Clinical Rehabilitation

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Unver, B.
Right arrow Articles by Gunal, I.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Unver, B.
Right arrow Articles by Gunal, I.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Clinical Rehabilitation, Vol. 19, No. 6, 654-658 (2005)
DOI: 10.1191/0269215505cr868oa

Assessing the results of thrust plate prosthesis: a comparison of four different rating systems

Bayram Unver

School of Physical Therapy, University, Balcova, Izmir, Turkey

Vasfi Karatosun

Izge Gunal

Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Dokuz Eylül University, Balcova, Izmir, Turkey

Objective: To evaluate four rating systems designed to assess patients following provision of a thrust plate prosthesis.

Subjects: Sixty-one patients undergoing total hip replacement with thrust plate prosthesis.

Design: Patients were evaluated preoperatively and six months postoperatively by four different hip rating systems (Harris, Iowa, Charnley and Merle d'Aubigne), both on a categorical and on a numerical basis.

Setting: Department of orthopaedics and traumatology in a university hospital.

Main outcome measures: Patients were evaluated by four rating systems preoperatively and postoperatively either on a categorical or a numerical basis.

Results: All patients showed significant improvement after surgery in all rating systems. Although preoperative categorical evaluation revealed that the strongest correlation was between Charnley and Merle d'Aubigne scores (r =0.876), numerical comparison of the rating systems showed strong correlation among all systems, both pre-and postoperatively. Responsiveness analysis revealed larger effect size for the Iowa and Harris hip scores.

Conclusions: Our results suggest that hip rating systems should be compared numerically rather than by categorical evaluation and that the Iowa and Harris hip scores are more convenient in evaluating thrust plate prosthesis patients because they have larger effect sizes without floor and ceiling effects.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?