Correlation of the Subjective Hip Value with Validated Patient-Reported Outcome Measurements for the Hip

Abstract

<jats:p>Background: The subjective hip value (SHV) was developed as a patient-reported outcome measurement (PROM) that is easily and quickly performed and interpreted. The SHV is defined as a patient’s subjective hip measurement tool expressed as a percentage of an entirely normal hip joint, which would score 100%. The hypothesis is that results of the subjective hip value correlate with the results of the modified Harris hip score and the International Hip Outcome Tool in patients with hip-related diseases. Methods: 302 patients completed the modified Harris hip score (mHHS), the International Hip Outcome Tool (iHot-33) as well as the SHV. The SHV consist of only one question: “What is the overall percent value of your hip if a completely normal hip represents 100%?”. The patients were divided into five different groups depending on the diagnosis. Pearson correlation was used to evaluate the correlation between the different PROMs and linear regression analysis was used to calculate R2. Results: 302 complete datasets were available for evaluation. There was a high correlation between the SHV and the iHOT-33 (r = 0.847; r2 = 0.692, p &lt; 0.001) and the mHHS (r = 0.832; r2 = 0.717, p &lt; 0.001). The SHV showed a medium (r = 0.653) to high (r = 0.758) correlation with the mHHS and the iHOT-33 in all diagnosis groups. Conclusion: The SHV offers a useful adjunct to established hip outcome measurements, as it is easily and quickly performed and interpreted. The SHV reflects the view of the patient and is independent of the diagnosis. Further research with prospective studies is needed to test the psychometric properties of the score.</jats:p>

Identifikation von potenziellen Risikopatienten auf Basis von PROMs in einem zertifizierten EndoProthetikZentrum am Beispiel der primären Knieendoprothetik

“…This approach should be investigated further in order to optimize the work involved in completing questionnaires, both for patients and for medical facilities. Krueger et al [21] obtained groundbreaking results by correlating just one question (rating of function on operated side compared with healthy side on a scale of 0-100 %) with the well-established PROMs, the Harris Hip Score and the International Hop Outcome Tool.…”

“…Dieser Ansatz soll weiter untersucht werden, um den Befragungsaufwand, sowohl für die Patienten als auch für die medizinische Einrichtung, zu optimieren. Krueger et al [21] erhielten richtungweisende Resultate, indem eine einzelne Frage (Bewertung der Funktion der operierten Seite im Vergleich mit der gesunden Seite von 0-100 %) mit anerkannten PROMs, Harris Hip Score und International Hip Outcome Tool, korreliert wurde.…”

Changes in Sports Activity After Periacetabular Osteotomy: A Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis

“… 3 Hip function was assessed using the International Hip Outcome Tool 12 and Subjective Hip Value, as these have been previously validated and recommended for young active patients in the context of hip joint preservation surgery. 9 , 15 Patient-reported outcome measures and sports activity were collected at follow-up via a hip-specific questionnaire (see Appendix , available in the online version of this article).…”

Identification of Potential High-Risk Patients on the Basis of PROMs in a Certified Centre for Joint Replacement (EndoProthetikZentrum) Using the Example of Hip Arthroplasty

“…Langfristig soll ferner untersucht werden, ob auf Basis einer einzelnen Frage, die folglich schnell und einfach von den Patienten zu beantworten und von der versorgenden Einrichtung zu interpretieren ist, auch Risikopatienten identifiziert werden können. Bereits in einer anderen Studie von Krueger et al konnte nachgewiesen werden, dass lediglich eine einzige Frage, nach der die Patienten die betroffene Hüfte im Vergleich zu der gesunden Hüfte von 0 bis 100 bewerten sollten, mit bewährten PROMs wie Harris Hip Score und dem International Hip Outcome Tool korrelieren [30].…”

“…In the long term, it should also be explored whether patients at risk can be identified based on a single question, which can therefore be answered quickly and easily by the patients and interpreted by the institution providing the care. A previous study by Krueger et al showed that only one question, asking patients to rate the affected hip from 0 to 100 compared to the healthy contralateral hip, correlated with established PROMs such as Harris Hip Score and the International Hip Outcome Tool [30].…”