RR-PO-1386

Wednesday 16:00, Palau de Congressos, Exhibition Hall  [Display No. 413]

ASSESSING THE RESULTS OF THRUST PLATE PROSTHESIS. A COMPARISON OF FOUR DIFFERENT RATING SYSTEMS.  Ünver B, Karatosun V, Günal I; School of Physical Therapy. Dokuz Eylül University. İzmir. Turkey. PURPOSE: A number of hip rating systems, designed to assess function after hip replacement, have been developed, for the careful of assessment of results is necessary to evaluate different methods of treatment. The aim of the present study is to evaluate four rating system to assess the results of the patients who had undergone thrust plate hip prosthesis (TPP). RELEVANCE: This point is especially important that, TPP has different load transferring characteristics than conventional intramedullary hip prosthesis and to our knowledge this is the first study comparing rating systems on TPP patients. SUBJECTS: Clinical data were recorded for 61 patients who had had 72 TPP. There were 41 women and 20 men with a mean age of 49.9 years (range 19-75 years). METHODS: Sixty one patients undergoing total hip replacement with TPP were evaluated pre- and six months post-operatively by four different hip rating systems (Harris, Iowa, Charnley and Merle d’Aubigne). ANALYSES: The statistical analyses were carried out using an SPSS package. The results were compared with the Spearman Correlation Analysis. RESULTS: Pre- and six months post-operatively Spearman correlation test revealed correlation between all scores (p<0.01). Preoperatively the strongest correlation was between Charnley and Merle d’Aubigne (r=0.876) and weakest was between Iowa and Merle d’Aubigne (r=0.419). However in the postoperative evaluation, the strongest correlation was between Harris and Iowa (r=0.804) and weakest was between Harris and Merle d’Aubigne (r=0.507). Although, Merle d’Aubigne score was the most optimistic, and Iowa was most pessimistic in the postoperative period, Spearman correlation test revealed that the correlation between the rating systems were stronger when compared with the preoperative correlation. CONCLUSION: Although there is a correlation between the systems, Harris rating produced the most pessimistic and Merle d’Aubigne the most optimistic results. However, when compared the pre- and post-operative results, Harris and Iowa systems appear detailed enough to give more reliable results.