The current study systematically reviews the literature describing patient outcomes after revision total hip arthroplasties using conventional global hip score ratings. Two thousand one hundred thirty-seven English-language articles published from 1966 through 2000 were identified through a computerized literature search and bibliography review. A three-step filter process was used to identify articles to be included in the metaanalysis. Forty-two articles with 2578 patients had data abstracted for the analysis. Metaanalysis of global hip scores was done using a fixed effects model with the assumption that the variances of each measurement were identical across studies. Thirty-nine articles reporting on 46 cohorts progressed through three filters and went to data extraction and analysis. Revision total hip arthroplasty is a reasonably safe and effective procedure for failed hip replacement Based on this exploratory analysis revision hip procedures seem to have comparable longevity, to primary hip replacement but appear to have slightly lower functional outcome (as measured by global hip scores), and slightly higher morbidity and mortality rates than primary procedures. Inconsistent reporting in the original studies limited exploration of other factors that may have affected outcomes.

Introduction: Measuring patient-perceived outcomes following orthopaedic procedures have become an important component of clinical research and patient care. General and disease-specific outcomes measures have been developed and applied in orthopaedics to assess the patients' perceived health status. Unfortunately, paper-based, self-administered instruments remain inefficient for collecting data because of: (a) missing data (b) respondent error, and (c) the costs to administer and enter data.Ohjectioe: To study the comparability of palm-top computer devices and paper-pencil self-administered questionnaires in the collection of health-related quality of life (HRQL) information from patients.Methods: The comparability of administering HRQL questionnaires using palm-top computer and traditional paper-based forms was tested in a sample of 96 patients with complaints of hip and/or knee pain. Each patient completed mailed versions of the Medical Outcomes Study (MOS), 36-item Health Survey (SF-36), and Western Ontario and McMasters University Arthritis Index (WOMAC) three weeks prior to presenting to clinic. At the clinic they were asked to complete the same outcomes measures using the palm-top computer or a paper-and-pencil version.Analysis: In the analysis, scale distributions, floor and ceiling effects, internal consistency and retest reliability of scales were compared across the two data collection methods. Because the baseline characteristics of the groups were not strictly comparable according to age, the data were analyzed for the entire sample and stratified according to age.Results: Few statistically significant differences were found for the means, variances and intra-class correlation coefficients between the methods of administration. While the scale distribution between the two methods was comparable, the internal consistency of the scales was dissimilar.Conclusions: Administration of HRQL questionnaires using portable palm-top computer devices has the potential advantage of decreased cost and convenience. These data lend some support for the comparability of palm-top computers and paper surveys for outcomes measures widely used in the field of orthopaedic surgery. The present study identified the lack of reliability across modes of administration that requires further study in a randomized comparability trial. These mode effects are important for orthopaedic surgeons to appreciate before implementing innovative data-capture technologies in their practices.

No abstract