Cargando…

No clear influence of preference bias on satisfaction and early functional outcome in resurfacing hip arthroplasty

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Hip resurfacing arthroplasty (RHA) is done in patients who often have a high preference for the method. This preference can influence the clinical outcome and satisfaction. We evaluated the potential influence of this preference bias. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From an ongoing ran...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bisseling, Pepijn, Smolders, José MH, Hol, Annemiek, van Susante, Job LC
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Informa Healthcare 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3235285/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21434783
http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2011.566140
_version_ 1782218585000640512
author Bisseling, Pepijn
Smolders, José MH
Hol, Annemiek
van Susante, Job LC
author_facet Bisseling, Pepijn
Smolders, José MH
Hol, Annemiek
van Susante, Job LC
author_sort Bisseling, Pepijn
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Hip resurfacing arthroplasty (RHA) is done in patients who often have a high preference for the method. This preference can influence the clinical outcome and satisfaction. We evaluated the potential influence of this preference bias. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From an ongoing randomized trial comparing RHA with total hip arthroplasty, 28 consecutive patients (28 hips) who had been allocated to an RHA were characterized as the “randomized” group. 22 other patients (24 hips) who had refused participation and had especially requested an RHA were characterized as the “preference” group. Harris hip score (HHS), Oxford hip score (OHS), University of California at Los Angeles activity scale (UCLA), Short Form 12 (SF-12), and visual analog scale satisfaction score (VAS) were assessed in both groups. RESULTS: Both groups had a high implant satisfaction score (97/100 for the “preference” group and 93/100 for the “randomized” group) at 12 months. The HHS, OHS, and UCLA were similar at baseline and also revealed a similar improvement up to 12 months (p < 0.001). Regarding the SF-12, the “preference” group scored lower on the mental subscale preoperatively (p = 0.03), and there was a greater increase after 12 months (p = 0.03). INTERPRETATION: We could not show that there was any influence of preference on satisfaction with the implant and early clinical outcome in patients who underwent RHA. The difference in mental subscale scores between groups may still indicate a difference in psychological profile.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3235285
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher Informa Healthcare
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-32352852011-12-16 No clear influence of preference bias on satisfaction and early functional outcome in resurfacing hip arthroplasty Bisseling, Pepijn Smolders, José MH Hol, Annemiek van Susante, Job LC Acta Orthop Article BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Hip resurfacing arthroplasty (RHA) is done in patients who often have a high preference for the method. This preference can influence the clinical outcome and satisfaction. We evaluated the potential influence of this preference bias. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From an ongoing randomized trial comparing RHA with total hip arthroplasty, 28 consecutive patients (28 hips) who had been allocated to an RHA were characterized as the “randomized” group. 22 other patients (24 hips) who had refused participation and had especially requested an RHA were characterized as the “preference” group. Harris hip score (HHS), Oxford hip score (OHS), University of California at Los Angeles activity scale (UCLA), Short Form 12 (SF-12), and visual analog scale satisfaction score (VAS) were assessed in both groups. RESULTS: Both groups had a high implant satisfaction score (97/100 for the “preference” group and 93/100 for the “randomized” group) at 12 months. The HHS, OHS, and UCLA were similar at baseline and also revealed a similar improvement up to 12 months (p < 0.001). Regarding the SF-12, the “preference” group scored lower on the mental subscale preoperatively (p = 0.03), and there was a greater increase after 12 months (p = 0.03). INTERPRETATION: We could not show that there was any influence of preference on satisfaction with the implant and early clinical outcome in patients who underwent RHA. The difference in mental subscale scores between groups may still indicate a difference in psychological profile. Informa Healthcare 2011-04 2011-04-05 /pmc/articles/PMC3235285/ /pubmed/21434783 http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2011.566140 Text en Copyright: © Nordic Orthopaedic Federation http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the source is credited.
spellingShingle Article
Bisseling, Pepijn
Smolders, José MH
Hol, Annemiek
van Susante, Job LC
No clear influence of preference bias on satisfaction and early functional outcome in resurfacing hip arthroplasty
title No clear influence of preference bias on satisfaction and early functional outcome in resurfacing hip arthroplasty
title_full No clear influence of preference bias on satisfaction and early functional outcome in resurfacing hip arthroplasty
title_fullStr No clear influence of preference bias on satisfaction and early functional outcome in resurfacing hip arthroplasty
title_full_unstemmed No clear influence of preference bias on satisfaction and early functional outcome in resurfacing hip arthroplasty
title_short No clear influence of preference bias on satisfaction and early functional outcome in resurfacing hip arthroplasty
title_sort no clear influence of preference bias on satisfaction and early functional outcome in resurfacing hip arthroplasty
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3235285/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21434783
http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/17453674.2011.566140
work_keys_str_mv AT bisselingpepijn noclearinfluenceofpreferencebiasonsatisfactionandearlyfunctionaloutcomeinresurfacinghiparthroplasty
AT smoldersjosemh noclearinfluenceofpreferencebiasonsatisfactionandearlyfunctionaloutcomeinresurfacinghiparthroplasty
AT holannemiek noclearinfluenceofpreferencebiasonsatisfactionandearlyfunctionaloutcomeinresurfacinghiparthroplasty
AT vansusantejoblc noclearinfluenceofpreferencebiasonsatisfactionandearlyfunctionaloutcomeinresurfacinghiparthroplasty