图示化自主髋关节功能评分系统的应用研究

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-134X.2024.03.004

目的

以Harris评分量表为标准，设计以图片、视频的多媒体呈现的图示化髋关节功能评分，应用于患者自我测评，验证其可行性及准确性。

方法

选取2020年1月至2023年12月于中山大学孙逸仙纪念医院行单侧髋关节置换术或髓芯减压术的出院患者进行观察性的随机交叉设计研究，排除严重老年痴呆或其他精神疾病、资料不全等。通过方差分析、Kendall秩相关分析、Bland-Altman图评估Harris评分、简版Harris评分和图示化髋关节评分的一致性，并通过评估过程耗时及应答率分析图示化患者自我测评的可行性。

结果

同为患者自主测评，较之简版Harris评分相比，图示化髋关节评分值更集中地分布在95%一致性界限（-4.25，9.47）；基于图示化髋关节评分进行的等级评定较简版Harris评分，误判率更低（38% vs. 23%，χ²=4.309，P=0.038）；评估耗时显示图示化评分操作耗时较Harris评分量表法缩短（F=19.753，P<0.001）；满意度问卷调查显示图示化评分法最高（F=20.659，P<0.001）。

结论

患者自我测评的图示化髋关节评分与Harris评分存在一致性及高度相关性，且其等级评定较既往患者自我测评使用的简版Harris评分更准确，且具良好可及性，能满足精确便利的患者自我评估而更好促进远程随访的开展。

关键词: 髋关节, 疗效比较研究, 数据相关性, 患者报告结局评价

Objective

To design a visual hip joint function rating system presented through pictures and videos for self-evaluation by patients based on the Harris score, and to verify its feasibility and accuracy.

Methods

An observational randomized crossover design study was conducted on patients discharged from hospital after unilateral hip replacement or core decompression at Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital from January 2020 to December 2023. Severe senile dementia or other psychological diseases, and incompleted data were excluded. The consistency of the Harris score, simplified Harris score, and visual hip joint score were evaluated by analysis of variance, Kendall rank correlation analysis, and Bland-Altman plot. The feasibility of visual hip joint sore by patients was assessed through analysis of evaluation process time and response rate.

Results

Compared to the simplified Harris score, the visual hip joint score had a more concentrated distribution of scores within the 95% consistency limits (-4.25, 9.47). The visual hip joint score had lower misjudgment rate compared to the simplified Harris score (38% vs. 23%, χ²=4.309, P=0.038) in terms of grade assessment. The evaluation process time for the visual hip joint score was shorter than that for the Harris score(F=19.753, P<0.001). The satisfaction survey showed the highest satisfaction with the visual hip joint score(F=20.659, P<0.001).

Conclusions

The visual hip joint score for self-evaluation by patients is consistent and highly correlated with the Harris score. It provides more accurate grade assessment compared to the simplified Harris score previously used for self-evaluation by patients, and has good accessibility. It can meet the needs of accurate and convenient self-assessment by patients and better promote the development of remote follow-up.

Key words: Hip joint, Comparative study of curative effect, Data correlation, Patients reported outcome evaluations

图1 三种髋关节功能评估所含项目及呈现形式对比

Figure 1 Comparison of items and presentation forms in three hip joint function assessments

图2　轻度跛行　图3　中度跛行　图4　重度跛行

Figure 2　Mild claudication　Figure 3　Moderate claudication　Figure 4　Severe claudication

图5 髋屈曲畸形程度评估注：利用生活物品（如矿泉水瓶）估测仰卧位时床面与腘窝间距离，显示髋屈曲畸形程度（约30°）

Figure 5 Assessment of the degree of flexion deformity of the hip Note: Estimate the distance between the bed and the popliteal fossa in the supine position using daily objects (such as mineral water bottles), indicating the degree of flexion deformity of the hip (about 30°)

图6 肢体缩短畸形评估注：以仰卧中立状态两足跟距离差评估肢体缩短畸形（三指约3.2 cm）

Figure 6 Assessment of limb shortening deformity Note: The difference in heel distance between two legs in supine neutral state was used to evaluate limb shortening deformity (three fingers about 3.2 cm)

图7 以侧观坐姿判定髋屈曲程度

Figure 7 Hip flexion was determined by lateral sitting posture

图8 髋外展程度评估注：以仰卧髋外展状态下，两膝间距离差评估髋外展程度（膝间可容纳A4纸长度为外展约30°）

Figure 8 Assessment of hip abduction degree Note: In supine hip abduction, the distance difference between the knees is used to assess the degree of hip abduction (the length of A4 paper between the knees is about 30°)

图9 髋内收活动度评估注：仰卧位，下肢交叉评估髋内收活动度（交叉及膝约为内收15°）

Figure 9 Assessment of hip adduction range of motion Note: Supine position, lower limb cross assessment of hip adduction motion (cross and knee about 15° adduction)

图10 以端坐位小腿可交叉情况评估髋内旋角度

Figure 10 Assessing the internal rotation angle of the hip in the position of calf cross-overability

图11 Harris评分与简版Harris评分的Bland-Altman图注：A-Harris评分；B-简版Harris评分

Figure 11 Bland-Altman plot of Harris score and simplified Harris score Note: A - Harris score; B - Simplified Harris score

图12 Harris评分与图示化髋关节评分的Bland-Altman图注：A-Harris评分；C-图示化髋关节评分

Figure 12 Bland-Altman plot of Harris score and visual hip joint score Note: A - Harris score; C - visual hip joint score

图13 三种评分间患者等级差异桑基图

Figure 13 Sankey diagram of patient grade differences between three evaluation scores

表1 三种评分的等级评定的相关性

Table 1 Correlation of grade assessment for three types of scores

量表 Evaluation methods	Harris评分Harris score		简版Harris评分Simplified Harris score		图示化髋关节评分Visual hip joint score
量表 Evaluation methods	r值	P值	r值	P值	r值	P值
Harris评分 Harris score	1.000	<0.001	0.805	<0.001	0.862	<0.001
简版Harris评分 Simplified Harris score	0.805	<0.001	1.000	<0.001	0.884	<0.001
图示化髋关节评分 Visual hip joint score	0.862	<0.001	0.884	<0.001	1.000	<0.001

表1 三种评分的等级评定的相关性

Table 1 Correlation of grade assessment for three types of scores

量表 Evaluation methods	Harris评分Harris score		简版Harris评分Simplified Harris score		图示化髋关节评分Visual hip joint score
量表 Evaluation methods	r值	P值	r值	P值	r值	P值
Harris评分 Harris score	1.000	<0.001	0.805	<0.001	0.862	<0.001
简版Harris评分 Simplified Harris score	0.805	<0.001	1.000	<0.001	0.884	<0.001
图示化髋关节评分 Visual hip joint score	0.862	<0.001	0.884	<0.001	1.000	<0.001

表2 满意度调查（n=79）

Table 2 Satisfaction survey

量表 Evaluation methods	满意度 Satisfaction	题干可理解度 Question comprehensibility	选项可理解度 Option comprehensibility	填表时间 Filling time
Harris评分 Harris score	4.4± 1.3	-	-	6.2±1.5
简版Harris评分 Simplified Harris score	4.3 ± 1.3	4.4 ± 1.1	3.8 ± 1.4	2.1±0.8
图示化髋关节评分 Visual hip joint score	4.7 ± 1.5	4.4 ± 1.7	4.8 ± 1.5	3.2±1.8
统计值 Statistical values	F=20.659	t=0.232	t=4.699	F=19.753
P值	<0.001	>0.05	<0.001	<0.001

表2 满意度调查（n=79）

Table 2 Satisfaction survey

量表 Evaluation methods	满意度 Satisfaction	题干可理解度 Question comprehensibility	选项可理解度 Option comprehensibility	填表时间 Filling time
Harris评分 Harris score	4.4± 1.3	-	-	6.2±1.5
简版Harris评分 Simplified Harris score	4.3 ± 1.3	4.4 ± 1.1	3.8 ± 1.4	2.1±0.8
图示化髋关节评分 Visual hip joint score	4.7 ± 1.5	4.4 ± 1.7	4.8 ± 1.5	3.2±1.8
统计值 Statistical values	F=20.659	t=0.232	t=4.699	F=19.753
P值	<0.001	>0.05	<0.001	<0.001

［1］	张少云，黄强，曹国瑞，等. 外科及术后因素对加速康复外科模式下髋、膝关节置换术住院时间的影响［J］. 中华骨与关节外科杂志，2018,11(5): 385-389.
［2］	周宗科，翁习生，曲铁兵，等. 中国髋、膝关节置换术加速康复——围术期管理策略专家共识［J］. 中华骨与关节外科杂志，2016,9(1): 1-9.
［3］	潘韩丽，何静，陈媛媛，等. 机器人辅助全髋关节置换围手术期应用加速康复护理［J/OL］. 中华关节外科杂志（电子版），2024,18(1): 142-146.
［4］	Fortier LM，Rockov ZA，Chen AF，et al. Activity recommendations after total hip and total knee arthroplasty［J］. J Bone Joint Surg Am，2021,103(5): 446-455.
［5］	倪雪琴，林培芬. 赋能教育模式在髋关节置换后功能锻炼中的应用［J/CD］. 中华关节外科杂志（电子版），2019,13(5): 637-640.
［6］	Frassanito L，Vergari A，Nestorini R，et al. Enhanced recovery after surgery（ERAS）in hip and knee replacement surgery: description of a multidisciplinary program to improve management of the patients undergoing major orthopedic surgery［J］. Musculoskelet Surg，2020,104(1): 87-92.
［7］	蔡利亚，褚佳，于红英. 移动互联网技术在老年髋关节置换术后康复管理中的应用［J］. 中医药管理杂志，2020,28(23): 46-49.
［8］	张福康，程晴灏，杨鑫，等. 髋关节置换术后疗效评估方式的转变及进展［J］. 中国骨与关节损伤杂志，2023,38(8): 893-896.
［9］	Katz JN，Phillips CB，Poss R，et al. The validity and reliability of a total hip Aarthroplasty outcome evaluation questionnaire［J］. J Bone Joint Surg Am，1995,77(10): 1528-1534.
［10］	Pabinger C，Lothaller H，Portner N，et al. Projections of hip arthroplasty in OECD countries up to 2050［J］. HIP Int，2018,28(5): 498-506.
［11］	边焱焱，程开源，常晓，等. 2011至2019年中国人工髋膝关节置换手术量的初步统计与分析［J］. 中华骨科杂志，2020,40(21): 1453-1460.
［12］	Saunders R，Seaman K，Ashford C，et al. An eHealth program for patients undergoing a total hip arthroplasty: protocol for a randomized controlled trial［J/OL］. JMIR Res Protoc，2018,7(6): e137. DOI: 10.2196/resprot.9654.
［13］	Fagundes CP，Shi Q，Vaporciyan AA，et al. Symptom recovery after thoracic surgery: measuring patient-reported outcomes with the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory［J］. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg，2015,150(3): 613-619.e2.
［14］	Khullar OV，Fernandez FG. Patient-reported outcomes in thoracic surgery［J］. Thorac Surg Clin，2017,27(3): 279-290.
［15］	Siljander MP，McQuivey KS，Fahs AM，et al. Current trends in patient-reported outcome measures in total joint arthroplasty: astudy of 4 major orthopaedic journals［J］. J Arthroplasty，2018,33(11): 3416-3421.
［16］	Harris K，Dawson J，Gibbons E，et al. Systematic review of measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures used in patients undergoing hip and knee arthroplasty［J］. Patient Relat Outcome Meas，2016,7: 101-108.
［17］	Lovelock TM，Broughton NS，Williams CM. The popularity of outcome measures for hip and knee arthroplasties［J］. J Arthroplasty，2018,33(1): 273-276.
［18］	Jayakumar P，Bozic KJ. Advanced decision-making using patient-reported outcome measures in total joint replacement［J］. J Orthop Res，2020,38(7): 1414-1422.
［19］	Kawai T，Kataoka M，Goto K，et al. Patient- and surgery-related factors that affect patient-reported outcomes after total hip arthroplasty［J/OL］. J Clin Med，2018,7(10): 358. DOI: 10.3390/jcm7100358.
［20］	Kamecka K，Rybarczyk-Szwajkowska A，Staszewska A，et al. Process of posthospital care involving telemedicine solutions for patients after total hip arthroplasty［J/OL］. Int J Environ Res Public Health，2021,18(19): 10135. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph181910135.

[1]	周钰菡, 肖欢, 唐毅, 杨春江, 周娟, 朱丽容, 徐娟, 牟芳婷. 超声对儿童髋关节暂时性滑膜炎的诊断价值[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志（电子版）, 2023, 20(08): 795-800.
[2]	刘涛, 樊保佑, 史仲举, 刘德荣, 王沛. 股骨距是一个容易被误解的人体结构[J/OL]. 中华关节外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(05): 626-629.
[3]	赵飞鸿, 陈颖杰, 林静芳, 郑晓春, 廖燕凌. 超声引导下周围神经阻滞对髋膝关节置换术后恢复的影响[J/OL]. 中华关节外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(04): 457-468.
[4]	何淳诺, 田志敏, 李焕玺, 吴昊越, 庄凯鹏, 周胜虎, 张浩强. 小儿发育性髋关节发育不良诊治的研究进展[J/OL]. 中华关节外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(04): 497-504.
[5]	孙智, 张方青. 髋关节发育不良合并骨关节炎患者血清标志物表达[J/OL]. 中华关节外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 24-29.
[6]	浦路桥, 徐永清, 齐保闯, 施洪鑫, 林玮, 卜鹏飞, 白艳, 唐志方, 李川. 中国髋部脆性骨折术后抗骨质疏松药物临床干预指南(2023年版)计划书[J/OL]. 中华关节外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(05): 747-750.
[7]	邵小丽, 林燕, 张玲玲, 韩亚琴. 超声引导下子宫肌瘤注射聚桂醇硬化术联合术后米非司酮治疗临床疗效分析[J/OL]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2024, 20(03): 353-360.
[8]	苏永涛, 王春雷, 徐广琪, 关中正, 焦伟, 隋颖. 胫骨骨膜牵张术联合富血小板血浆对治疗糖尿病足溃疡的疗效观察[J/OL]. 中华损伤与修复杂志(电子版), 2024, 19(03): 238-244.
[9]	谢丽春, 欧庆芬, 张秋萍, 叶升. 简化和标准肝脏MRI方案在结直肠癌肝转移患者随访中的临床应用[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(04): 434-437.
[10]	鲁鑫, 杨琴, 许佳怡. 不同术式治疗恶性梗阻性黄疸疗效及对免疫功能的影响[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(02): 180-183.
[11]	莫波, 王佩, 王恒, 何志军, 梁俊, 郝志楠. 腹腔镜胃癌根治术与改良胃癌根治术治疗早期胃癌的疗效[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 644-647.
[12]	索郎多杰, 高红桥, 巴桑顿珠, 仁桑. 腹腔镜下不同术式治疗肝囊型包虫病的临床疗效分析[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 670-673.
[13]	唐浩, 梁平, 徐小江, 曾凯, 文拨辉. 三维重建指导下腹腔镜右半肝加尾状叶切除治疗Bismuth Ⅲa型肝门部胆管癌的临床研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 688-692.
[14]	浦路桥, 李川, 齐宝闯, 卜鹏飞, 蔡兴博, 白艳, 罗欢, 徐永清. 改良与传统股方肌骨瓣治疗青壮年股骨头坏死的临床疗效比较[J/OL]. 中华老年骨科与康复电子杂志, 2024, 10(03): 165-170.
[15]	孙阳, 杨帅, 贾晋瑄, 杜震, 周凌峰, 魏贤振. 电针联合等速训练对THA术后髋关节生物力学的影响[J/OL]. 中华老年骨科与康复电子杂志, 2024, 10(02): 103-110.

阅读次数

全文

摘要

选择文件类型/文献管理软件名称

选择包含的内容

Application research of visual self-rating system for hip joint function evaluation

模态框（Modal）标题

选择文件类型/文献管理软件名称

选择包含的内容

Application research of visual self-rating system for hip joint function evaluation