Effectiveness of rehabilitation for working-age patients after a total hip arthroplasty: a comparison of usual care between the Netherlands and Germany.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative rehabilitation after primary total hip arthroplasty (p-THA) differs between the Netherlands and Germany. Aim is to compare clinical effectiveness and to get a first impression of cost effectiveness of Dutch versus German usual care after p-THA. METHODS: A transnational prospective controlled observational trial. Clinical effectiveness was assessed with self-reported questionnaires and functional tests. Measurements were taken preoperatively and 4 weeks, 12 weeks, and 6 months postoperatively. For cost effectiveness, long-term economic aspects were assessed from a societal perspective. RESULTS: 124 working-age patients finished the measurements. German usual care leads to a significantly larger proportion (65.6% versus 47.5%) of satisfied patients 12 weeks postoperatively and significantly better self-reported function and Five Times Sit-to-Stand Test (FTSST) results. German usual care is generally 45% more expensive than Dutch usual care, and 20% more expensive for working-age patients. A scenario analysis assumed that German patients work the same number of hours as the Dutch, and that productivity costs are the same. This analysis revealed German care is still more expensive but the difference decreased to 8%. CONCLUSIONS: German rehabilitation is clinically advantageous yet more expensive, although comparisons are less straightforward as the socioeconomic context differs between the two countries. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study is registered in the German Registry of Clinical Trials (DRKS00011345, 18/11/2016).

Novice assessors demonstrate good intra-rater agreement and reliability when determining pressure pain thresholds; a cross-sectional study.

Background: Experienced assessors show good intra-rater reproducibility (within-session and between-session agreement and reliability) when using an algometer to determine pressure pain thresholds (PPT). However, it is unknown whether novice assessors perform equally well. This study aimed to determine within and between-session agreement and reliability of PPT measurements performed by novice assessors and explored whether these parameters differed per assessor and algometer type. Methods: Ten novice assessors measured PPTs over four test locations (tibialis anterior muscle, rectus femoris muscle, extensor carpi radialis brevis muscle and paraspinal muscles C5-C6) in 178 healthy participants, using either a Somedic Type II digital algometer (10 raters; 88 participants) or a Wagner Force Ten FDX 25 digital algometer (nine raters; 90 participants). Prior to the experiment, the novice assessors practiced PPTs for 3 h per algometer. Each assessor measured a different subsample of ~9 participants. For both the individual assessor and for all assessors combined (i.e., the group representing novice assessors), the standard error of measurement (SEM) and coefficient of variation (CV) were calculated to reflect within and between-session agreement. Reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC1,1). Results: Within-session agreement expressed as SEM ranged from 42 to 74 kPa, depending on the test location and device. Between-session agreement, expressed as SEM, ranged from 36 to 76 kPa and the CV ranged from 9-16% per body location. Individual assessors differed from the mean group results, ranging from -55 to +32 kPa or from -9.5 to +6.6 percentage points. Reliability was good to excellent (ICC1,1: 0.87 to 0.95). Results were similar for both types of algometers. Conclusions: Following 3 h of algometer practice, there were slight differences between assessors, but reproducibility in determining PPTs was overall good.