A simple visual analog scale for pain is as responsive as the WOMAC, the SF-36, and the EQ-5D in measuring outcomes of revision hip arthroplasty

Abstract

Background and purpose — Little is known about the comparative performance of patient-reported outcome measures in revision hip arthroplasty. We compared the performance of the WOMAC, the SF-36, the EQ-5D, and a pain-related visual analog scale (VAS) in revision hip arthroplasty.

Methods — 45 patients with aseptic prosthetic loosening following primary hip arthroplasty completed the WOMAC, the SF-36, the EQ-5D, and a VAS for pain—at baseline and 2 years after revision. Responsiveness of the measures was compared with the effect size (with ≥ 0.8 being considered large). Agreement between scales measuring the same type of outcome (pain or physical function) was assessed with the Bland-Altman method.

Results — The mean preoperative scores for the pain and physical function scales of WOMAC and SF-36, EQ-5D index, and VAS for pain improved statistically significantly 2 years after revision. The effect size for the WOMAC pain was 1.7, that for SF-36 pain was 1.4, that for WOMAC physical function was 1.6, that for SF-36 physical function was 0.8, and that for EQ-5D index was 1.2. The VAS for pain had an effect size of 2.1, which was larger than that for SF-36 pain and for the EQ-5D index (p ≤ 0.03) but not for WOMAC pain (p = 0.2). The limits of agreement between WOMAC pain, SF-36 pain, and the VAS scale measuring pain—and between the WOMAC and SF-36 scales measuring physical function—were wide. Internal-consistency reliability was high for the WOMAC and SF-36 scales but low for the EQ-5D.

Interpretation — In patients with first-time revision hip arthroplasty done for aseptic loosening, the WOMAC, SF-36, and EQ-5D showed high responsiveness in measuring patient-reported outcomes and the simple VAS for pain performed equally well.

VZ: design and conduction of the study, data analysis, and writing of the manuscript. EO: design and conduction of the study and critical revision of the manuscript. HF: conduction of study and critical revision of the manuscript. IA: design and conduction of the study, data analysis, and writing and revision of the manuscript.

We thank Marie Davidsson, research coordinator at the Department of Orthopedics, Hässleholm Hospital, for administrative assistance.

This research was supported by Hässleholm Hospital Organization.

The authors have no competing interests directly or indirectly related to this work.