 1

Prediction algorithm to identify patients at risk of suboptimal outcomes after hip arthroplasty

Fig. 2

Graphical representation of the prediction algorithm identifying patients at risk of suboptimal surgical outcomes after hip arthroplasty

The final PA correctly identified 30 out of the 40 patients considered at risk of suboptimal outcome and 175 patients out of 225 were identified as not at risk of suboptimal outcome (Table 4). Therefore, the PA had a sensitivity of 75.0 % (95 % CI: 59.8–85.8), a specificity of 77.8 % (95 % CI: 71.9–82.7 and a positive likelihood ratio of 3.38 (95 % CI: 2.49–4.57) (Table 5). The other prediction models that were also considered are presented in Additional file 2.
Table 4

Two by Two table of predicted versus actual outcomes of the prediction algorithm

 

Actual outcome

 

AT RISK

NOT AT RISK

Predicted outcome

Worst postoperative WOMAC quartile (>11.5/100) & “Artificial with minimal or major limitations” joint perception

Postoperative WOMAC ≤ 11.5 &‘’Artificial with no limitations” or ‘’Natural joint” joint perception

AT RISK

30

50

NOT AT RISK

10

175

Total

40

225

Table 5

Validity measures of the prediction algorithm

Measure

Estimates in training sample

Estimates with 1,000 bootstrap resamples

Sensitivity % (95 % CI)

75.0 (59.8.4–85.8)

75.0 (60.0–88.0a)

Specificity % (95 % CI)

77.8 (71.9–82.7)

77.8 (72.2–82.9a)

Positive predictive value % (95 % CI)

37.5 (27.7–48.5)

37.2 (27.2–47.2a)

Negative predictive value % (95 % CI)

94.6 (90.3–97.0)

94.7 (91.2 to 97.8a)

Positive likelihood ratio (95 % CI)

3.38 (2.49–4.57)

3.38 (2.50 to 4.63a)

Negative likelihood ratio (95 % CI)

0.32 (0.19–0.55)

0.32 (0.15 to 0.52a)

• a95 % asymptotic confidence intervals

• Sensitivity: number of participants classified at risk both by the PA and the postoperative WOMAC score and joint perception divided by all participants classified at risk by the postoperative WOMAC score and the joint perception (actual outcome)

• Specificity: number of participants classified not at risk by the PA and the postoperative WOMAC score and joint perception divided by all participants classified not at risk by the postoperative WOMAC score and joint perception (actual outcome)

• Positive predictive value: number of participants classified at risk by the PA and the post-operative WOMAC score and joint perception divided by all participants classified at risk by the PA (predicted outcome)

• Negative predictive value: number of participants classified not at risk by the PA and the postoperative WOMAC score and joint perception divided by all participants classified not at risk by the PA (predicted outcome)

• Positive likelihood ratio: sensitivity/ (1-specificity)

• Negative likelihood ratio: (1-sensitivity)/specificity

Internal validation

Validation of the rule was established using 1,000 bootstrap re-samples. Table 5 indicates the estimated bootstrap values of the predictive measures being close to the original ones, thus suggesting an appropriate accuracy of the proposed model.

Discussion

Since THA and HR can bring significant improvement in patients suffering from hip OA, careful management of subjects at risk of having unsuccessful outcomes is indicated. We aimed to develop a prediction tool in order to facilitate the preoperative identification of these patients, which could possibly ameliorate their surgical outcomes. With a cohort of 265 patients undergoing primary hip arthroplasty for OA, we were able to create a PA predicting the identity of patients that are at the highest risk of unsuccessful outcomes. Albeit preliminary in nature and requiring further development and validation, our PA has excellent predictive capacities, with a sensitivity of 75.0 % (95 % CI 59.8.4–85.8), a specificity of 77.8 % (95 % CI 71.9–82.7) and a positive likelihood ratio of 3.38 (95 % CI 2.49–4.57).

To our knowledge, one model predicting the identity of patients at risk of poor outcomes after THA has been developed [31]. Consisting of patient age, BMI and gender, the model was able to correctly predict patients’ outcomes with a sensitivity of 87.5 % (95 % CI 52.9–97.8), a specificity of 72.4 % (95 % CI 54.3–85.3) and a positive likelihood ratio of 3.17 (95 % CI 1.66–6.05). However, surgical success was determined solely based on functional outcomes (change between the preoperative and six-month Lower Extremity Functional Scale score), and the results are based on a cohort of 37 patients.

The selection of patients for inclusion in the study was based on the availability of complete data for important determinants of hip arthroplasty outcomes as reported in the literature. This allowed the development of a prediction rule that is consistent with the clinical reality. Because there is no unequivocal definition of what represents suboptimal outcome following hip replacement, several criteria of classifying patients who are at risk have been considered and different prediction models were built accordingly. The choice of the final model was based on the principle of selecting a screening tool minimizing the number of false negatives and that is easily employable in a clinical setting. Accordingly, an algorithm with a sensitivity of 75.0 % and a specificity of 77.8 % was deemed suitable. Although the positive likelihood ratio of 3.38 of the PA can be considered subpar when compared to accepted diagnostic standards, the PA performs similarly to other validated prediction models in the epidemiological literature. For example, the positive likelihood ratios of the Ottawa Knee and Ankle rules assessing the necessity of a roentgenographic evaluation in cases of acute knee and ankle injuries respectively are both inferior to the one reported by our PA [32, 33].

The algorithm with the most appropriate predictive capabilities contains two demographic variables (gender and age), one clinical (BMI) and 3 items of the preoperative WOMAC questionnaire (two pain-related and one function scale). All of these variables have been consistently related to hip arthroplasty outcomes [1820, 22, 34, 35]. Moreover, the PA comprises all the predictors reported by Slaven et al. [31] in their model, namely age, gender and BMI, thus pointing towards the importance of these factors for prediction of hip arthroplasty results. It is noteworthy to mention that the prediction of surgical outcomes in women is achieved by age and BMI, with the body mass being the only modifiable risk factor. In the case of men, potential modifiable risk factors include BMI, degree of hip pain walking on a flat surface and during the night as well as degree of difficulty putting on socks or stockings. However, caution should be used, as recursive partitioning does not imply a causative relationship between variables [36]. Indeed, interventions targeted at ameliorating either of the items of the PA, such as weight loss in the case of high BMI, will not necessarily improve the outcome of the surgery; it will merely imply that the patient will be classified as not at risk of suboptimal outcomes by the PA. Further research in terms of appropriate interventions to improve surgical outcomes should be undertaken.

When developing the PA, we intended for it to be a clinically pertinent tool. The decision to include patients with different types of hip arthroplasties was taken in order to generate a PA that has the ability to perform successfully in a heterogeneous population. Moreover, we included subjects with complete information one to two years following the procedure, as patients are followed closely by their surgeons during this period, and the rehabilitation process can easily be altered if the progression is judged suboptimal.

In one instance, the interpretation process may yield a counterintuitive situation. For example, it is possible, in an extreme scenario, for a 49 year-old male patient with a BMI of 22 kg/m2 and with no pain when walking on a flat surface as well as with no difficulty with putting on socks or stockings to be classified as at risk of suboptimal surgical outcomes. This pattern of answers was however shown to have the best predictive capabilities when developing the algorithm with recursive partitioning. This situation underlines the concept that a predictor is not necessarily a determinant.

Strengths of the study

The developed PA is, to our knowledge, the first one of its kind to discriminate THA or HR results based on more than one parameter, namely patients’ functional, stiffness and pain levels as well as their perception of the replaced hip joint. In the context of a lack of an accepted standard of surgical failure, this approach increases the likelihood of the patients thusly classified to truly present subpar outcomes. Moreover, this classification identified 15.1 % of the patients as having unsuccessful outcomes, well in line with the published proportions of what can be considered a suboptimal outcome [8]. Finally, the rigorous statistical analysis employed in the development of the PA underlines the stringency of our approach.

Limitations of the study

Due to its retrospective design, the study has a certain risk of selection bias. Compared to the subjects excluded due to missing data, the included participants were, on average, younger, had a greater number of comorbidities and a greater proportion were male (p < 0.05, data not shown). Nevertheless, the preoperative baseline status as measured by the WOMAC domains as well as the total WOMAC score was not statistically significantly different between the included and the non-included subjects (p > 0.05, data not shown). Additionally, only 265 out of the 1207 procedures (22.0 %) that were performed during the study time period met the inclusion criteria, therefore potentially limiting the generalizability of the results. Moreover, the population under study was patients undergoing primary unilateral hip replacement procedures, which precludes the utilization of this tool for patients undergoing revision or bilateral interventions. Recent evidence identifies other variables potentially associated with hip arthroplasty outcomes that were not included in our study, thus potentially limiting the pool of candidate predictor variables. Although there is no consensus regarding the optimal sample size for developing models employing recursive partitioning, the progressively smaller number of cases in the leafs as the tree was built may limit the reliability of the findings, prompting further development in a subsequent study. Before employing it in a clinical setting, the decision rule has to be validated in a different sample of patients. Moreover, the performance of the PA has to be compared to clinical judgement alone and its financial impacts require evaluation.

Conclusions

The developed PA may discriminate with excellent capabilities the patients undergoing hip arthroplasty that are at the highest risk of suboptimal pain, functional limitations and joint perception outcomes on an average of 15 months following the intervention. Its implementation has the potential of targeting susceptible individuals such as to modify their risk profile, and eventually, improve surgical results.

Abbreviations

BMI: 

Body mass index

CI: 

Confidence interval

HR: 

Resurfacing hip arthroplasty

OA: 

Osteoarthritis

PA: 

Prediction algorithm

THA: 

Total hip arthroplasty

STROBE: 

Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology

WOMAC: 

Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index

Declarations

Acknowledgements

EL is supported by a training award from the Fonds de recherche en Santé du Québec (FRSQ).

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Montreal
(2)
Centre de recherche de l’Hôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont
(3)
Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Montreal
(4)
School of Rehabilitation, Faculty of Medicine, University of Montreal

References

  1. Zhang W, Doherty M, Arden N, Bannwarth B, Bijlsma J, Gunther KP, et al. EULAR evidence based recommendations for the management of hip osteoarthritis: report of a task force of the EULAR Standing Committee for International Clinical Studies Including Therapeutics (ESCISIT). Ann Rheum Dis. 2005;64:669–81.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Zhang W, Moskowitz R, Nuki G, Abramson S, Altman R, Arden N, et al. OARSI recommendations for the management of hip and knee osteoarthritis, Part II: OARSI evidence-based, expert consensus guidelines. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2008;16:137–62.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Beaulé PE, Antoniades J. Patient selection and surgical technique for surface arthroplasty of the hip. Orthop Clin North Am. 2005;36:177–85.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Ethgen O, Bruyere O, Richy F, Dardennes C, Reginster JY. Health-related quality of life in total hip and total knee arthroplastyA qualitative and systematic review of the literature. J Bone Joint Surg. 2004;86:963–74.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Garbuz DS, Tanzer M, Greidanus NV, Masri BA, Duncan CP. The John Charnley Award: Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing versus large-diameter head metal-on-metal total hip arthroplasty: a randomized clinical trial. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010;468:318–25.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Girard J, Vendittoli P, Roy A, Lavigne M. [Femoral offset restauration and clinical function after total hip arthroplasty and surface replacement of the hip: a randomized study]. Rev Chir Orthop Reparatrice Appar Mot. 2008;94:376–81.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Vissers MM, Bussmann JB, Verhaar JA, Arends LR, Furlan AD, Reijman M. Recovery of physical functioning after total hip arthroplasty: systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. Phys Ther. 2011;91:615–29.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Beswick AD, Wylde V, Gooberman-Hill R, Blom A, Dieppe P. What proportion of patients report long-term pain after total hip or knee replacement for osteoarthritis? A systematic review of prospective studies in unselected patients. BMJ Open 2012; doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000435Google Scholar
  9. Anakwe RE, Jenkins PJ, Moran M. Predicting dissatisfaction after total hip arthroplasty: a study of 850 patients. J Arthroplasty. 2011;26:209–13.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 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 Rheumatol. 2000;27:1745–52.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Shimmin A, Baré J. Comparison of functional results of hip resurfacing and total hip replacement: a review of the literature. Orthop Clin N Am. 2011;42:143–51.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Vendittoli P, Rivière C, Roy A, Barry J, Lusignan D, Lavigne M. Metal-on-metal hip resurfacing compared with 28-mm diameter metal-on-metal total hip replacement A randomised study with six to nine years’ follow-up. Bone Joint J. 2013;95:1464–73.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Caracciolo B, Giaquinto S. Determinants of the subjective functional outcome of total joint arthroplasty. Archiv Gerentol Geriatr. 2005;41:169–76.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Fortin PR, Clarke AE, Joseph L, Liang MH, Tanzer M, Ferland D, et al. Outcomes of total hip and knee replacement: preoperative functional status predicts outcomes at six months after surgery. Arthritis Rheum. 1999;42:1722–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Fortin PR, Penrod JR, Clarke AE, St‐Pierre Y, Joseph L, Bélisle P, et al. Timing of total joint replacement affects clinical outcomes among patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. Arthritis Rheum. 2002;46:3327–30.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Gandhi R, Razak F, Davey JR, Mahomed NN. Metabolic syndrome and the functional outcomes of hip and knee arthroplasty. J Rheumatol. 2010;37:1917–22.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Garbuz DS, Xu M, Duncan CP, Masri BA, Sobolev B. Delays worsen quality of life outcome of primary total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop. 2006;447:79–84.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Jones CA, Voaklander DC, Johnston DW, Suarez-Almazor ME. The effect of age on pain, function, and quality of life after total hip and knee arthroplasty. Arch Intern Med. 2001;161:454–60.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Judge A, Batra RN, Thomas GE, Beard D, Javaid MK, Murray DW, et al. Body mass index is not a clinically meaningful predictor of patient reported outcomes of primary hip replacement surgery: Prospective cohort study. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2014;22:431–9.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Quintana JM, Escobar A, Aguirre U, Lafuente I, Arenaza JC. Predictors of health-related quality-of-life change after total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop. 2009;467:2886–94.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Ramaesh R, Jenkins P, Lane JV, Knight S, Macdonald D, Howie C. Personality, function and satisfaction in patients undergoing total hip or knee replacement. J Orthop Sci. 2014;19(2):275–81.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Stevens M, Paans N, Wagenmakers R, van Beveren J, van Raay JJ, van der Meer K, et al. The influence of overweight/obesity on patient-perceived physical functioning and health-related quality of life after primary total hip arthroplasty. Obes Surg. 2012;22:523–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Bellamy N, Buchanan W. A preliminary evaluation of the dimensionality and clinical importance of pain and disability in osteoarthritis of the hip and knee. Clin Rheumatol. 1986;5:231–41.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Bellamy N. Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically-important patient-relevant outcomes following total hip or knee arthroplasty in osteoarthritis. J Orthop Rheumatol. 1988;1:95–108.Google Scholar
  25. McConnell S, Kolopack P, Davis AM. The Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC): a review of its utility and measurement properties. Arthritis Care Res. 2001;45:453–61.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Collins M, Lavigne M, Girard J, Vendittoli P-A. Joint perception after hip or knee replacement surgery. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res. 2012;98:275–80.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Breinman LFJ, Olshen R, Stome C. Classification and regression trees. Pacific Grove Wadsworth: Belmont; 1984.Google Scholar
  28. Strobl C, Boulesteix A-L, Augustin T. Unbiased split selection for classification trees based on the Gini index. Comput Stat Data An. 2007;52:483–501.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Simel DL, Samsa GP, Matchar DB. Likelihood ratios with confidence: sample size estimation for diagnostic test studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 1991;44:763–70.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Efron BTR. An introduction to the bootstrap. Chapman & Hall: New York; 1993.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Slaven EJ. Prediction of functional outcome at six months following total hip arthroplasty. Phys Ther. 2012;92:1386–94.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Stiell IG, Greenberg GH, McKnight RD, Nair RC, McDowell I, Worthington JR. A study to develop clinical decision rules for the use of radiography in acute ankle injuries. Ann Emerg Med. 1992;21:384–90.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Stiell IGGG, Wells GA, McKnight RD, Cwinn AA, Cacciotti T, McDowell I, et al. Derivation of a decision rule for the use of radiography in acute knee injuries. Ann Emerg Med. 1995;26:405–13.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Braeken AM, Lochhaas-Gerlach JA, Gollish JD, Myles JD, Mackenzie TA. Determinants of 6–12 month postoperative functional status and pain after elective total hip replacement. Int J Qual Health Care. 1997;9:413–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Kessler S, Kafer W. Overweight and obesity: two predictors for worse early outcome in total hip replacement? Obesity. 2007;15:2840–5.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Kleinbaum DG. Applied regression analysis and multivariable methods. CengageBrain. Boston: PWS-KENT Publishing Company; 1988.Google Scholar

Copyright

© Lungu et al. 2015

Advertisement