The Journal of Hip Surgery 2018; 02(04): 167-175
DOI: 10.1055/s-0038-1676286
Special Section Article
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Outcomes Measures in Hip Arthroscopy

Julian J. Sonnenfeld
1   Department of Orthopaedics, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York
,
David P. Trofa
1   Department of Orthopaedics, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York
,
Robert Westermann
2   Department of Orthopedics and Rehabilitation, University of Iowa Health Care, Iowa City, Iowa
,
Mia Hagen
3   Orthopaedic Surgery–Sports Medicine, University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, Washington
,
James Rosneck
4   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Cleveland Clinic Sports Health Center, Garfield Heights, Ohio
,
T. Sean Lynch
1   Department of Orthopaedics, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

29 December 2017

14 August 2018

Publication Date:
10 January 2019 (online)

Abstract

As techniques in hip arthroscopy are rapidly advancing, patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures are becoming an integral part of measuring treatment effectiveness. The movement toward developing valid and reproducible outcome measurement tools has shifted from the traditional physician-derived data to patient-centered scores. As a result, the current standard for measuring the effectiveness of any surgical treatment is to use an outcome that reflects the patient's perspective. This review highlights the quality of the questionnaire properties and their application to the patient undergoing hip arthroscopy. Although the Modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) has historically been used as the traditional outcome measure for hip surgery, new PRO tools in the field have been developed. The Nonarthritic Hip Score (NAHS) was intended for the younger, active patient to assess hip pain and function without radiographic findings. The Copenhagen Hip and Groing Outcome Score (HAGOS) and Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS) both incorporated hip related quality of life measures. The Hip Outcome Score (HOS) was developed to assess the treatment outcomes of hip arthroscopy in young-to-middle-aged individuals. Finally, the International Hip Outcome Tool-33 (iHOT-33) addresses the outcomes of treatment in young active patients with hip disorders, in conjuction with the multicenter arthroscopy of the hip outcomes research network. Among the available literature comparing PROs in this patient population, the iHOT-33, HOS, and HOOS remain reliable, valid, and consistent available PRO tools for hip arthroscopy surgery.

 
  • References

  • 1 Burman MS. Arthroscopy or the direct visualization of joints: an experimental cadaver study 1931. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2001; 13 (390) 5-9
  • 2 Lynch TS, Bedi A, Larson CM. Athletic hip injuries. J Am Acad Orthop Surg 2017; 25 (04) 269-279
  • 3 Lynch TS, Terry MA, Bedi A, Kelly BT. Hip arthroscopic surgery: patient evaluation, current indications, and outcomes. Am J Sports Med 2013; 41 (05) 1174-1189
  • 4 Patrick DL, Burke LB, Powers JH. , et al. Patient-reported outcomes to support medical product labeling claims: FDA perspective. Value Health 2007; 10 (Suppl, 2): S125-S137
  • 5 Stone AV, Jacobs CA, Luo TD. , et al. High degree of variability in reporting of clinical and patient-reported outcomes after hip arthroscopy. Am J Sports Med 2018; 46 (12) 3040-3046
  • 6 Kemp JL, Collins NJ, Makdissi M, Schache AG, Machotka Z, Crossley K. Hip arthroscopy for intra-articular pathology: a systematic review of outcomes with and without femoral osteoplasty. Br J Sports Med 2012; 46 (09) 632-643
  • 7 Stevens MS, Legay DA, Glazebrook MA, Amirault D. The evidence for hip arthroscopy: grading the current indications. Arthroscopy 2010; 26 (10) 1370-1383
  • 8 Byrd JW, Jones KS. Prospective analysis of hip arthroscopy with 10-year followup. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010; 468 (03) 741-746
  • 9 Byrd JW, Jones KS. Hip arthroscopy for labral pathology: prospective analysis with 10-year follow-up. Arthroscopy 2009; 25 (04) 365-368
  • 10 Byrd JW, Jones KS. Hip arthroscopy in athletes: 10-year follow-up. Am J Sports Med 2009; 37 (11) 2140-2143
  • 11 Kirshner B, Guyatt G. A methodological framework for assessing health indices. J Chronic Dis 1985; 38 (01) 27-36
  • 12 Mohtadi NGH. Outcome assessment of non-arthroplasty hip disease. In: Nho S, Leunig M, Kelly B. , et al (eds). Hip Arthroscopy and Hip Joint Preservation Surgery. New York, NY: Springer; 2015: 1-26
  • 13 Deshpande PR, Rajan S, Sudeepthi BL, Abdul Nazir CP. Patient-reported outcomes: a new era in clinical research. Perspect Clin Res 2011; 2 (04) 137-144
  • 14 Martin RL, Mohtadi NG, Safran MR. , et al. Differences in physician and patient ratings of items used to assess hip disorders. Am J Sports Med 2009; 37 (08) 1508-1512
  • 15 Safran MR, Hariri S. hip arthroscopy assessment tools and outcomes. Oper Tech Orthop 2010; 20 (04) 264-277
  • 16 Thorborg K, Roos EM, Bartels EM, Petersen J, Hölmich P. Validity, reliability and responsiveness of patient-reported outcome questionnaires when assessing hip and groin disability: a systematic review. Br J Sports Med 2010; 44 (16) 1186-1196
  • 17 Tijssen M, van Cingel R, van Melick N, de Visser E. Patient-reported outcome questionnaires for hip arthroscopy: a systematic review of the psychometric evidence. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2011; 12: 117-117
  • 18 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 (04) 737-755
  • 19 Nilsdotter AK, Lohmander LS, Klässbo M, Roos EM. Hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score (HOOS)--validity and responsiveness in total hip replacement. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2003; 4: 10
  • 20 Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR. , et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 2007; 60 (01) 34-42
  • 21 Kemp JL, Collins NJ, Roos EM, Crossley KM. Psychometric properties of patient-reported outcome measures for hip arthroscopic surgery. Am J Sports Med 2013; 41 (09) 2065-2073
  • 22 Potter BK, Freedman BA, Andersen RC, Bojescul JA, Kuklo TR, Murphy KP. Correlation of Short Form-36 and disability status with outcomes of arthroscopic acetabular labral debridement. Am J Sports Med 2005; 33 (06) 864-870
  • 23 Ware Jr JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992; 30 (06) 473-483
  • 24 Byrd JW, Jones KS. Prospective analysis of hip arthroscopy with 2-year follow-up. Arthroscopy 2000; 16 (06) 578-587
  • 25 Bardakos NV, Vasconcelos JC, Villar RN. Early outcome of hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement: the role of femoral osteoplasty in symptomatic improvement. J Bone Joint Surg Br 2008; 90 (12) 1570-1575
  • 26 Philippon MJ, Schroder E Souza BG, Briggs KK. Hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement in patients aged 50 years or older. Arthroscopy 2012; 28 (01) 59-65
  • 27 Aprato A, Jayasekera N, Villar RN. Does the modified Harris hip score reflect patient satisfaction after hip arthroscopy?. Am J Sports Med 2012; 40 (11) 2557-2560
  • 28 Ramisetty N, Kwon Y, Mohtadi N. Patient-reported outcome measures for hip preservation surgery-a systematic review of the literature. J Hip Preserv Surg 2015; 2 (01) 15-27
  • 29 Martin RL, Kelly BT, Philippon MJ. Evidence of validity for the hip outcome score. Arthroscopy 2006; 22 (12) 1304-1311
  • 30 Lodhia P, Slobogean GP, Noonan VK, Gilbart MK. Patient-reported outcome instruments for femoroacetabular impingement and hip labral pathology: a systematic review of the clinimetric evidence. Arthroscopy 2011; 27 (02) 279-286
  • 31 Martin RL, Philippon MJ. Evidence of reliability and responsiveness for the hip outcome score. Arthroscopy 2008; 24 (06) 676-682
  • 32 Martin RL, Philippon MJ. Evidence of validity for the hip outcome score in hip arthroscopy. Arthroscopy 2007; 23 (08) 822-826
  • 33 Schenker ML, Martin R, Weiland DE, Philippon MJ. Current trends in hip arthroscopy: a review of injury diagnosis, techniques, and outcome scoring. Curr Opin Orthop 2005; 16 (02) 89-94
  • 34 Thorborg K, Tijssen M, Habets B. , et al. Patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires for young to middle-aged adults with hip and groin disability: a systematic review of the clinimetric evidence. Br J Sports Med 2015; 49 (12) 812-812
  • 35 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 (12) 1833-1840
  • 36 Christensen CP, Althausen PL, Mittleman MA, Lee JA, McCarthy JC. The nonarthritic hip score: reliable and validated. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2003; (406) 75-83
  • 37 Sekiya JK, Safran MR, Ranawat AS, Leunig M. Techniques in Hip Arthroscopy and Joint Preservation Surgery. 1st ed. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders/Elsevier; 2011. . Available from: http://www.columbia.edu/cgi-bin/cul/resolve?clio9695837 . Accessed Mar 18, 2018
  • 38 Martin RL. Hip arthroscopy and outcome assessment. Oper Tech Orthop 2005; 15 (03) 290-296
  • 39 Klässbo M, Larsson E, Mannevik E. Hip disability and osteoarthritis outcome score. An extension of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index. Scand J Rheumatol 2003; 32 (01) 46-51
  • 40 Roos EM, Roos HP, Lohmander LS, Ekdahl C, Beynnon BD. Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS)--development of a self-administered outcome measure. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 1998; 28 (02) 88-96
  • 41 de Groot IB, Reijman M, Terwee CB. , et al. Validation of the Dutch version of the Hip Disability And Osteoarthritis Outcome Score. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2007; 15 (01) 104-109
  • 42 Hinman RS, Dobson F, Takla A, O'Donnell J, Bennell KL. Which is the most useful patient-reported outcome in femoroacetabular impingement? Test-retest reliability of six questionnaires. Br J Sports Med 2014; 48 (06) 458-463
  • 43 Thorborg K, Hölmich P, Christensen R, Petersen J, Roos EM. The Copenhagen Hip and Groin Outcome Score (HAGOS): development and validation according to the COSMIN checklist. Br J Sports Med 2011; 45 (06) 478-491
  • 44 Mohtadi NG, Griffin DR, Pedersen ME. , et al; Multicenter Arthroscopy of the Hip Outcomes Research Network. The development and validation of a self-administered quality-of-life outcome measure for young, active patients with symptomatic hip disease: the International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-33). Arthroscopy 2012; 28 (05) 595-605 , quiz 606–10.e1
  • 45 Griffin DR, Parsons N, Mohtadi NG, Safran MR. ; Multicenter Arthroscopy of the Hip Outcomes Research Network. A short version of the international hip outcome tool (iHOT-12) for use in routine clinical practice. Arthroscopy 2012; 28 (05) 611-616 , quiz 616–618
  • 46 Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH. Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials 1989; 10 (04) 407-415
  • 47 Collins NJ, Roos EM. Patient-reported outcomes for total hip and knee arthroplasty: commonly used instruments and attributes of a “good” measure. Clin Geriatr Med 2012; 28 (03) 367-394
  • 48 Vangsness Jr CT, Mac P, Requa R, Garrick J. Review of outcome instruments for evaluation of anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction. Bull Hosp Jt Dis 1995; 54 (01) 25-29
  • 49 Chahal J, Van Thiel GS, Mather III RC. , et al. The patient acceptable symptomatic state for the modified harris hip score and hip outcome score among patients undergoing surgical treatment for femoroacetabular impingement. Am J Sports Med 2015; 43 (08) 1844-1849
  • 50 Byrd JW, Jones KS. Hip arthroscopy in the presence of dysplasia. Arthroscopy 2003; 19 (10) 1055-1060