Abstracts Posters SICOT-SOF meeting Gothenburg 2010 _2_
Abstracts Posters SICOT-SOF meeting Gothenburg 2010 _2_ Abstracts Posters SICOT-SOF meeting Gothenburg 2010 _2_
Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Hip Abstract number: 23652 THE VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY OF THE DUTCH SELF-REPORTED HARRIS HIP SCORE AFTER TOTAL HIP ARTHROPLASTY. Huub VAN DER HEIDE, Bart BOESENACH, Hakim BENALI, Rob NELISSEN Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden (NETHERLANDS) Background: The Harris Hip Score (HHS) is a widely used standardized outcome instrument in Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA). A self-administered version could give the possibility to save time and improve the effectiveness of clinical follow up in THA. Methods: A Harris Hip Score was obtained from 80 patients at a routine clinical follow up by a physician. These patients completed the newly created self reported HHS 2 and 4 weeks after their clinical follow up together with a HOOS and RAND-36 questionnaire. The agreement, correlation and test-retest reliability between the 2 versions of the HHS and the Quality of Life questionnaires was established.Results: A good agreement was established between the total scores of the self-reported and physician administered version of the HHS. The correlation between the self-reported HHS and the Quality of Life questionnaires was good as was the test-retest reliability for the two versions of the HHS. Conclusion: The newly created, self-reported version of the HHS is a valid and reliable standardized outcome instrument and as such is a good alternative for the physician-administered version. This could save time and improve the efficacy of clinical follow up. 16
Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Hip Abstract number: 23663 MID TERM CLINICAL AND RADIOLOGICAL EVALUATION OF REVISION TOTAL HIP ARTHROPLASTY EITH CEMENTLESS STEM Tiberiu BATAGA, Simona BATAGA, Remus OPRIS, Arpad SOLYOM University of Medicine & Pharmacy Tg-Mures, Tg-Mures (ROMANIA) The revision of failed total hip artrhroplasty (THA) is a difficult challenge in reconstructive hip surgery due to severe femoral bone loss. Our Study describes 138 hips that underwent to cementless femoral revision arthroplasty between 2004 and 2009 with a proximal porous coated, modular titanium alloy stem (S- ROMJohnson&Johnson). According to Paprosky’s femoral defect classification, the patients were classified in: type I (17 %) type II (39%) type III (33%) and type IV (11%). All patients patients were present for the final follow-upevaluation and were evaluated clinically (HHS, WOMAC, SF-12 and Satisfaction Test), comparing prewith postoperative results. Radiographic analysis was performed based onthe Engh's criteria. HHS improved from 32.8 to 76.2. 132 stems presented stable bony ingrowth, 6 was stabilized by fibrous tissue. Mechanical failure rate and re-revision rate were zero. Eight years survival rate was 100%, with re-revision as endpoint. Evaluation of bone loss and residual bone stock before surgery are indicative to determine the best surgical choice. No complications were imputable to the S-ROM implant that demonstrates to be an effective implant to reduce pain and restore hip function in revision hip arthroplasty surgery. 17
- Page 1 and 2: Seventh SICOT/SIROT Annual Internat
- Page 3 and 4: Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Elbow
- Page 5 and 6: Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Hand/W
- Page 7 and 8: Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Hip Ab
- Page 9 and 10: Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Hip Ab
- Page 11 and 12: Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Hip Ab
- Page 13 and 14: Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Hip Ab
- Page 15: Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Hip Ab
- Page 19 and 20: Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Hip Ab
- Page 21 and 22: Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Hip Ab
- Page 23 and 24: Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Hip Ab
- Page 25 and 26: Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Hip Ab
- Page 27 and 28: Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Hip Ab
- Page 29 and 30: Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Hip Ab
- Page 31 and 32: Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Hip Ab
- Page 33 and 34: Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Hip Ab
- Page 35 and 36: Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Hip Ab
- Page 37 and 38: Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Hip Ab
- Page 39 and 40: Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Hip Ab
- Page 41 and 42: Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Hip Ab
- Page 43 and 44: Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Hip Ab
- Page 45 and 46: Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Hip Ab
- Page 47 and 48: Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Hip Ab
- Page 49 and 50: Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Hip Ab
- Page 51 and 52: Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Hip Ab
- Page 53 and 54: Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Hip Ab
- Page 55 and 56: Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Hip Ab
- Page 57 and 58: Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Hip Ab
- Page 59 and 60: Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Hip Ab
- Page 61 and 62: Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Hip Ab
- Page 63 and 64: Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Hip Ab
- Page 65 and 66: Poster Topic: Arthroplasty - Hip Ab
Poster<br />
Topic: Arthroplasty - Hip<br />
Abstract number: 23652<br />
THE VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY OF THE DUTCH SELF-REPORTED HARRIS<br />
HIP SCORE AFTER TOTAL HIP ARTHROPLASTY.<br />
Huub VAN DER HEIDE, Bart BOESENACH, Hakim BENALI, Rob NELISSEN<br />
Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden (NETHERLANDS)<br />
Background: The Harris Hip Score (HHS) is a widely used standardized outcome<br />
instrument in Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA). A self-administered version could give the<br />
possibility to save time and improve the effectiveness of clinical follow up in THA.<br />
Methods: A Harris Hip Score was obtained from 80 patients at a routine clinical follow<br />
up by a physician. These patients completed the newly created self reported HHS 2<br />
and 4 weeks after their clinical follow up together with a HOOS and RAND-36<br />
questionnaire. The agreement, correlation and test-retest reliability between the 2<br />
versions of the HHS and the Quality of Life questionnaires was established.Results:<br />
A good agreement was established between the total scores of the self-reported and<br />
physician administered version of the HHS. The correlation between the self-reported<br />
HHS and the Quality of Life questionnaires was good as was the test-retest reliability<br />
for the two versions of the HHS. Conclusion: The newly created, self-reported version<br />
of the HHS is a valid and reliable standardized outcome instrument and as such is a<br />
good alternative for the physician-administered version. This could save time and<br />
improve the efficacy of clinical follow up.<br />
16