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 STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®
Published in: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® 2/2011

01-02-2011 | Symposium: Papers Presented at the Hip Society Meetings 2010

The Frank Stinchfield Award: The Impact of Socioeconomic Factors on Outcome After THA: A Prospective, Randomized Study

Authors: R. Allen Butler, MD, Seth Rosenzweig, MD, Leann Myers, PhD, Robert L. Barrack, MD

Published in: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® | Issue 2/2011

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Most studies of total hip arthroplasty (THA) focus on the effect of the type of implant on the clinical result. Relatively little data are available on the impact of the patient’s preoperative status and socioeconomic factors on the clinical results following THA.

Questions/purposes

We determined the relative importance of patient preoperative and socioeconomic status compared to implant and technique factors in predicting patient outcome as reflected by scores on commonly utilized rating scales (eg, Harris Hip Score, WOMAC, SF-12, degree of patient satisfaction, or presence or severity of thigh pain) following cementless THA.

Methods

All patients during the study period were offered enrollment in a prospective, randomized study to receive either a titanium, tapered, proximally coated stem; or a Co-Cr, cylindrical, extensively coated stem; 102 patients were enrolled. We collected detailed patient data preoperatively including diagnosis, age, gender, insurance status, medical comorbidities, tobacco and alcohol use, household income, educational level, and history of treatment for lumbar spine pathology. Clinical evaluation included Harris Hip Score, SF-12, WOMAC, pain drawing, and UCLA activity rating and satisfaction questionnaire. Implant factors included stem type, stem size, fit in the canal, and stem-bone stiffness ratios. Minimum 2 year followup was obtained in 95% of the enrolled patients (102 patients).

Results

Patient demographics and preoperative status were more important than implant factors in predicting the presence of thigh pain, dissatisfaction, and a low hip score. The most predictive factors were ethnicity, educational level, poverty level, income, and a low preoperative WOMAC score or preoperative SF-12 mental component score. No implant parameter correlated with outcome or satisfaction.

Conclusion

Socioeconomic factors and preoperative status have more impact on the clinical outcome of cementless THA than implant related factors.

Level of Evidence

Level I, prospective, randomized clinical trial. See the guidelines online for a complete description of level of evidence.
Literature
1.
Akhavan S, Matthiesen MM, Schulte L, Penoyar T, Kraay MJ, Rimnac CM, Goldberg VM. Clinical and histologic results related to a low-modulus composite total hip replacement stem. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2006;88:1308–1314.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Amstutz HC, Thomas BJ, Jinnah R, Kim W, Grogan T, Yale C. Treatment of primary osteoarthritis of the hip. A comparison of total joint and surface replacement arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1984;66:228–241.PubMed
3.
Baker PN, van der Meulen JH, Lewsey J, Gregg PJ. The role of pain and function in determining patient satisfaction after total knee replacement. Data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007;89:893–900.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Barrack RL, Mulroy RD, Jr., Harris WH. Improved cementing techniques and femoral component loosening in young patients with hip arthroplasty. A 12-year radiographic review. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1992;74:385–389.PubMed
5.
Barrack RL, Paprosky W, Butler RA, Palafox A, Szuszczewicz E, Myers L. Patients’ perception of pain after total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2000;15:590–596.CrossRefPubMed
6.
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 Rheumatol. 1988;15:1833–1840.PubMed
7.
Belmont PJ, Jr, Powers CC, Beykirch SE, Hopper RH, Jr, Engh CA, Jr, Engh CA. Results of the anatomic medullary locking total hip arthroplasty at a minimum of twenty years. A concise follow-up of previous reports. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2008;90:1524–1530.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Bourne RB, Chesworth BM, Davis AM, Mahomed NN, Charron KD. Patient satisfaction after total knee arthroplasty: who is satisfied and who is not? Clin Orthop Relat Res.468:57–63.
9.
Bozic K. Single mini-incision has some perioperative advantages over standard-incision total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91:1279.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Brinker MR, Lund PJ, Barrack RL. Demographic biases of scoring instruments for the results of total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 1997;79:858–865.PubMed
11.
Brinker MR, Lund PJ, Cox DD, Barrack RL. Demographic biases found in scoring instruments of total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 1996;11:820–830.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Burnett RS, Haydon CM, Rorabeck CH, Bourne RB. Patella resurfacing versus nonresurfacing in total knee arthroplasty: results of a randomized controlled clinical trial at a minimum of 10 years’ followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004:12–25.
13.
Confalonieri N, Manzotti A, Montironi F, Pullen C. Leg length discrepancy, dislocation rate, and offset in total hip replacement using a short modular stem: navigation vs conventional freehand. Orthopedics. 2008;31(10 Suppl 1).
14.
Danesh-Clough T, Bourne RB, Rorabeck CH, McCalden R. The mid-term results of a dual offset uncemented stem for total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2007;22:195–203.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Dixon MC, Scott RD, Schai PA, Stamos V. A simple capsulorrhaphy in a posterior approach for total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty. 2004;19:373–376.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Dujovne AR, Bobyn JD, Krygier JJ, Miller JE, Brooks CE. Mechanical compatibility of noncemented hip prostheses with the human femur. J Arthroplasty. 1993;8:7–22.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Dunlop DD, Manheim LM, Song J, Sohn MW, Feinglass JM, Chang HJ, Chang RW. Age and racial/ethnic disparities in arthritis-related hip and knee surgeries. Med Care. 2008;46:200–208.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Engh CA, Massin P, Suthers KE. Roentgenographic assessment of the biologic fixation of porous-surfaced femoral components. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1990:107–128.
19.
Escalante A, Espinosa-Morales R, del Rincon I, Arroyo RA, Older SA. Recipients of hip replacement for arthritis are less likely to be Hispanic, independent of access to health care and socioeconomic status. Arthritis Rheum. 2000;43:390–399.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Federal Registry: Federal Poverty Income Guidelines for Fiscal Year 2003. February 7, 2003 ed. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office:6456–6458.
21.
Franklin PD, Li W, Ayers DC. The Chitranjan Ranawat Award: functional outcome after total knee replacement varies with patient attributes. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2008;466:2597–2604.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Groeneveld PW, Kwoh CK, Mor MK, Appelt CJ, Geng M, Gutierrez JC, Wessel DS, Ibrahim SA. Racial differences in expectations of joint replacement surgery outcomes. Arthritis Rheum. 2008;59:730–737.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Harris WH. 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. 1969;51:737–755.PubMed
24.
Hennessy DW, Callaghan JJ, Liu SS. Second-generation extensively porous-coated THA stems at minimum 10-year followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467:2290–2296.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Ibrahim SA, Siminoff LA, Burant CJ, Kwoh CK. Differences in expectations of outcome mediate African American/white patient differences in “willingness” to consider joint replacement. Arthritis Rheum. 2002;46:2429–2435.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Ibrahim SA, Siminoff LA, Burant CJ, Kwoh CK. Understanding ethnic differences in the utilization of joint replacement for osteoarthritis: the role of patient-level factors. Med Care. 2002;40:I44–I51.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Laupacis A, Bourne R, Rorabeck C, Feeny D, Tugwell P, Wong C. Comparison of total hip arthroplasty performed with and without cement : a randomized trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002;84-A:1823–1828.
28.
Lavernia C, D’Apuzzo M, Rossi MD, Lee D. Is postoperative function after hip or knee arthroplasty influenced by preoperative functional levels? J Arthroplasty. 2009;24:1033–1043.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Lavernia CJ, Lee D, Sierra RJ, Gomez-Marin O. Race, ethnicity, insurance coverage, and preoperative status of hip and knee surgical patients. J Arthroplasty. 2004;19:978–985.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Learmonth ID, Young C, Rorabeck C. The operation of the century: total hip replacement. Lancet. 2007;370:1508–1519.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Likert R. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch Psychol. 1932;140:1–55.
32.
Lombardi AV, Jr., Berend KR, Mallory TH, Skeels MD, Adams JB. Survivorship of 2000 tapered titanium porous plasma-sprayed femoral components. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467:146–154.CrossRefPubMed
33.
MacDonald SJ, McCalden RW, Chess DG, Bourne RB, Rorabeck CH, Cleland D, Leung F. Metal-on-metal versus polyethylene in hip arthroplasty: a randomized clinical trial. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003:282–296.
34.
Mahomed N, Sledge C, Daltroy L, Fossel A, Katz J. Self-administered patient satisfaction scale for joint replacement arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1998;80(Suppl 1):9.
35.
Mancuso CA, Jout J, Salvati EA, Sculco TP. Fulfillment of patients’ expectations for total hip arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91:2073–2078.CrossRefPubMed
36.
McCalden RW, MacDonald SJ, Rorabeck CH, Bourne RB, Chess DG, Charron KD. Wear rate of highly cross-linked polyethylene in total hip arthroplasty. A randomized controlled trial. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009;91:773–782.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Noble PC, Gordon MJ, Weiss JM, Reddix RN, Conditt MA, Mathis KB. Does total knee replacement restore normal knee function? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2005:157–165.
38.
Parvizi J, Keisu KS, Hozack WJ, Sharkey PF, Rothman RH. Primary total hip arthroplasty with an uncemented femoral component: a long-term study of the Taperloc stem. J Arthroplasty. 2004;19:151–156.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Ritter MA, McAdoo WG. A method for determining success following total hip replacement surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1979:44–49.
40.
Santaguida PL, Hawker GA, Hudak PL, Glazier R, Mahomed NN, Kreder HJ, Coyte PC, Wright JG. Patient characteristics affecting the prognosis of total hip and knee joint arthroplasty: a systematic review. Can J Surg. 2008;51:428–436.PubMed
41.
Santori FS, Manili M, Fredella N, Tonci Ottieri M, Santori N. Ultra-short stems with proximal load transfer: Clinical and radiographic results at five-year follow-up. Hip Int. 2006;16 Suppl 3:31–39.PubMed
42.
43.
Wan Z, Dorr LD, Woodsome T, Ranawat A, Song M. Effect of stem stiffness and bone stiffness on bone remodeling in cemented total hip replacement. J Arthroplasty. 1999;14:149–158.CrossRefPubMed
44.
Ware JE J, Kosinski M, Keller SD. SF-12: How to Score the SF-12 Physical and Mental Health Summary Scales, 3rd ed. Lincoln, RI: QualityMetric Incorporated; 1998.
45.
Young NL, Cheah D, Waddell JP, Wright JG. Patient characteristics that affect the outcome of total hip arthroplasty: a review. Can J Surg. 1998;41:188–195.PubMed
Metadata
Title
The Frank Stinchfield Award: The Impact of Socioeconomic Factors on Outcome After THA: A Prospective, Randomized Study
Authors
R. Allen Butler, MD
Seth Rosenzweig, MD
Leann Myers, PhD
Robert L. Barrack, MD
Publication date
01-02-2011
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® / Issue 2/2011
Print ISSN: 0009-921X
Electronic ISSN: 1528-1132
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-010-1519-x

Other articles of this Issue 2/2011

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® 2/2011 Go to the issue

Symposium: Papers Presented at the Hip Society Meetings 2010

The Otto Aufranc Award: Enhanced Biocompatibility of Stainless Steel Implants by Titanium Coating and Microarc Oxidation

In Brief

In Brief: Pilon Fractures

In Brief

In Brief: Statistics in Brief: Statistical Power: What Is It and When Should It Be Used?

Symposium: Papers Presented at the Hip Society Meetings 2010

Improving Cup Positioning Using a Mechanical Navigation Instrument

Case Report

Case Report: A Technique to Remove a Jammed Locking Screw from a Locking Plate

Orthopaedic Case of the Month

Orthopaedic Case of the Month: Rapidly Progressive Shoulder Soft Tissue Mass in an 8-week-old Girl