This Article Full Text (PDF) Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal My Folders Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Dawson, J. Articles by Murray, D. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Dawson, J. Articles by Murray, D.

Evidence for the validity of a patient-based instrument for assessment of outcome after revision hip replacement

Oxford Centre for Health Care Research and Development, School of Health Care, Oxford Brookes University, 44 London Road, Headington, Oxford OX3 7PD, UK.

R. Fitzpatrick, PhD, Professor of Public Health and Primary Care

Department of Public Health, Institute of Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Old Road, Headington, Oxford OX3 7LD, UK.

S. Frost, Clinical Data Manager; R. Gundle, FRCS Orth, Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon; P. McLardy-Smith, FRCS, Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon; and D. Murray, FRCS Orth, Professor of Orthopaedic Surgery

Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, Windmill Road, Headington, Oxford OX3 7LD, UK.

Correspondence should be sent to Dr J. Dawson.

The Oxford hip score (OHS) is a patient-based instrument for assessment of outcome which is often used after total hip replacement, and the EuroQol 5D (EQ5D) is a patient-based generic questionnaire for health assessment. In an analysis of the outcome at one year of 609 revision hip replacements (RHRs), we compared the OHS and EQ5D scores, postoperative patient satisfaction and change in pain. About 25% of the operations were repeat RHRs. At one year, 57% of patients were very pleased with their operation. The correlation between preoperative and postoperative scores and change scores for the OHS and EQ5D was high. For both instruments the effect sizes were large, but the greater effect size of the OHS suggests that it is particularly sensitive to improvements after RHR. The effect scores of the OHS declined with the number of previous RHRs, while those for the EQ5D seemed less sensitive. Our results confirm the value of the OHS in assessing outcome after RHR.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				R. S. Kotwal, M. Ganapathi, A. John, M. Maheson, and S. A. Jones Outcome of treatment for dislocation after primary total hip replacement J Bone Joint Surg Br, March 1, 2009; 91-B(3): 321 - 326. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. Ashby, M. P. W. Grocott, and F. S. Haddad Outcome measures for orthopaedic interventions on the hip J Bone Joint Surg Br, May 1, 2008; 90-B(5): 545 - 549. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. S. Biring, B. A. Masri, N. V. Greidanus, C. P. Duncan, and D. S. Garbuz Predictors of quality of life outcomes after revision total hip replacement J Bone Joint Surg Br, November 1, 2007; 89-B(11): 1446 - 1451. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]