Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
International Orthopaedics
Published in: International Orthopaedics 4/2009

01-08-2009 | Original Paper

Prevalence and functional impact of patient-perceived leg length discrepancy after hip replacement

Authors: V. Wylde, S. L. Whitehouse, A. H. Taylor, G. T. Pattison, G. C. Bannister, A. W. Blom

Published in: International Orthopaedics | Issue 4/2009

Login to get access

Abstract

The aim of this postal survey was to determine the prevalence and impact of patient-perceived leg length discrepancy (LLD) at 5–8 years after primary total hip replacement (THR). A postal audit survey was undertaken of all consecutive patients who had a primary unilateral THR at one elective orthopaedic centre between April 1993 and April 1996. The questionnaire included the Oxford hip score (OHS) and questions about LLD. Questionnaires were received from 1,114 patients. In total, 329 THR patients (30%) reported an LLD, although radiographic analysis revealed that only 36% of these patients had anatomical LLD. Patients with a perceived LLD had a significantly poorer OHS (p < 0.001) and reported more limping than those patients without a perceived LLD. This study found that a third of patients perceived an LLD after THR and that perceived LLD was associated with a significantly poorer midterm functional outcome.
Literature
1.
Ulf L (2000) The Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register. Acta Orthop Scand 71:433–439CrossRef
2.
Nikolajsen L, Brandsborg B, Lucht U, Jensen TS, Kehlet H (2006) Chronic pain following total hip arthroplasty: a nationwide questionnaire study. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 50:495–500PubMedCrossRef
3.
Barrack RL, Paprosky W, Butler RA, Palafox A, Szuszczewicz E, Myers L (2000) Patients’ perception of pain after total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 15:590–596PubMedCrossRef
4.
Boutron I, Poiraudeau S, Ravaud JF, Baron G, Revel M, Nizard R, Dougados M, Ravaud P (2003) Disability in adults with hip and knee arthroplasty: a French national community based survey. Ann Rheum Dis 62:748–754PubMedCrossRef
5.
Nilsdotter AK, Petersson IF, Roos EM, Lohmander LS (2003) Predictors of patient relevant outcome after total hip replacement for osteoarthritis: a prospective study. Ann Rheum Dis 62:923–930PubMedCrossRef
6.
MacWilliam CH, Yood MU, Verner JJ, McCarthy BD, Ward RE (1996) Patient-related risk factors that predict poor outcome after total hip replacement. Health Serv Res 31:623–638PubMed
7.
Konyves A, Bannister GC (2005) The importance of leg length discrepancy after total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br 87:155–157PubMedCrossRef
8.
Austin MS, Hozack WJ, Sharkey PF, Rothman RH (2003) Stability and leg length equality in total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 18:88–90PubMedCrossRef
9.
Turula KB, Friberg O, Lindholm TS, Tallroth K, Vankka E (1986) Leg length inequality after total hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 202:163–168PubMed
10.
White TO, Dougall TW (2002) Arthroplasty of the hip. Leg length is not important. J Bone Joint Surg Br 84:335–338PubMedCrossRef
11.
Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Carr A, Murray D (1996) Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 78:185–190PubMed
12.
Edeen J, Sharkey PF, Alexander AH (1995) Clinical significance of leg-length inequality after total hip arthroplasty. Am J Orthop 24:347–351PubMed
13.
Harris WH (1969) Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fractures: treatment by mold arthroplasty. An end-result study using a new method of result evaluation. J Bone Joint Surg Am 51:737–755PubMed
14.
Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD (1992) The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 30:473–483PubMedCrossRef
15.
Mantyselka P, Kumpusalo E, Ahonen R, Takala J (2001) Patients’ versus general practitioners’ assessments of pain intensity in primary care patients with non-cancer pain. Br J Gen Pract 51:995–997PubMed
16.
Fitzpatrick R, Dawson J (1997) Health-related quality of life and the assessment of outcomes of total hip replacement surgery. Psychol Health 12:793–803CrossRef
17.
Ostendorf M, van Stel HF, Buskens E, Schrijvers AJ, Marting LN, Verbout AJ, Dhert WJ (2004) Patient-reported outcome in total hip replacement. A comparison of five instruments of health status. J Bone Joint Surg Br 86:801–808PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Prevalence and functional impact of patient-perceived leg length discrepancy after hip replacement
Authors
V. Wylde
S. L. Whitehouse
A. H. Taylor
G. T. Pattison
G. C. Bannister
A. W. Blom
Publication date
01-08-2009
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
International Orthopaedics / Issue 4/2009
Print ISSN: 0341-2695
Electronic ISSN: 1432-5195
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00264-008-0563-6

Other articles of this Issue 4/2009

International Orthopaedics 4/2009 Go to the issue

Original Paper

Human cartilage glycoprotein 39—biomarker of joint damage in knee osteoarthritis

Original Paper

Custom prosthetic replacement for distal radial tumours

Original Paper

Nonoperatively treated type A spinal fractures: mid-term versus long-term functional outcome

Original Paper

Multicentre use of a porous tantalum monoblock acetabular component

Original Paper

Nail over nail technique for distal locking of femoral intramedullary nails

Original Paper

Revision of 33 unicompartmental knee prostheses using total knee arthroplasty: strategy and results