Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Preoperative importance of improvement and postoperative satisfaction in patients undergoing total hip replacement

  • Original Article
  • Published:
European Orthopaedics and Traumatology

Abstract

Objective

We aimed to correlate the preoperative importance of improvement and postoperative satisfaction in patients undergoing total hip replacement with the functional pre- and postoperative (12 months) status.

Method

Functional status was assessed by Western Ontario and McMasters Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) and the preoperative importance was rated for all WOMAC and 13 items of daily living. The postoperative satisfaction was assessed alongside these 37 items.

Results

One hundred eighteen patients with a mean age of 59 (35–84) years (54% women) were included. Through surgery, WOMAC score increased from 39.5 to 78.6. Preoperative importance was high (73.1) and postoperative satisfaction was moderate to high (66.8). Younger patients were more satisfied (72.4 vs. 60.2, p = 0.02). After adjustment for age and gender, the preoperative functional status correlated significantly with the importance (β = 0.60, CI = 0.37–0.62), and so did postoperative functional status and satisfaction (β = −0.69, CI = −0.97 to −0.68). Satisfaction in WOMAC-related items correlated with the gain in WOMAC score (β = 0.35, CI = 0.16–0.45).

Conclusion

The high patient-rated importance of improvement and satisfaction are associated with age and gender and correlate with the corresponding functional status, i.e. its change.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Gignac M, Davis A, Hawker G, Wright J, Mahomed N, Fortin P et al (2006) “What do you expect? You’re just getting older”: a comparison of perceived osteoarthritis-related and aging-related health experiences in middle- and older-age adults. Arthritis Rheum 55:905–912

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Grotle M, Hagen K, Natvig B, Dahl F, Kvien T (2008) Prevalence and burden of osteoarthritis: results from a population survey in Norway. J Rheumatol 35:677–684

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Roux C, Saraux A, Mazieres B, Pouchot J, Morvan J, Fautrel B et al (2008) Screening for hip and knee osteoarthritis in the general population: predictive value of a questionnaire and prevalence estimates. Ann Rheum Dis 67:1406–1411

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Sun Y, Stürmer T, Günther K, Brenner H (1997) Inzidenz und Prävalenz der Cox- und Gonarthrose in der Allgemeinbevölkerung. Z Orthop Ihre Grenzgeb 135:184–192

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Lawrence J, Bremner J, Bier F (1966) Osteo-arthrosis. Prevalence in the population and relationship between symptoms and X-ray changes. Ann Rheum Dis 25:1–24

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Statistisches Bundesamt G (2007) Gesundheitsberichterstattung des Bundes, Bonn. www.gbe-bund.de

  7. Mahomed N, Liang M, Cook E, Daltroy L, Fortin P, Fossel A et al (2002) The importance of patient expectations in predicting functional outcomes after total joint arthroplasty. J Rheumatol 29:1273–1279

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Mason J (2008) The new demands by patients in the modern era of total joint arthroplasty: a point of view. Clin Orthop Relat Res 466:146–152

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Mancuso C, Salvati E, Johanson N, Peterson M, Charlson M (1997) Patients’ expectations and satisfaction with total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 12:387–396

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Noble P, Conditt M, Cook K, Mathis K (2006) The John Insall Award: patient expectations affect satisfaction with total knee arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res 452:35–43

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Kiebzak G, Vain P, Gregory A, Mokris J, Mauerhan D (1997) SF-36 general health status survey to determine patient satisfaction at short-term follow-up after total hip and knee arthroplasty. J South Orthop Assoc 6:169–172

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Fortin P, Clarke A, Joseph L, Liang M, Tanzer M, Ferland D et al (1999) Outcomes of total hip and knee replacement: preoperative functional status predicts outcomes at six months after surgery. Arthritis Rheum 42:1722–1728

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Dieppe P, Judge A, Williams S, Ikwueke I, Guenther K, Floeren M et al (2009) Variations in the pre-operative status of patients coming to primary hip replacement for osteoarthritis in European orthopaedic centres. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 10:10–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Bellamy N, Buchanan W, Goldsmith C, Campbell J, Stitt L (1988) 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 15:1833–1840

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Stucki G, Meier D, Stucki S, Michel B, Tyndall A, Dick W et al (1996) Evaluation einer deutschen Version des WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities) ArthroseIndex. Z Rheumatol 55:40–49

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Haddad F, Garbuz D, Chambers G, Jagpal T, Masri B, Duncan C (2001) The expectations of patients undergoing revision hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 16:87–91

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Mancuso C, Sculco T, Salvati E (2003) Patients with poor preoperative functional status have high expectations of total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 18:872–878

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Eisler T, Svensson O, Tengström A, Elmstedt E (2002) Patient expectation and satisfaction in revision total hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty 17:457–462

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Moran M, Khan A, Sochart D, Andrew G (2003) Expect the best, prepare for the worst: surgeon and patient expectation of the outcome of primary total hip and knee replacement. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 85:204–206

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Mancuso C, Graziano S, Briskie L, Peterson M, Pellicci P, Salvati E et al (2008) Randomized trials to modify patients’ preoperative expectations of hip and knee arthroplasties. Clin Orthop Relat Res 466:424–431

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Lingard E, Sledge C, Learmonth I, KO Group (2006) Patient expectations regarding total knee arthroplasty: differences among the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia. J Bone Joint Surg Am 88:1201–1207

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Schäfer T, Krummenauer F, Mettelsiefen J, Kirschner S, Günther KP (2010) Social, educational, and occupational predictors of total hip replacement outcome. Osteoarthr Cartil 18:1036–1042

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Hawker G (2006) Who, when, and why total joint replacement surgery? The patient’s perspective. Curr Opin Rheumatol 18:526–530

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

We would like to thank Stephan Kirschner, M.D., for his helpful conceptual input to this study. We also appreciate the support of Yvonne Rabe in recruiting patients. The authors are furthermore most grateful to Ms. Heike Voigt for the committed assistance in data assessment and documentation. The data and part of the results are based on the doctoral thesis of S Biakowski (in preparation).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Medical Faculty of the Technical University of Dresden, Dresden, Germany

    Torsten Schäfer, Sebastian Biakowski, Achim Walther, Frank Krummenauer & Klaus-Peter Günther

  2. Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgery Center, University Medical Center Mannheim, Medical Faculty Mannheim, University of Heidelberg, Theodor-Kutzer-Ufer 1-3, 68167, Mannheim, Germany

    Stefan Fickert

  3. Department of Medical Biometry and Epidemiology, Medical Faculty of the Private University of Witten/Herdecke, Witten, Germany

    Frank Krummenauer

  4. Klinik für Orthopädie, Universitätsklinikum Carl Gustav Carus, Fetscherstr. 74, Haus 29, 01307, Dresden, Germany

    Klaus-Peter Günther

Authors
  1. Torsten Schäfer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sebastian Biakowski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Achim Walther
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Stefan Fickert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Frank Krummenauer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Klaus-Peter Günther
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Klaus-Peter Günther.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schäfer, T., Biakowski, S., Walther, A. et al. Preoperative importance of improvement and postoperative satisfaction in patients undergoing total hip replacement. Eur Orthop Traumatol 1, 143–152 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12570-011-0035-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12570-011-0035-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation