Summary of findings 2. 'Summary of findings' table 2.
| Provision of hip precautions with compared to without the provision of postoperative equipment and functional restriction following primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) | ||||||
|
Patient or population: people following primary uncemented THA Settings: hospital and home settings Intervention: provision of hip precautions with the provision of postoperative equipment and functional restriction Comparison: provision of hip precautions without the provision of postoperative equipment and functional restriction | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | Number of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| Hip precautions, but no equipment or functional restrictions | Hip precautions, with equipment and with functional restrictions | |||||
| Pain | Not assessed | Not assessed | Not estimable | Not assessed | Not assessable | No studies measured this outcome1 |
| Function | Not assessed | See comment | Not estimable | Not assessed | Not assessable | No studies measured this outcome1 |
| Health‐related quality of life | Not assessed | Not assessed | Not estimable | Not assessed | Not assessable | No studies measured this outcome1 |
| Global assessment of treatment success Satisfactory pace of recovery Follow‐up: 6 months |
894 per 1000 | 742 per 1000 (180 to 704) | RR: 0.83 (0.75 to 0.93) | 303 (1) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low2,3,4 | Global assessment of treatment success, as assessed with satisfaction with pace of recovery was favoured in the unrestricted group. Patients in the unrestricted group could perform 106.4% (range 25% to 350%) of their preoperative daily activities compared with 96.5% (range 25% to 200%) in the restricted group (P = 0.015). NNTB: 7 (95% CI: 4 to 16). |
| Hip dislocation Incidence of event Follow‐up: 6 months |
0 per 1000 | 7 per 1000 (1 to 480) | RR 2.98 (0.12 to 72.59) | 303 (1) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low2,3,4,5 | No dislocations occurred in the unrestricted group. One dislocation occurred in the restricted group as a consequence of a component of the restrictions (abduction pillow) and was managed successfully with closed reduction. NNTB: not analysed as no statistically significant difference between the groups. |
| Reoperation rate1 | Not assessed | Not assessed | Not estimable | Not assessed | Not assessed | No studies measured this outcome1 |
| Total adverse events Incidence of event Follow‐up: 6 months |
0 per 1000 | 0 per 1000 (0 to 0) | RR 0 (0 to 0) | 303 (1) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low2,3,4,5 | There was no statistically significant difference between the groups. NNTB: Not analysed as no statistically significant difference between the groups. Thus, based on an assumed risk of 0 out of 1000 people receiving hip precautions, equipment and functional restrictions having an adverse event 6 months after hip arthroplasty, no hip precautions, equipment and functional restrictions resulted in 0 fewer (CI 0 fewer to 0 more) people per 1000 having an adverse event during this time. |
| *The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% CI) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). Abbreviations: CI: confidence interval; NNTB: number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome; RR: risk ratio; THA: total hip arthroplasty. | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: we are very uncertain about the estimate. | ||||||
1This outcome was not measured. 2There was no blinding of assessors to group allocation. Therefore there was risk of detection bias. 3There was no blinding of participants or personnel. Therefore there was risk of performance bias. 4The period of time that hip precautions, equipment and functional restrictions were applied was not stipulated to participants a priori. 5This outcome was based on a small number of events.