Top

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders

Published in:

01-12-2020 | Hip Arthroscopy | Research article

Evaluation of the patient acceptable symptom state following hip arthroscopy using the 12 item international hip outcome tool

Authors: Patrick G. Robinson, Julian F. Maempel, Conor S. Rankin, Paul Gaston, David F. Hamilton

Published in: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders | Issue 1/2020

Abstract

Background

The International Hip Outcome Tool 12 (iHOT-12) is a shorter version of the iHOT-33 which measures health related quality of life following treatment of hip disorders in young, active patients. The purpose of this study was identify a PASS threshold for a UK population undergoing hip arthroscopy for intra-articular hip pathology.

Methods

Data was identified retrospectively from a prospective database of patients undergoing hip arthroscopy under the care of a single surgeon within the date range January 2013 to March 2017. All patients with a diagnosis of femoroacetabular impingment (FAI) undergoing arthroscopic treatment were included. iHOT-12, EuroQol 5D-5 L (EQ-5D-5 L) and a satisfaction questionnaire were available pre and post-operatively. PASS was calculated using an anchor-based approach and receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analysis.

Results

171 patients underwent hip arthroscopy in the study period. Linked longitudinal follow-up data was available for 122 patients (71.3%) at a median of 24.3 months (740 days, interquartile range 576–1047). The PASS threshold for the iHOT-12 was 59.5 (sensitivity 81.1%, specificity 83.9%; area under the curve (AUC) 0.92, 95% CI 0.87–0.97). 64% of patients achieved this score. The median postoperative iHOT-12 score was 72.5 (IQR 44) and the mean change in score was 35 (SD 25, p < 0.001). The EQ-5D Index improved by 0.18 (SD 0.25, p < 0.001) and there was a mean change of 7.67 (SD 24.82) on the EQ-5D VAS (p = 0.001).

Conclusions

We report a PASS threshold of the iHOT-12 following hip arthroscopy for FAI as a measurable benchmark for clinicians using this outcome measure.

Griffin DR, Dickenson EJ, Wall PDH, et al. Hip arthroscopy versus best conservative care for the treatment of femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (UK FASHIoN): a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2018;391(10136):2225–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31202-9 [published Online First: 2018/06/13].CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Palmer AJR, Ayyar Gupta V, Fernquest S, et al. Arthroscopic hip surgery compared with physiotherapy and activity modification for the treatment of symptomatic femoroacetabular impingement: multicentre randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2019;364:l185. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l185 [published Online First: 2019/02/09].CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Mohtadi NG, Griffin DR, Pedersen ME, et al. The Development and validation of a self-administered quality-of-life outcome measure for young, active patients with symptomatic hip disease: the International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-33). Arthroscopy. 2012;28(5):595–605. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2012.03.013 quiz 06–10 e1. [published Online First: 2012/05/01].CrossRefPubMed

Griffin DR, Parsons N, Mohtadi NG, et al. A short version of the International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12) for use in routine clinical practice. Arthroscopy. 2012;28(5):611–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2012.02.027 quiz 16–8. [published Online First: 2012/05/01].CrossRefPubMed

Martin RL, Kelly BT, Philippon MJ. Evidence of validity for the hip outcome score. Arthroscopy. 2006;22(12):1304–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2006.07.027 [published Online First: 2006/12/13].CrossRefPubMed

Christensen CP, Althausen PL, Mittleman MA, et al. The nonarthritic hip score: reliable and validated. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;406:75–83. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.blo.0000043047.84315.4b [published Online First: 2003/02/13].CrossRef

Thorborg K, Holmich P, Christensen R, et al. The Copenhagen Hip and Groin Outcome Score (HAGOS): development and validation according to the COSMIN checklist. Br J Sports Med. 2011;45(6):478–91. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsm.2010.080937 [published Online First: 2011/04/12].CrossRefPubMed

Garbuz DS, Xu M, Sayre EC. Patients’ outcome after total hip arthroplasty: a comparison between the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities index and the Oxford 12-item hip score. J Arthroplast. 2006;21(7):998–1004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arth.2006.01.014 [published Online First: 2006/10/10].CrossRef

Marx RG, Jones EC, Atwan NC, et al. Measuring improvement following total hip and knee arthroplasty using patient-based measures of outcome. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2005;87(9):1999–2005. https://doi.org/10.2106/jbjs.d.02286 [published Online First: 2005/09/06].CrossRefPubMed

10.

Kemp JL, Collins NJ, Roos EM, et al. Psychometric properties of patient-reported outcome measures for hip arthroscopic surgery. Am J Sports Med. 2013;41(9):2065–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546513494173 [published Online First: 2013/07/10].CrossRefPubMed

11.

Thorborg K, Tijssen M, Habets B, et al. Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) questionnaires for young to middle-aged adults with hip and groin disability: a systematic review of the clinimetric evidence. Br J Sports Med. 2015;49(12):812. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2014-094224 [published Online First: 2015/01/15].CrossRefPubMed

12.

Wilson MN, D. The non-arthroplasty hip registry: 2018 annual report; 2018.

13.

Sansone M, Ahlden M, Jonasson P, et al. A Swedish hip arthroscopy registry: demographics and development. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2014;22(4):774–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-014-2840-9 [published Online First: 2014/01/28].CrossRefPubMed

14.

Watanabe N, Murakami S, Uchida S, et al. Exploring the validation of a Japanese version of the International Hip Outcome Tool 12: Reliability, validity, and responsiveness. J Orthop Sci. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jos.2018.12.014 [published Online First: 2019/01/15].CrossRef

15.

Baumann F, Popp D, Muller K, et al. Validation of a German version of the International Hip Outcome Tool 12 (iHOT12) according to the COSMIN checklist. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2016;14:3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-016-0407-9 [published Online First: 2016/01/10].CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Stevens M, van den Akker-Scheek I, ten Have B, et al. Validity and Reliability of the Dutch Version of the International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12NL) in Patients With Disorders of the Hip. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2015;45(12):1026–34. https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2015.6178 A1–2. [published Online First: 2015/11/12].CrossRefPubMed

17.

Kvien TK, Heiberg T, Hagen KB. Minimal clinically important improvement/difference (MCII/MCID) and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS): what do these concepts mean? Ann Rheum Dis. 2007;66(Suppl 3):iii40–1. https://doi.org/10.1136/ard.2007.079798 [published Online First: 2007/11/21].CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

18.

Keurentjes JC, Van Tol FR, Fiocco M, et al. Patient acceptable symptom states after totalhip or knee replacement at mid-term follow-up: Thresholds of the Oxford hip and knee scores. Bone Joint Res. 2014;3(1):7–13. https://doi.org/10.1302/2046-3758.31.2000141 [published Online First: 2014/01/15].CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Murray D, et al. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg (Br). 1998;80(1):63–9 [published Online First: 1998/02/14].CrossRef

20.

Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Carr A, et al. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg (Br). 1996;78(2):185–90 [published Online First: 1996/03/01].CrossRef

21.

Nwachukwu BU, Chang B, Beck EC, et al. How should we define clinically significant outcome improvement on the iHOT-12? HSS J. 2018;15(2):103. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11420-018-9646-0.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Kivlan BR, Martin RL, Christoforetti JJ, et al. The Patient Acceptable Symptomatic State of the 12-Item International Hip Outcome Tool at 1-Year Follow-Up of Hip-Preservation Surgery. Arthroscopy. 2019;35(5):1457–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2018.11.072 [published Online First: 2019/04/20].CrossRefPubMed

23.

Tubach F, Ravaud P, Beaton D, et al. Minimal clinically important improvement and patient acceptable symptom state for subjective outcome measures in rheumatic disorders. J Rheumatol. 2007;34(5):1188–93 [published Online First: 2007/05/05].PubMedPubMedCentral

24.

England. N. The friends and family test. London, UK: NHS England 2014 [Available from: https://www.england.nhs.uk/fft/.

25.

Pepe M. The statistical evaluation of medical tests for classification and prediction: Oxford statistical science series; 2006.

26.

Gum JL, Glassman SD, Carreon LY. Clinically important deterioration in patients undergoing lumbar spine surgery: a choice of evaluation methods using the Oswestry Disability Index, 36-Item Short Form Health Survey, and pain scales: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine. 2013;19(5):564–8. https://doi.org/10.3171/2013.8.SPINE12804 [published Online First: 2013/09/10].CrossRefPubMed

27.

Parker SL, Godil SS, Shau DN, et al. Assessment of the minimum clinically important difference in pain, disability, and quality of life after anterior cervical discectomy and fusion: clinical article. J Neurosurg Spine. 2013;18(2):154–60. https://doi.org/10.3171/2012.10.spine12312 [published Online First: 2012/11/28].CrossRefPubMed

28.

de Vet HC, Ostelo RW, Terwee CB, et al. Minimally important change determined by a visual method integrating an anchor-based and a distribution-based approach. Qual Life Res Int J Qual Life Asp Treat Care Rehab. 2007;16(1):131–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-006-9109-9 [published Online First: 2006/10/13].CrossRef

29.

Clement ND, MacDonald D, Simpson AHRW. The minimal clinically important difference in the Oxford knee score and short form 12 score after total knee arthroplasty. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2014;22(8):1933–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00167-013-2776-5.CrossRefPubMed

30.

Revicki D, Hays RD, Cella D, et al. Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(2):102–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.03.012 [published Online First: 2008/01/08].CrossRefPubMed

31.

Maempel JF, Ting JZ, Gaston P. Assessing the Outcome of Hip Arthroscopy for Labral Tears in Femoroacetabular Impingement Using the Minimum Dataset of the British Non-arthroplasty Hip Register: A Single-Surgeon Experience. Arthroscopy. 2018;34(7):2131–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2018.02.038 [published Online First: 2018/05/08].CrossRefPubMed

32.

Judge A, Arden NK, Kiran A, et al. Interpretation of patient-reported outcomes for hip and knee replacement surgery: identification of thresholds associated with satisfaction with surgery. J Bone Joint Surg (Br). 2012;94(3):412–8. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.94b3.27425 [published Online First: 2012/03/01].CrossRef

33.

Chahal J, Van Thiel GS, Mather RC 3rd, et al. The Patient Acceptable Symptomatic State for the Modified Harris Hip Score and Hip Outcome Score Among Patients Undergoing Surgical Treatment for Femoroacetabular Impingement. Am J Sports Med. 2015;43(8):1844–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/0363546515587739 [published Online First: 2015/06/17].CrossRefPubMed

Title: Evaluation of the patient acceptable symptom state following hip arthroscopy using the 12 item international hip outcome tool
Authors: Patrick G. Robinson
Julian F. Maempel
Conor S. Rankin
Paul Gaston
David F. Hamilton
Publication date: 01-12-2020
Publisher: BioMed Central
Keywords: Hip Arthroscopy
Femuroacetabular Impingement
Published in: BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders / Issue 1/2020
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2474
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12891-019-3026-x

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Evaluation of the patient acceptable symptom state following hip arthroscopy using the 12 item international hip outcome tool

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

Mid-term to long-term results of primary arthroscopic Bankart repair for traumatic anterior shoulder instability: a retrospective study

Chronic dysphagia caused by Laryngo-vertebral Synostosis after anterior fusion for cervical spine trauma: a case report

Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Romanian knee disability and osteoarthritis outcome score for joint replacement (KOOSJR)

Prevalence of generalized joint hypermobility in children with anxiety disorders

Efficacy of single high-molecular-weight versus triple low-molecular-weight hyaluronic acid intra-articular injection among knee osteoarthritis patients

Characteristics and predictors of muscle strength deficit in mechanical ankle instability