SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Postoperative outcomes after total hip arthroplasty in patients with Parkinson disease: A protocol of case control study.

Medicine (Baltimore) · 2020-05-01

DOI: 10.1097/md.0000000000020018PMID: 32384460

Open accessresearch-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

BackgroundParkinson disease (PD) is a progressive neuromuscular disease associated with bradykinesia, tremor, and postural instability. We aimed to compare outcomes and complications of total hip arthroplasty (THA) between patients with PD and those without.MethodsA single institution retrospective cohort from 2000 to 2018 was reviewed. PD patients were matched 1:2 with non-PD control patients for age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, and body mass index using a propensity score matching procedure. The primary outcome measures were postoperative complications and revision between PD and cohort groups. Secondary outcome measures were Harris Hip Score, hip range of motion, patient satisfaction, and surgery time. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression were used to determine the relationship between PD and surgical outcomes in the matched cohort.ResultsUsing prospectively collated data, we identified 35 PD patients after primary THA. A control cohort of 70 primary THA patients was matched.ConclusionOur hypothesis was that PD would have adverse impact on complication rates, range of movement, or improvement in functional outcome after subsequent THA.Trial registrationThis study protocol was registered in Research Registry (researchregistry5446).

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.