Interpretation Threshold Values for the Oxford Hip Score in Patients Undergoing Total Hip Arthroplasty: Advancing Their Clinical Use.
Harris LK., Troelsen A., Terluin B., Gromov K., Overgaard S., Price A., Ingelsrud LH.
BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures such as the Oxford Hip Score (OHS) can capture patient-centered perspectives on outcomes after total hip arthroplasty (THA). The OHS assesses hip pain and functional limitations, but defining interpretation threshold values for the OHS is warranted so that numerical OHS values can be translated into whether patients have experienced clinically meaningful changes. Therefore, we determined the minimal important change (MIC), patient acceptable symptom state (PASS), and treatment failure (TF) threshold values for the OHS at 12 and 24-month follow-up in patients undergoing THA. METHODS: This cohort study used data from patients undergoing THA at 1 public hospital between July 2016 and April 2021. At 12 and 24 months postoperatively, patients provided responses for the OHS and for 3 anchor questions about whether they had experienced changes in hip pain and function, whether they considered their symptom state to be satisfactory, and if it was not satisfactory, whether they considered the treatment to have failed. The anchor-based adjusted predictive modeling method was used to determine interpretation threshold values. Baseline dependency was evaluated using a new item-split method. Nonparametric bootstrapping was used to determine 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Complete data were obtained for 706 (69%) of 1,027 and 728 (66%) of 1,101 patients at 12 and 24 months postoperatively, respectively. These patients had a median age of 70 years, and 55% to 56% were female. Adjusted OHS MIC values were 6.3 (CI, 4.6 to 8.1) and 5.2 (CI, 3.6 to 6.7), adjusted OHS PASS values were 30.6 (CI, 29.0 to 32.2) and 30.5 (CI, 29.3 to 31.8), and adjusted OHS TF values were 25.5 (CI, 22.9 to 27.7) and 27.0 (CI, 25.2 to 28.8) at 12 and 24 months postoperatively, respectively. MIC values were 5.4 (CI, 2.1 to 9.1) and 5.0 (CI, 1.9 to 8.7) higher at 12 and 24 months, respectively, in patients with a more severe preoperative state. CONCLUSIONS: The established interpretation threshold values advance the interpretation and clinical use of the OHS, and may prove especially beneficial for registry-based evaluations of treatment quality. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Prognostic Level IV. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.