The Journal of arthroplasty · 2026
Propensity Score-Matched Comparison of Patient-Reported Outcomes Between Crowe I Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip and Primary Osteoarthritis Following Total Hip Arthroplasty.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Saluja Anand, Eschert John, Ren Renee, Wong Zachary, Su Edwin
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is commonly performed for Crowe I developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) and primary osteoarthritis (OA), but comparative survivorship and patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) data remain limited with mixed findings. This study aimed to compare PROMs, revision rates, and implant survivorship between propensity score-matched THA patients who had Crowe I DDH and OA.
METHODS: A retrospective review of a single surgeon's case log was performed to identify patients with a diagnosis of DDH or OA and underwent THA. Propensity score matching was utilized, yielding 105 DDH hips and 105 OA hips. The primary outcomes were modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Joint Replacement (HOOS-JR), visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, and University of California, Los Angeles Activity Score (UCLA) collected preoperatively, at 1 year, and at minimum two-year final follow-up. The secondary outcomes included implant survivorship via Kaplan-Meier analysis, multivariable logistic regressions for minimal clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit achievement, revision rates, and radiographic assessment of leg-length discrepancy and acetabular inclination.
RESULTS: There were no significant between-group differences in any PROM at any time point. Analysis of covariance confirmed equivalent adjusted final scores across all four PROMs. Minimal clinically important difference was achieved in over 92% of both cohorts for mHHS, HOOS-JR, and VAS. There were four revisions in the DDH group and three in the OA group; revision rates did not differ significantly. Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis showed no significant difference between groups.
CONCLUSIONS: In this propensity score-matched series, Crowe I DDH and OA patients achieved comparable midterm PROMs, revision rates, and implant survivorship after THA. Furthermore, preoperative functional status, rather than underlying diagnosis, was the primary predictor of achieving minimal clinically important difference. These findings suggest that contemporary THA provides similar clinical benefits across both diagnoses.
METHODS: A retrospective review of a single surgeon's case log was performed to identify patients with a diagnosis of DDH or OA and underwent THA. Propensity score matching was utilized, yielding 105 DDH hips and 105 OA hips. The primary outcomes were modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Joint Replacement (HOOS-JR), visual analog scale (VAS) for pain, and University of California, Los Angeles Activity Score (UCLA) collected preoperatively, at 1 year, and at minimum two-year final follow-up. The secondary outcomes included implant survivorship via Kaplan-Meier analysis, multivariable logistic regressions for minimal clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit achievement, revision rates, and radiographic assessment of leg-length discrepancy and acetabular inclination.
RESULTS: There were no significant between-group differences in any PROM at any time point. Analysis of covariance confirmed equivalent adjusted final scores across all four PROMs. Minimal clinically important difference was achieved in over 92% of both cohorts for mHHS, HOOS-JR, and VAS. There were four revisions in the DDH group and three in the OA group; revision rates did not differ significantly. Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis showed no significant difference between groups.
CONCLUSIONS: In this propensity score-matched series, Crowe I DDH and OA patients achieved comparable midterm PROMs, revision rates, and implant survivorship after THA. Furthermore, preoperative functional status, rather than underlying diagnosis, was the primary predictor of achieving minimal clinically important difference. These findings suggest that contemporary THA provides similar clinical benefits across both diagnoses.