Patients who underwent a hip replacement procedure experienced significant changes to their quality of life (QOL) through at least 5 years after the procedure, according to scores on a patient-perceived QOL assessment.
Researchers at the Cleveland Clinic calculated scores on the Short-Form-6D (SF-6D), a measure of patient-perceived QOL for six domains—vitality, pain, mental health, social and physical functioning, and role limitations—among 188 patients as part of a study published recently in The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery.
“The SF-6D is one of the few straightforward, easily obtainable methods that provide clinicians quantifiable insight into a patient’s quality of life,” says Dr Michael A Mont of the Cleveland Clinic, in a media release from Wolters Kluwer Health.
The 188 patients (average age: 69) in the study underwent hip replacement surgery at seven hospitals.
Mont and his research team evaluated the patients using a standard QOL assessment, called the “Short Form 36” (SF-36), from which the SF-6D scores were calculated, the release notes.
The results showed significant increases in the SF-6D score from before to after total hip replacement. Although scores peaked at 1 year, the improvement remained significant through 5 years’ follow-up
Furthermore, the gains in SF-6D score remained well above the cutoff point for a large “effect size”—indicating clinically relevant improvement in QOL. The SF-6D scores corresponded to lasting improvements on standard assessments of hip pain and motion as well as the ability to perform everyday activities, the release explains.
The researchers note in the release that, like other QOL assessments, the SF-6D has some disadvantages. However, Mont says, “The SF-6D provides clinicians with a method of quantifying patient satisfaction and perception of their own health.”
An advantage, however, Mont adds, is the ability to calculate the SF-6D score from the SF-36 assessment.
“Therefore,” Mont concludes in the release, “widely incorporating the SF-6D into future postoperative assessments is straightforward, and having these values readily available may make prospective cost-effectiveness analyses considerably easier.”
[Source(s): Wolters Kluwer Health, Science Daily]