Skip to main content

Table 2 Results

From: Bilateral hip arthroplasty: is 1-week staging the optimum strategy?

  Cumulative hospital length of stay (days) Cumulative time until pain-free (weeks) Time to independent living (weeks) Return to leisure activities (weeks) Return to sport (weeks) Return to work-Part time (weeks) Return to Work - Full time (weeks)
All Hip Arthroplasty        
Group 1 11.9 20.9 11.7 13.4 24.5 14.0 21.0
Group 2 9.1; (4.5, 4.6) 28.9; (15.8,13.1) 17.4; (9.3, 8.1) 22.2; (12.6, 9.6) 32.0; (17.1, 14.9) 17.2; (8.8, 8.4) 29.7; (15.4, 14.3)
p-value p < 0.01; (p = 0.81) p = 0.03; (p < 0.01) p = 0.02; (p = 0.25) p < 0.01; (p < 0.05) p = 0.21; (p = 0.50) p = 0.04; (p = 0.72) p < 0.05; (p = 0.65)
Hip Resurfacing        
Group 1 11.1 16.9 11.1 15.7 24.2 14.1 20.2
Group 2 7.3; (3.6, 3.7) 26.0;(14.5, 11.5) 15.6; (8.1, 7.5) 22.4; (12.1, 10.3) 34.0; (18.3, 15.7) 15.1; (7.5, 7.5) 22.9; (12.2, 10.7)
p-value P < 0.01; (p = 0.59) p = 0.04; (p = 0.04) p = 0.19; (p = 0.47) p = 0.16; (p = 0.43) p = 0.33; (p = 0.67) p = 0.60; (p = 1.0) p = 0.66; (p = 0.65)
Total Hip Replacement        
Group 1 12.6 24.1 12.1 11.5 24.8 13.8 22.0
Group 2 10.4; (5.2, 5.2) 31.0;(16.7, 14.3) 18.7; (10.2, 8.5) 22.0; (12.9, 9.1) 30.8; (16.3, 14.4) 19.3; (10.0, 9.3) 35.8; (18.2, 17.6)
p-value p < 0.01; (p = 1.0) p = 0.22; (p = 0.03) p = 0.06; (p = 0.34) p < 0.01; (p = 0.06) p = 0.44; (p = 0.62) p = 0.03; (p = 0.67) p = 0.02; (p = 0.81)
Comparing HR and THR in Group 1 11.9, 12.6 p < 0.01 16.9, 24.1 p = 0.34 11.1, 12.1 p = 0.82 15.7, 11.5 p = 0.25 24.2, 24.8 p = 0.92 18.6, 13.8 p = 0.30 20.2, 22.0 p = 0.76
Comparing HR and THR in Group 2 7.3, 10.4 p < 0.01 26.0, 31.0 p = 0.02 15.6, 18.7 p = 0.23 22.4, 22.0 p = 0.93 34.0, 30.8 p = 0.73 15.1, 19.3 p < 0.05 22.9, 35.8 p = 0.03
  1. Key: HR - Hip Resurfacing, THR - Total Hip Replacement
  2. P-values: The first figure compares Groups 1 and 2, the second figure (in parentheses) compares differences between consecutive operations in Group 2 patients.