Differences among the observers in the assessments of Japanese orthopedic association hip scores between surgeons and physical therapists and the correlations to patients\u2019 reported outcomes after total hip arthroplasty

Abstract

BackgroundWe aimed to assess the utility of a clinician-reported outcome (the Japanese Orthopedic Association [JOA] hip score) as evaluated by clinicians and physiotherapists. This assessment was made by comparing these scores to those of the JOA hip disease evaluation questionnaire (JHEQ), which is a measurement of patient-reported outcomes after total hip arthroplasty.MethodsIn this retrospective case-control study, 52 hips that underwent primary total hip arthroplasty were included in the analyses. The mean age of the participants was 66.8 years (sex, seven male and 45 female participants). The JOA hip score included four categories: pain, range of motion, ability to walk, and active daily living. The JHEQ included three categories: pain, movement, and mental health. These scores were evaluated preoperatively and postoperatively by clinicians or physiotherapists. Pearson’s correlation coefficients were utilized to analyze the association of the JOA hip scores to those of the JHEQ.ResultsThe JOA hip scores were determined by clinicians and physiotherapists (scores of 46.8 and 57.3, respectively) preoperatively and at 24 months (scores of 94.4 and 91.7, respectively) postoperatively. The JHEQ points were 28.8 and 66.2 preoperatively and at 24 months postoperatively, respectively. The correlation coefficients between the JOA hip and JHEQ scores were .66 and .69 preoperatively and .57 and .76 at 24 months postoperatively, as evaluated by clinicians and physiotherapists, respectively.ConclusionsAlthough the JHEQ scores were positively correlated to the JOA hip scores by clinicians and physiotherapists preoperatively and postoperatively, this study implies that clinicians may interpret the results in a way that might have been beneficial to them. To comprehend a patients’ health status, we should inclusively understand the varying range of information among different evaluators.