Article:Can obesity and physical activity predict outcomes of elective knee or hip surgery due to osteoarthritis? A meta-analysis of cohort studies. (5855486)

From ScienceSource
Jump to: navigation, search

This page is the ScienceSource HTML version of the scholarly article described at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q52682546. Its title is Can obesity and physical activity predict outcomes of elective knee or hip surgery due to osteoarthritis? A meta-analysis of cohort studies. and the publication date was 2018-02-27. The initial author is Daniel Pozzobon.

Fuller metadata can be found in the Wikidata link, which lists all authors, and may have detailed items for some or all of them. There is further information on the article in the footer below. This page is a reference version, and is protected against editing.



Converted JATS paper:

Journal Information

Title: BMJ Open

Can obesity and physical activity predict outcomes of elective knee or hip surgery due to osteoarthritis? A meta-analysis of cohort studies

  • Daniel Pozzobon
  • Paulo H Ferreira
  • Fiona M Blyth
  • Gustavo C Machado
  • Manuela L Ferreira

[1]Sydney

[2]Sydney

[3]Sydney

[4]Sydney

[5]Botucatu

Publication date (collection): /2018

Publication date (epub): 2/2018

Abstract

Objective

The aim of this study was to systematically review the literature to identify whether obesity or the regular practice of physical activity are predictors of clinical outcomes in patients undergoing elective hip and knee arthroplasty due to osteoarthritis.

Design

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Data source and eligibility criteria

A systematic search was performed on the Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE and Web of Science electronic databases. Longitudinal cohort studies were included in the review. To be included, studies needed to have assessed the association between obesity or physical activity participation measured at baseline and clinical outcomes (ie, pain, disability and adverse events) following hip or knee arthroplasty.

Data extraction

Two independent reviewers extracted data on pain, disability, quality of life, obesity, physical activity and any postsurgical complications.

Results

62 full papers were included in this systematic review. From these, 31 were included in the meta-analyses. Our meta-analysis showed that compared to obese participants, non-obese participants report less pain at both short term (standardised mean difference (SMD) −0.43; 95% CI −0.67 to −0.19; P<0.001) and long term post-surgery (SMD −0.36; 95% CI −0.47 to −0.24; P<0.001), as well as less disability at long term post-surgery (SMD −0.32; 95% CI −0.36 to −0.28; P<0.001). They also report fewer postsurgical complications at short term (OR 0.48; 95% CI 0.25 to 0.91; P<0.001) and long term (OR 0.55; 95% CI 0.41 to 0.74; P<0.001) along with less postsurgical infections after hip arthroplasty (OR 0.33; 95% CI 0.18 to 0.59; P<0.001), and knee arthroplasty (OR 0.42; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.78; P=0.006).

Conclusions

Presurgical obesity is associated with worse clinical outcomes of hip or knee arthroplasty in terms of pain, disability and complications in patients with osteoarthritis. No impact of physical activity participation has been observed.

PROSPERO registration number

CRD42016032711.

Paper

Strengths and limitations of this study

The current review is the most comprehensive systematic review on the topic to date.

The current review is the first review to use a quantitative approach to synthesise the results of pain, disability and surgical complications between non-obese and obese participants who underwent hip or knee arthroplasty due to osteoarthritis.

The methodological quality of the included studies was in general poor.

There was a substantial variability of follow-up duration across studies, ranging from 2 weeks to 11 years.

Introduction

Musculoskeletal pain, including pain from knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA), is the leading cause of physical disability in the world and responsible for an increasing burden to patients and society.[1] This problem will increase over time, as the world population ages and physical disability resulting from declining health becomes increasingly prevalent.[2] The global healthcare expenditure for knee and hip OA is substantial, and most of these costs are incurred by surgical management and associated hospital care.[3] For instance, in the UK, the direct costs of OA were estimated at more than £1 billion in 2010, of which £850 million was spent just on surgical procedures.[4]

Although management of the early stages of this condition consists of a combination of non-pharmacological and pharmacological therapies (eg, anti-inflammatory and analgesic drugs), surgery has become the most common treatment option for severe cases, especially when non-surgical therapies fail to provide sufficient pain relief.[5] Osteotomy, mosaicplasty and arthroplasty are some of the existing types of surgery used to manage OA of the hip and knee; with total or partial arthroplasty being the most commonly recommended.[6]

There are multiple risk factors for the development of knee OA. Among the most common of these are increased body weight and muscle weakness; often attributed to a sedentary lifestyle.[7] Obesity and sedentary lifestyle behaviour have also been associated with serious health conditions such as: coronary heart disease, type 2 diabetes, breast and colon cancers and decreased life expectancy.[8] Although there is evidence for the role of obesity and physical inactivity in health conditions and quality of life in general,[9] the actual impact of these factors, together or in isolation, on the outcomes of elective surgery of the knee and hip is still controversial.[11] Although previous attempts to systematically review the literature have been made, these studies[13] have either failed to perform a quantitative summary of the evidence (ie, meta-analysis), have excluded patients undergoing knee arthroplasty[16] or have excluded pain outcomes.[13] No meta-analyses have been performed considering obesity and physical activity as predictors of surgical outcomes in terms of pain, disability, quality of life and complications after hip or knee arthroplasty for end-stage OA.

Identifying whether obesity and physical activity participation predict surgical outcomes in patients with knee and hip OA will inform clinical practice in terms of prognosis and safety of an increasingly prevalent treatment approach. We have conducted a meta-analysis of cohort studies aiming to quantify the role of obesity and physical activity participation as predictors of clinical outcomes in terms of pain, disability, quality of life and postsurgical complications. This review and meta-analysis focused on patients with knee and hip OA undergoing hip or knee arthroplasty.

Methods

Data sources and searches

We conducted a systematic review following the PRISMA statement.[17] This review was prospectively registered on PROSPERO, registration number CRD42016032711. A systematic electronic search was performed in the following databases from inception to January 2017: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Web of Science. We used a combination of relevant keywords to construct the search strategy including obesity, physical activity, knee OA, hip OA, arthroplasty and elective surgery (online supplementary appendix 1). The first screening of potentially relevant records was conducted by one author (DP) based on titles and abstract, and two authors (DP and GCM) independently performed the final selection of included trials based on full-text evaluation. A third reviewer arbitrated in case of disagreement (MLF). Moreover, the reference lists of included studies were checked for potential studies. An additional 26 references were screened, but none met our inclusion criteria. No restriction was applied on language.

10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017689.supp1Supplementary file 1

Study selection

We included only longitudinal studies assessing the role of obesity or physical activity participation on the clinical outcomes following partial or total hip arthroplasty (THA) or partial or total knee arthroplasty (TKA) surgery. Clinical outcomes were defined in terms of pain, disability, quality of life and complications after arthroplasty. To be eligible, studies had to be full reports; include participants who underwent elective arthroplasty of the hip or knee due to OA; include data of presurgical and at least one postsurgical assessment of the clinical outcomes of interest; and assess the association between the predictors and outcomes of interest. Obesity and physical activity participation had to be assessed at baseline. Studies on revision surgery were excluded. Studies were not excluded based on intensity or duration of symptoms.

Data extraction

Using a standardised form, data on study characteristics, predictors and outcome measures of interest were independently extracted from the included studies by two reviewers (DP and GCM). A third author (MLF) resolved any disagreement. Estimates of association between predictors and outcomes of interest were extracted as presented in each study and included ORs, risk ratios (RR), correlations, mean differences (MD) or regression coefficients. When studies reported more than one tool regarding the same topic (eg, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS), Oxford Hip Score (OHS), Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Knee Society Score (KSS)), estimates were extracted from the group with the largest sample size.

We contacted the authors to provide further information when there were insufficient data reported in the manuscript. When authors were unavailable we estimated data using the recommendations in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.[18]

Outcome measures

Data on pain intensity were extracted as visual analogue scale scores ranging from 0 to 10 and measured directly or as part of the following measurement tools: the WOMAC, the HOOS, the KOOS or the Harris Hip Score (HHS). If studies reported more than one measure of pain intensity or disability for the cohort, the most severe measure at baseline was included in the pooled analyses. Disability measures included the OHS ranging from 12 to 60, with 12 being the best result; Oxford Knee Score ranging from 0 to 60, with 60 being the best result; the HHS ranging from 0 to 100, with 100 being the best result; KSS ranging from 0 to 100, with 100 being the best result; WOMAC total score ranging from 0 to 96, with 0 being the best result; or WOMAC function subscale ranging from 0 to 10, with 10 being the best result; and were converted into a uniform 0–100 scale where 0 meant less disability. Extracted data on complications included any descriptive measure of the number of complications or number of patients with a complication reported during the study. Only two of the screened studies had reported specific raw data on quality of life among the participants after joint arthroplasty, but due to differences in follow-up length, any meta-analysis made by merging these data would result in an unreliable measure.

Methodological quality assessment

The methodological quality of included studies was assessed by two independent reviewers using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS)[19] recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration.[18] The NOS consists of eight items grouped into three categories, namely: selection, comparability and outcome. A star system, ranging from zero to nine stars, is used to classify the quality of the study being reviewed (the more stars the study receives in each category, the higher its methodological quality). After the independent assessment of included studies by the leading author, each study received the following categorical scores representing its quality: good (three or four stars in selection domain AND one or two stars in comparability domain AND two or three stars in outcome domain), fair (two stars in selection domain AND one or two stars in comparability domain AND two or three stars in outcome domain) or poor (zero or one star in selection domain OR zero star in comparability domain OR zero or one star in outcome domain). A third reviewer (MLF) resolved any disagreement between independent assessors. Methodological quality scores for included studies are presented in table 1.

Data analysis

Data on baseline (ie, presurgical scores) and postoperative outcome scores were weighed by the inverse study variance and used in fractional polynomial regression modelling to build graphs depicting the course of pain and disability over time. STATA V.14 was used for the analyses (StataCorp, College Station, TX).[20]

Meta-analyses were performed to assess the differences in pain, disability and complications after surgery, between predictor groups (ie, obese and non-obese groups as defined by included studies), using a random effects model. When possible, different analyses were performed for knee and hip arthroplasty and also for different levels of obesity (ie, obesity and morbid obesity). When means and SD of outcomes of interest were presented for multiple predictor groups in the same study (ie, underweight (body mass index (BMI)<18), normal weight (BMI≥18<25), overweight (BMI≥25<30) and obese level I (BMI≥30<35), II (BMI≥35<40) or III (BMI≥40)) these were combined into two groups (non-obese: BMI<30 and obese: BMI≥30) as recommended in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions[18] before inclusion in the pooled analyses. Results were reported as standardised mean differences (SMD) and 95% CIs. Between-study heterogeneity was calculated using I2 (I2<25%: small heterogeneity; 25%<I2<75%: moderate heterogeneity; I2>75%: large heterogeneity).[21] We have defined an SMD of 0.2 as small difference, 0.5 as moderate difference and 0.8 as large difference.[22]

Assessment of publication bias was performed using funnel plots. The precision (ie, SE) of included studies was plotted against the difference in outcomes between groups (ie, obese or non-obese) and results visually analysed. In the absence of publication bias or small study bias, smaller studies should be evenly spread around the base of the funnel, while the larger studies should be concentrated around the top of the funnel. Plot asymmetry was also quantified using the Egger’s tests, for which a null hypothesis represents symmetry of plotted data.[23]

All meta-analyses were conducted using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software (Comprehensive Meta-Analysis, Englewood, NJ). For studies not reporting enough data to be included in the meta-analyses, the reported individual associations were tabulated and qualitatively presented in tables 2–5.

Results

Our search strategy identified 11 990 studies. After removing 381 duplicates, 11 221 studies were screened and excluded based on keywords, titles and abstracts. All the remaining 388 studies were written in English and were assessed by reading the full text, of which 326 were then excluded, yielding 62 studies to be included in the systematic review.[24] From these, 31 presented enough data to be included in at least one of the meta-analyses (figure 1).

Figure 1

Flow chart of search strategy and screening steps. Detailed steps of references screening process of results from database searches.

Included studies

Included studies reported data from 18 different countries: Australia,[40] Canada,[38] China,[84] Denmark,[60] England,[27] Finland,[49] France,[65] Germany,[55] Italy,[28] Japan,[83] Netherlands,[57] Norway,[45] Scotland,[25] South Korea,[56] Spain,[41] Switzerland,[61] UK[26] and USA.[24] Demographic data from each study are presented in table 1.

Table 1

Included studies and characteristics

Author, year Country Sample size Predictor Outcomes Surgery Follow-up duration Quality score
AbdelSalam et al, 2012[24] USA 210 Obesity Complications Total hip and knee arthroplasty 9 years Fair
Amin et al, 2006[26] UK 328 Obesity Complications; disability Total knee replacement 6, 18, 36 and 60 months Poor
Amin et al, 2006[25] Scotland 82 Obesity Complications Total knee replacement 38.5 months Poor
Andrew et al, 2008[27] England 1059 Obesity Complications; disability Total hip arthroplasty 3, 12, 24, 36 and 60 months Poor
Sadr Azodi et al, 2006[29] Italy 3309 Obesity Complications Total hip replacement 6–9 years Fair
Sadr Azodi et al, 2008[28] Italy 2106 Obesity Complications Total knee arthroplasty 2 years Fair
Baker et al, 2012[30] England 13 673 Obesity Complications; disability Total hip arthroplasty 6 months Fair
Belmont et al, 2014[31] USA 17 514 Obesity Complications Total knee arthroplasty 1 month Fair
Belmont et al, 2014[32] USA 15 321 Obesity Complications Total knee arthroplasty 1 month Fair
Bozic et al, 2012[34] USA 40 919 Obesity Complications Total hip arthroplasty 10 years Fair
Bozic et al, 2012[33] USA 83 011 Obesity Complications Total knee arthroplasty 10 years Fair
Chee et al, 2010[35] UK 106 Obesity Complications; disability Total hip arthroplasty 6, 18, 36 and 60 months Good
Chesney et al, 2008[36] Scotland 1278 Obesity Complications Total knee arthroplasty 6, 18 and 60 months Poor
Collins et al, 2012[37] UK 385 Obesity Complications; disability Total knee arthroplasty 6 and 18 months 3, 6 and 9 years Poor
Davis et al, 2011[38] Canada 931 Obesity Pain Total hip and knee arthroplasty 2 weeks 1, 3, 6 and 12 months Fair
Dewan et al, 2009[39] USA 220 Obesity Complications; disability Total knee arthroplasty 5.4 years Poor
Dowsey and Choong, 2008[85] Australia 1207 Obesity Complications Hip arthroplasty 1 year Poor
Dowsey et al, 2010[40] Australia 471 Obesity Complications; pain; disability Total hip arthroplasty 1 year Good
Font-Vizcarra et al, 2011[41] Spain 402 Obesity Complications Total hip arthroplasty 3 months Fair
Friedman et al, 2013[42] USA 12 355 Obesity Complications Hip and knee arthroplasty 2 months Poor
Gandhi et al, 2010[43] Canada 1224 Obesity Pain; disability Total hip arthroplasty 1 year Good
Hamoui et al, 2006[44] USA 63 Obesity Disability Total knee arthroplasty 11.3 years Poor
Heiberg et al, 2013[45] Norway 64 Obesity Pain Total hip arthroplasty 3 and 12 months Good
Ibrahim et al, 2005[46] UK 343 Obesity Complications Total hip arthroplasty 1 year Poor
Jackson et al, 2009[47] Australia 100 Obesity Complications; pain; disability Total knee replacement 9.2 years Poor
Jameson et al, 2014[48] UK 5535 Obesity Disability Hip arthroplasty 6 months Fair
Jämsen et al, 2010[50] Finland 2647 Obesity Complications Total knee arthroplasty 1 year Good
Jämsen et al, 2012[49] Finland 7181 Obesity Complications Total knee arthroplasty 1 year Good
Järvenpää et al, 2010[51] Finland 100 Obesity Complications; pain Total knee arthroplasty 3 months Poor
Järvenpää et al, 2012[52] Finland 52 Obesity Pain; disability Total knee arthroplasty 10.8 years Poor
Judge et al, 2010[53] UK 908 Obesity Disability Hip replacement 1 year Poor
Kandil et al, 2015[54] USA 15 770 Obesity Complications Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty 3 months Poor
Kessler and Käfer, 2007[55] Germany 67 Obesity Disability Total hip replacement 10 days and 3 months Good
Kim et al, 2011[56] South Korea 227 Obesity Complications Total knee arthroplasty 6 months Poor
Kort et al, 2007[57] Netherlands 46 Obesity Complications Unicompartmental knee replacement 2 years Poor
Ledford et al, 2014[58] USA 316 Obesity Complications Total hip and knee arthroplasty 2 months Poor
Liabaud et al, 2013[59] USA 273 Obesity Complications Total knee arthroplasty 3 and 12 months Poor
Liljensøe et al, 2013[60] Denmark 197 Obesity Pain; disability Total knee arthroplasty 4 years Poor
Lübbeke et al, 2007[62] Switzerland 2495 Obesity Complications; disability Total hip arthroplasty 5 years Good
Lübbeke et al, 2007[62] Switzerland 325 Obesity Disability Total hip arthroplasty 5 years Good
Mackie et al, 2015[63] UK 1821 Obesity Complications; pain; disability Total knee arthroplasty 1 year Poor
Madsen et al, 2014[64] USA 79 Obesity Complications Total knee arthroplasty 10 years Poor
Maisongrosse et al, 2015[65] France 502 Obesity Complications Total hip arthroplasty 58 months Poor
McLaughlin and Lee, 2006[66] USA 198 Obesity Complications Total hip replacement 14.5 years Poor
Michalka et al, 2012[67] UK 191 Obesity Complications; pain; disability Hip arthroplasty 6 weeks Poor
Murray et al, 2013[68] UK 2438 Obesity Complications; disability Unicompartmental knee replacement 1 year Poor
Naal et al, 2009[69] Switzerland 83 Obesity Pain; disability Total knee arthroplasty 6 weeks 3, 12 and 24 months Poor
Namba et al, 2005[70] USA 1813 Obesity Complications Total hip and knee arthroplasty 1 year Poor
Napier et al, 2014[71] UK 100 Obesity Complications; disability Total knee arthroplasty 3 and 12 months Poor
Naylor et al, 2008[72] Australia 99 Obesity Pain Total hip and knee arthroplasty 2, 6, 12, 26 and 52 weeks Good
Ollivier et al, 2012[73] France 210 Physical activity Disability Total hip arthroplasty 10 years Fair
Patel and Albrizio, 2008[74] UK 527 Obesity Complications Total knee replacement 4 weeks, 6 weeks and 1 year Good
Pietschmann et al, 2013[75] Germany 171 Physical activity Disability Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty 4.2 years Poor
Poortinga et al, 2014[76] Netherlands 658 Physical activity Disability Total hip and knee arthroplasty 1 year Good
Pulido et al, 2008[77] USA 9245 Obesity Complications Total hip and knee arthroplasty 1 year Fair
Rajgopal et al, 2008[78] Canada 760 Obesity Complications; disability Total knee arthroplasty 1 year Fair
Sechriest et al, 2007[79] USA 34 Physical activity Disability Total hip arthroplasty 5 years Poor
Aranda Villalobos et al, 2013[80] Spain 63 Obesity Pain; disability Total hip arthroplasty 3 months Good
Vogl et al, 2014[81] Germany 281 Obesity Disability Total hip arthroplasty 6 months Poor
Wang et al, 2010[82] USA 97 Obesity Disability Total hip arthroplasty 3 months 1 and 2 years Fair
Yasunaga et al, 2009[83] Japan 3577 Obesity Complications Total knee arthroplasty 5 months Fair
Zhang et al, 2012[84] China 714 Obesity Complications; disability Total hip arthroplasty 5 years Poor

Methodological quality

An overall quality assessment of the studies showed that 50% (n=31) of the included studies were considered as being of good methodological quality, while 1.5% (n=1) were considered fair and 48.5% (n=30) were considered of poor methodological quality. Of the screened studies, 56 (90%) had a follow-up rate of 80% or greater, and only half (n=32 studies) assessed outcomes via retrospective analysis of medical records, conducted adjustment for potential confounders (eg, age or sex) or investigated a representative sample of the population (online supplementary appendix 2).

10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017689.supp2Supplementary file 2

Assessment of publication bias

Inspection of funnel plots and results of Egger’s test confirmed no evidence of small study bias for those studies included in our pooled analyses, with P values ranging from 0.07 to 0.43 (online supplementary appendices 3–5).

The course of pain and disability over time

The fractional polynomial regression model resulted in a pooled mean disability score and SD before hip arthroplasty of 59.42 (SD: 10.94; n=5250). At 12 months after surgery it had decreased to a mean of 31.31 (SD: 24.28; n=3017) and a further reduction was observed at 120 months, when the mean disability score after hip arthroplasty was 24.32 (SD: 19.53; n=210). For knee OA, a pooled mean disability score of 56.88 (SD: 10.74; n=17 225) was observed for patients undergoing arthroplasty. At 12 months after surgery this value decreased to 21.80 (SD: 13.51; n=2898), while at the 110-month follow-up, the mean disability score was 14.18 (SD: 0.77; n=485). The pooled mean pain score before hip arthroplasty was 54.86 (SD: 10.20; n=2517), decreasing to 13.76 (SD: 1.32; n=1058) 3 months after surgery, 10.8 (SD: 1.69; n=1212) at 6 months and slightly increasing to 13.45 (SD: 7.87; n=2173) at the 12-month follow-up. For patients undergoing knee arthroplasty, the pooled pain score at baseline was 57.78 (SD: 9.28; n=2211), which decreased to 25.67 (SD: 6.61; n=1222) at 6 months, and 14.18 (SD: 0.77; n=1820) at the 12-month follow-up (figure 2).

Figure 2

Fractional polynomial analysis for hip (A) and knee (B) disability scores and hip (C) and knee (D) pain scores over time. (A) Graphic representation of results from fractional polynomial analysis of disability scores evolution over time after hip surgeries. (B) Graphic representation of results from fractional polynomial analysis of disability scores evolution over time after knee surgeries. (C) Graphic representation of results from fractional polynomial analysis of pain scores evolution over time after hip surgeries. (D) Graphic representation of results from fractional polynomial analysis of pain scores evolution over time after knee surgeries.

Association between obesity and postsurgical pain outcomes

Fourteen studies investigated the association between obesity and pain intensity in a total of 5687 patients after hip or knee arthroplasty. Seven of the 14 studies presented enough data to be pooled in a meta-analysis. There was an overall moderate and statistically significant difference in postsurgical pain between obese and non-obese patients after arthroplasty, with non-obese patients having better outcomes at short-term timepoint (SMD −0.44; 95% CI −0.68 to −0.20; P<0.001) and long-term timepoint (SMD −0.36; 95% CI −0.47 to −0.25; P<0.001). The pooled results for separate joints suggest non-obese participants have significantly less short-term (ie, less than 6 months) postsurgical knee pain, compared with obese participants (SMD −0.55; 95% CI −0.90 to −0.20; P=0.002) and postsurgical hip pain (SMD −0.34; 95% CI −0.67 to −0.02; P=0.039). Obesity was defined as having a BMI over 30 kg/m2. At long term (ie, 6 months or longer), there was a significant moderate difference between obese and non-obese groups in terms of knee pain (SMD −0.36; 95% CI −0.48 to −0.25; P<0.001); however, there was no difference between groups for hip pain (SMD −0.32; 95% CI −0.84 to 0.20; P=0.222) (figure 3). The results of individual studies not included in the pooled analyses are presented in table 2.

Figure 3

Pooled standardised mean difference (SMD) in pain at short term and long term after surgery between obese and non-obese patients. Results from meta-analysis of included studies presented as SMD of pain scores at short-term (<6 months) and long-term (≥6 months) follow-ups between non-obese and obese groups.

Table 2

Results of individual studies on the association between postsurgical pain and baseline obesity

Obesity versus pain
Author, year BMI: mean (SD) Measure Results
Knee
 Davis et al, 2011[38] NA HOOS/KOOS After adjusting for age, gender, joint and presence of back pain, an increased BMI was associated with worst pain outcomes (P<0.02) at long term after THA or TKA.
 Järvenpää et al, 2010[51] 29.7 (NA) VAS Increased BMI correlates significantly to VAS pain scale (r=0.236; P=0.018) at short term after TKA.
 Liljensøe et al, 2013[60] 30 (NA) SF-36 BMI was not associated with SF-36 pain scale (OR=0.96; P=0.1) at long term after TKA.
 Mackie et al, 2015[63] NA WOMAC Increased BMI was associated with less improvement in WOMAC pain scale (t=−2.64; P<0.001) at long term after TKA.
Hip
 Dowsey et al, 2010[40] 29.55 (5.64)* Harris Hip Score BMI was not associated with pain reduction (P=0.71) at long term after THA.
 Heiberg et al, 2013[45] 27 (6.27)* HOOS BMI was not associated with HOOS pain scale (P>0.05) at short term after THA.

*Calculated following guidelines from Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.

BMI, body mass index; HOOS, Hip Dysfunction and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score; KOOS, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score; NA, none available; SF-36, Short Form 36 Questionnaire; THA, total hip arthroplasty; TKA, total knee arthroplasty; VAS, visual analogue scale; WOMAC, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index.

Association between obesity and postsurgical disability outcomes

The impact of obesity on disability was investigated by 32 studies which compared postsurgery disability scores in 35 286 obese and non-obese participants. Of these, 19 studies presented complete data that were included in the pooled analysis. At short term, no statistically significant difference in overall disability between obese and non-obese participants was observed (SMD −0.16; 95% CI −0.42 to 0.10; P=0.231). Likewise, no statistically significant difference was observed between obese and non-obese participants for postsurgical knee or hip disability (SMD −0.42; 95% CI −1.0 to 0.16; P=0.159 and SMD −0.09; 95% CI −0.39 to 0.20; P=0.527, respectively).

At long-term follow-up, however, there was an overall moderate and statistically significant difference in postsurgical disability between obese and non-obese patients regardless of the joint affected (SMD −0.32; 95% CI −0.37 to −0.28; P<0.001). That difference was still statistically significant and of moderate magnitude when knee and hip joints were analysed separately (SMD −0.32; 95% CI −0.37 to −0.27; P<0.001 and SMD −0.35; 95% CI −0.44 to −0.26; P<0.001, respectively, and favouring non-obese patients) (figure 4). The results of individual studies not included in the pooled analyses are presented in table 3.

Figure 4

Pooled standardised mean difference (SMD) in disability at short term and long term after surgery between obese and non-obese patients. Results from meta-analysis of included studies presented as SMD of disability scores at short-term (<6 months) and long-term (≥6 months) follow-ups between non-obese and obese groups.

Table 3

Results of individual studies on the association between postsurgical disability and baseline obesity

Obesity versus disability
Author, year BMI: mean (SD) Measure Results
Knee
 Davis et al, 2011[38] NA WOMAC/KOOS After adjusting for age, gender, joint and presence of back pain, an increased BMI was associated with worst outcomes (P<0.02) at long term after TKA or THA.
 Dewan et al, 2009[39] 31 (0.5) Knee Society Score BMI was not associated with worst knee function (P>0.119) at long term after TKA.
 Hamoui et al, 2006[44] 27.93 (7.1)* Knee Society Score No significant association between BMI and KSS (P>0.05) was found at long term after TKA.
 Kort et al, 2007[57] NA WOMAC Obesity was not related to disability score (P>0.05) at long term after TKA.
 Liljensøe et al, 2013[60] 30 (NA) Knee Society Score Increased BMI was associated with worst knee scores (OR 0.95; 95% CI 0.9 to 1.0; P=0.04) at long term after TKA. These results did not change significantly after adjusting for age, sex, primary disease and surgical approach (OR 0.94; 95% CI 0.90 to 0.99; P=0.02).
 Mackie et al, 2015[63] NA WOMAC Increased BMI was associated with less improvement in disability scores (WOMAC t=−2.13; P=0.033) at long term after TKA.
 Rajgopal et al, 2008[78] 32.3 (6.58)* WOMAC The morbidly obese group (BMI≥40, n=69) does not present a statistically significant difference in improvement in WOMAC score (P=0.669) when compared with other BMI groups at long term after TKA.
Hip
 Heiberg et al, 2013[45] 27 (6.27)* HHS Increased BMI was associated with lower HHS (P<0.05) at short term after THA.
 Jameson et al, 2014[48] NA OHS Increased BMI was not associated with changes in OHS (P>0.05) at short term after THA.
 Lübbeke et al, 2007[62] 26.4 (4.3) HHS Increased BMI was associated with lower hip score (r=−0.4, 95% CI −0.8 to −0.1) at long term after THA.
 McLaughlin and Lee, 2006[66] 26 (NA) HHS The obese group (BMI≥30; n=95) did not present any statistically significant difference from the non-obese group (BMI<30, n=103) with regard to clinical outcomes assessed by HHS (P>0.05) at long term after THA.
 Vogl et al, 2014[81] 26.9 (4.9) WOMAC Obesity was associated with changes in WOMAC score (P<0.05) at short term after THA.
 Wang et al, 2010[82] 29.14 (6.23) WOMAC Increased BMI was not associated with WOMAC score (P=0.114) at long term after THA.

*Calculated following guidelines from Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.

BMI, body mass index; HHS, Harris Hip Score; KOOS, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score; KSS, Knee Society Score; NA, none available; OHS, Oxford Hip Score; r, coefficient of association; SF-36, Short Form 36 Questionnaire; THA, total hip arthroplasty; TKA, total knee arthroplasty; WOMAC, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index.

Association between obesity and postsurgical complications

The association between obesity and complications after joint arthroplasty was assessed by 40 studies including a total of 245 433 patients who underwent knee or hip arthroplasty. Of these, 17 presented enough data and were included in the meta-analyses.

The pooled results suggest that at short-term follow-up, non-obese participants are less likely to have postsurgical deep vein thrombosis (DVT) (OR 0.49; 95% CI 0.26 to 0.91; P=0.024) when compared with obese participants (figure 5). A total of 13 studies were pooled (n=22 782) showing non-obese patients are also less likely to present any long-term (ie, ≥6 months) dislocation (OR 0.50; 95% CI 0.31 to 0.80; P=0.003) and DVT (OR 0.58; 95% CI 0.36 to 0.94; P=0.043). A non-significant difference between groups was observed between non-obese and obese participants for long-term revision surgery (OR 0.66; 95% CI 0.34 to 1.28; P=0.217) (figure 5).

Figure 5

Pooled association between complications and obesity at short-term and long-term follow-ups. Results from meta-analysis of included studies presented as incidence of complications at short-term (<6 months) and long-term (≥6 months) follow-ups between non-obese and obese groups. DVT, deep vein thrombosis.

The pooled analysis on short-term postsurgical infection for hip replacement showed that non-obese patients are less likely to develop infections compared with obese participants (OR 0.33; 95% CI 0.19 to 0.59; P<0.001) (figure 6). For knee replacement, separate analyses were conducted for studies comparing obese with non-obese participants and those comparing morbidly obese with non-obese participants (figure 7). The results suggest that non-obese patients are less likely to develop infections when compared with morbidly obese patients (OR 0.43; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.78; P=0.006). No association with postsurgical infection was observed when obese and non-obese participants were compared.

Figure 6

Pooled association between postsurgical infections and obesity for hip surgery. Results from meta-analysis of included studies presented as incidence of infections after hip surgery between non-obese and obese groups.

Figure 7

Pooled association of postsurgical infections for knee surgery. Results from meta-analysis of included studies presented as incidence of infections after hip surgery comparing the non-obese group with obese group and the non-obese group with morbidly obese group.

The overall pooled analysis for incidence of complications suggests that non-obese participants are less likely to present any postsurgical complication at the long-term follow-up (OR 0.56; 95% CI 0.42 to 0.75; P<0.001, respectively). The results of individual studies not included in the pooled analyses are presented in table 4.

Table 4

Results of individual studies investigating the association between obesity and postsurgical complications

Obesity versus complications
Author, year BMI: mean (SD) Measure Results
Ollivier et al, 2012[73] 25.13 (3.14)* HHS/HOOS
Pietschmann et al, 2013[75] 28.4 (4.62)* OKS At long term, physical activities were not related to complications (P<0.01). Physically active patients had less pain and better OKS scores after UKA.
Poortinga et al, 2014[76] 28.7 (4.9) WOMAC At long term, physical activity was not associated with WOMAC score (P>0.05) after THA or TKA.
Sechriest et al, 2007[79] 28.1 (8.3) UCLA At long term increased BMI was not correlated to UCLA physical activity score (r=−0.07; P=0.67) after TKA.

*Calculated following guidelines from Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.

BMI, body mass index; HHS, Harris Hip Score; HOOS, Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score; OKS, Oxford Knee Score; r, coefficient of association; THA, total hip arthroplasty; TKA, total knee arthroplasty; UCLA, University of California, Los Angeles Activity Questionnaire; UKA, unicompartmental knee arthroplasty; WOMAC, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index.

Association between physical activity participation and disability

The association between physical activity and disability was investigated by four studies[73] or 1033 participants undergoing hip or knee arthroplasty. Included studies have not provided enough data to be pooled. The overall results from these four papers suggest that participants who practise more physical activity before the surgeries were more likely to experience less pain after either hip or knee surgery; however, the evidence regarding disability scores is still unclear with studies presenting contradictory results. Table 5 presents the results of the individual studies.

Table 5

Individual results on the association between physical activity and pain or disability

Physical activity versus disability
Author, year BMI: mean (SD) Measure Results
Ollivier et al, 2012[73] 25.13 (3.14)* HHS/HOOS At long term, high-impact sports were associated with better HHS (P<0.001) and HOOS (P<0.05) after THA.
Pietschmann et al, 2013[75] 28.4 (4.62)* OKS/KSS/WOMAC At long term, physical activities were not related to complications. Physically active patients had less pain and better OKS, KSS and WOMAC scores (P<0.05) after UKA.
Poortinga et al, 2014[76] 28.7 (4.9) WOMAC At long term, physical activity was not associated with WOMAC score (P>0.05) after THA or TKA.
Sechriest et al, 2007[79] 28.1 (8.3) UCLA At long term increased BMI was not correlated to UCLA physical activity score (r=−0.07; P=0.67) after TKA.

*Calculated following guidelines from Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.

BMI, body mass index; HHS, Harris Hip Score; HOOS, Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score; KSS, Knee Society Score; OKS, Oxford Knee Score; r, coefficient of association; THA, total hip arthroplasty; TKA, total knee arthroplasty; UCLA, University of California, Los Angeles Activity Questionnaire; UKA, unicompartmental knee arthroplasty; WOMAC, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index.

Discussion

Statement of principal findings

Our results suggest that following surgery, non-obese patients experience further reductions in both pain and disability after knee and hip arthroplasty when compared with obese patients, where obesity has been defined as having a BMI of 30 kg/m2 or over. These differences seemed to be more accentuated for knee pain outcomes following arthroplasty than for hip pain or disability outcomes. Non-obese participants also experienced significantly less postsurgical complications, including dislocation, DVT and infection especially following hip arthroplasty. Our analyses also demonstrate that obesity is a reliable predictor of complications after THA and TKA, in the short term after the procedure and at longer follow-ups. The evidence regarding preoperative physical activity remains unclear due to conflicting results of included studies, especially in terms of postoperative disability. The four included cohort studies, however, suggest that physical activity participation is associated with better pain outcomes following surgery.

Our results from the fractional polynomial analysis have also shown that all patients experienced an improvement in pain and disability after surgery. We also highlight that although non-obese patients experience further improvements in pain and disability compared with obese participants, both groups improved significantly following surgery as depicted in figure 2. The observed decrease in pain from baseline was approximately 70% at 6 months and 75% at 12 months, with decreases in disability of 55% at 12 months and 67% at 120 months. The interpretation of the postsurgical course of pain and disability, however, needs to be taken in the context of the inclusion criteria we have used in our review, given we have only included data from cohort studies that have assessed the role of obesity or physical activity participation on surgical outcomes.

Strengths and weaknesses in relation to other studies, discussing particularly any differences in results

Our meta-analysis results regarding the association between obesity and postsurgical complications found that obese patients present higher complication rates than non-obese patients. These results are consistent with the findings of previous systematic reviews of Hofstede et al,[14] Samson et al[15] and Liu et al.[16] Our meta-analysis results regarding the association between obesity and postsurgery disability also agreed with the findings of Buirs et al[13] and Samson et al,[15] which found that obesity (defined as having BMI over 30 kg/m2) was associated with worst postsurgical functional score. The only previous review which has performed a meta-analysis on the association between obesity and postarthroplasty pain or disability limited its inclusion criteria to hip joint.[16] That review included a total of 15 studies in their meta-analysis and found that obesity increases the risk of postsurgical complications (RR 1.68; 95% CI 1.23 to 2.30; P=0.0004) and is associated with worse disability scores following surgery (MD −2.75; 95% CI −4.77 to −0.6; P=0.07). Our study has included 33 cohorts of hip arthroplasty participants in the qualitative analysis, 16 in the meta-analyses, and confirms past findings that obesity is associated with worse outcomes in terms of disability and complications, and pain at both short-term and long-term periods following surgery. Hofstede et al[14] have also conducted a systematic review of the literature on preoperative predictors of surgical outcomes after hip replacement in patients with OA. Although those authors included 35 studies, only five studies investigated the effect of obesity on postsurgical pain, disability and quality of life.[14] No meta-analysis was performed.

Implications for clinicians or policymakers

Our results have a direct impact on clinical practice as the results demonstrate that obese patients have a higher risk of complications and a poorer prognosis in terms of pain and disability postoperatively when compared with non-obese patients. These results also allude to the importance of identifying and implementing effective presurgical rehabilitation and weight loss approaches to optimise postsurgical outcomes and minimise harm to the patient. The importance of weight loss has been highlighted in international clinical guidelines on non-surgical management of knee OA, for instance, given the pain and disability reductions observed following weight loss regimes.[86] Past research also suggests there is a dose–response relationship between weight loss and clinical outcome improvement. A recent completer-type analysis of 1383 participants with knee OA showed that a weight loss of 7.7% of body weight or more is associated with clinically important changes in pain and disability, as measured using the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS).[87] This evidence reinforces the importance of presurgical weight loss programmes and strategies in order to optimise postsurgical recovery.

Strengths and weaknesses of the study

The current review has included 62 cohort studies and a total of 256 481 participants and is the most comprehensive systematic review on the topic to date. It is also the first review to use a quantitative approach to synthesise the results of pain, disability and surgical complications between non-obese and obese participants and consider the physical activity level of participants who underwent hip or knee arthroplasty due to OA. Our review has some limitations. The methodological quality of the included studies was in general poor. The most common methodological flaw among included cohorts was not controlling for confounding factors age, sex or BMI (32 studies, 51%) followed by not using a representative sample (n=30 studies, 48%). Moreover, we have observed great variability of follow-up duration across studies, ranging from 2 weeks to 11 years. We have used a cut-off of 6 months to define short-term follow-up (ie, <6 months) or long-term follow-up (ie, ≥6 months), but acknowledge that within each follow-up category there was substantial variation in the duration of follow-up across studies.

Between-study heterogeneity has also been observed in some of the pooled analysis for obesity presented in this review. A potential source of between-study heterogeneity includes the variability in the definition of obesity categories across studies. Although obesity was assessed using BMI scores in all studies, some studies have used only two obesity groups (ie, obese or non-obese) while others used several categories including underweight, normal or overweight, obese and morbidly obese. These needed to be combined for some of our pooled analyses.

Another potential source of between-study heterogeneity across is the difference in surgical procedures used across studies. For instance, in the pooled analysis of risk of postsurgical DVT and obesity, while Kandil et al[54] performed unicompartmental knee arthroplasties, Friedman et al[42] performed total arthroplasties on both hip and knee joints. That discrepancy might explain the different results reported by these two studies (figure 5). Likewise, the mean physical activity load reported by the included studies varied substantially, ranging from low to high frequency of participation in low and high-impact activities. This should be taken into consideration when interpreting the physical activity results.

Conclusion

Our results have shown that obese patients undergoing hip or knee arthroplasty due to OA have worse outcomes in terms of pain and complications when compared with non-obese patients, with differences more accentuated for patients with knee OA. Likewise, obese patients will have worse surgical outcomes in terms of disability, but only at long-term follow-ups. It is still unclear whether presurgical physical activity participation has an impact on surgical outcomes. However, we acknowledge that the health benefits of physical activity participation for patients with knee and hip OA are multiple and reach beyond those considered in this review.

10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017689.supp3Supplementary file 3

10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017689.supp4Supplementary file 4

10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017689.supp5Supplementary file 5

Supplementary Material

Reviewer comments

Author's manuscript

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the participation of Ms Giovana Visentini in the independent methodological quality assessment of the included studies.

References

  1. T NeogiThe epidemiology and impact of pain in osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage2013;21:1145–53. 10.1016/j.joca.2013.03.01823973124
  2. KM Flegal, MD Carroll, CL Ogden, et alPrevalence and trends in obesity among US adults, 1999-2008. JAMA2010;303:23510.1001/jama.2009.201420071471
  3. B Sharif, J Kopec, N Bansback, et alProjecting the direct cost burden of osteoarthritis in Canada using a microsimulation model. Osteoarthritis Cartilage2015;23:1654–63. 10.1016/j.joca.2015.05.02926050868
  4. A Chen, C Gupte, K Akhtar, et alThe Global Economic Cost of Osteoarthritis: How the UK Compares. Arthritis2012;2012:6–6. 10.1155/2012/698709
  5. AM Wood, TM Brock, K Heil, et alA Review on the Management of Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis. Int J Chronic Dis2013;2013:1–10. 10.1155/2013/845015
  6. JN Katz, BE Earp, AH GomollSurgical management of osteoarthritis. Arthritis Care Res2010;62:1220–8. 10.1002/acr.20231
  7. VL Johnson, DJ HunterThe epidemiology of osteoarthritis. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol2014;28:5–15. 10.1016/j.berh.2014.01.00424792942
  8. IM Lee, EJ Shiroma, F Lobelo, et alEffect of physical inactivity on major non-communicable diseases worldwide: an analysis of burden of disease and life expectancy. Lancet2012;380:219–29. 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61031-922818936
  9. JA Zeni, L Snyder-MacklerMost patients gain weight in the 2 years after total knee arthroplasty: comparison to a healthy control group. Osteoarthritis Cartilage2010;18:510–4. 10.1016/j.joca.2009.12.00520060949
  10. M Núñez, L Lozano, E Núñez, et alTotal knee replacement and health-related quality of life: factors influencing long-term outcomes. Arthritis Rheum2009;61:1062–9. 10.1002/art.2464419644900
  11. AK Amin, JD Sales, IJ BrenkelObesity and total knee and hip replacement. Curr Orthop2006;20:216–21. 10.1016/j.cuor.2006.02.015
  12. R Wagenmakers, M Stevens, JW Groothoff, et alPhysical activity behavior of patients 1 year after primary total hip arthroplasty: a prospective multicenter cohort study. Phys Ther2011;91:373–80. 10.2522/ptj.2010014821233307
  13. LD Buirs, LW Van Beers, VA Scholtes, et alPredictors of physical functioning after total hip arthroplasty: a systematic review. BMJ Open2016;6:e01072510.1136/bmjopen-2015-010725
  14. SN Hofstede, MG Gademan, TP Vliet Vlieland, et alPreoperative predictors for outcomes after total hip replacement in patients with osteoarthritis: a systematic review. BMC Musculoskelet Disord2016;17:21210.1186/s12891-016-1070-327184266
  15. AJ Samson, GE Mercer, DG CampbellTotal knee replacement in the morbidly obese: a literature review. ANZ J Surg2010;80:595–9. 10.1111/j.1445-2197.2010.05396.x20840400
  16. W Liu, T Wahafu, M Cheng, et alThe influence of obesity on primary total hip arthroplasty outcomes: a meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Orthop Traumatol Surg Res2015;101:289–96. 10.1016/j.otsr.2015.01.01125817907
  17. A Liberati, DG Altman, J Tetzlaff, et alThe PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ2009;339:b270010.1136/bmj.b270019622552
  18. J Higgins, S GreenCochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011. 2011: The Cochrane Collaborationhttp://handbook.cochrane.org
  19. G Wells, B Shea, D O’Connell, et alThe Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp
  20. P Royston, W SauerbreiFractional polynomials for one variable. multivariable model-Building. US: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2008.
  21. JP Higgins, SG Thompson, JJ Deeks, et alMeasuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ2003;327:557–60. 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.55712958120
  22. J CohenStatistical power analysis of the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press, 1988.
  23. P SedgwickMeta-analyses: how to read a funnel plot. BMJ2013;346:f134210.1136/bmj.f1342
  24. H AbdelSalam, C Restrepo, TD Tarity, et alPredictors of intensive care unit admission after total joint arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty2012;27:720–5. 10.1016/j.arth.2011.09.02722088781
  25. AK Amin, RA Clayton, JT Patton, et alTotal knee replacement in morbidly obese patients. Results of a prospective, matched study. J Bone Joint Surg Br2006;88:1321–6. 10.1302/0301-620X.88B10.1769717012421
  26. AK Amin, JT Patton, RE Cook, et alDoes obesity influence the clinical outcome at five years following total knee replacement for osteoarthritis?J Bone Joint Surg Br2006;88:335–40. 10.1302/0301-620X.88B3.1648816498007
  27. JG Andrew, J Palan, HV Kurup, et alObesity in total hip replacement. Bone Joint J2008;90-B:424–9. 10.1302/0301-620X.90B4.20522
  28. O Sadr Azodi, J Adami, D Lindström, et alHigh body mass index is associated with increased risk of implant dislocation following primary total hip replacement: 2,106 patients followed for up to 8 years. Acta Orthop2008;79:141–7. 10.1080/1745367071001489718283586
  29. O Sadr Azodi, R Bellocco, K Eriksson, et alThe impact of tobacco use and body mass index on the length of stay in hospital and the risk of post-operative complications among patients undergoing total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br2006;88:1316–20. 10.1302/0301-620X.88B10.1795717012420
  30. P Baker, T Petheram, S Jameson, et alThe association between body mass index and the outcomes of total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am2012;94:1501–8. 10.2106/JBJS.K.0118022992819
  31. PJ Belmont, GP Goodman, W Hamilton, et alMorbidity and mortality in the thirty-day period following total hip arthroplasty: risk factors and incidence. J Arthroplasty2014;29:2025–30. 10.1016/j.arth.2014.05.01524973000
  32. PJ Belmont, GP Goodman, BR Waterman, et alThirty-day postoperative complications and mortality following total knee arthroplasty. J Bone Joint Surg Am2014; 96:20–6. 10.2106/JBJS.M.0001824382720
  33. KJ Bozic, E Lau, S Kurtz, et alPatient-related risk factors for postoperative mortality and periprosthetic joint infection in medicare patients undergoing TKA. Clin Orthop Relat Res2012;470:130–7. 10.1007/s11999-011-2043-321874391
  34. KJ Bozic, E Lau, S Kurtz, et alPatient-related risk factors for periprosthetic joint infection and postoperative mortality following total hip arthroplasty in medicare patients. J Bone Joint Surg Am2012;94:794–800. 10.2106/JBJS.K.0007222552668
  35. YH Chee, KH Teoh, BM Sabnis, et alTotal hip replacement in morbidly obese patients with osteoarthritis: results of a prospectively matched study. J Bone Joint Surg Br2010;92:1066–71. 10.1302/0301-620X.92B8.2276420675748
  36. D Chesney, J Sales, R Elton, et alInfection after knee arthroplasty a prospective study of 1509 cases. J Arthroplasty2008;23:355–9. 10.1016/j.arth.2007.05.05218358372
  37. RA Collins, PJ Walmsley, AK Amin, et alDoes obesity influence clinical outcome at nine years following total knee replacement?J Bone Joint Surg Br2012;94:1351–5. 10.1302/0301-620X.94B10.2889423015559
  38. AM Davis, AV Perruccio, S Ibrahim, et alThe trajectory of recovery and the inter-relationships of symptoms, activity and participation in the first year following total hip and knee replacement. Osteoarthritis Cartilage2011;19:1413–21. 10.1016/j.joca.2011.08.00721889596
  39. A Dewan, R Bertolusso, A Karastinos, et alImplant durability and knee function after total knee arthroplasty in the morbidly obese patient. J Arthroplasty2009;24(Suppl):89–94. 10.1016/j.arth.2009.04.02419576727
  40. MM Dowsey, D Liew, JD Stoney, et alThe impact of obesity on weight change and outcomes at 12 months in patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty. Med J Aust2010;193:17–21.20618108
  41. L Font-Vizcarra, E Tornero, G Bori, et alRelationship between intraoperative cultures during hip arthroplasty, obesity, and the risk of early prosthetic joint infection: a prospective study of 428 patients. Int J Artif Organs2011;34:870–5. 10.5301/ijao.500002622094568
  42. RJ Friedman, S Hess, SD Berkowitz, et alComplication rates after hip or knee arthroplasty in morbidly obese patients. Clin Orthop Relat Res2013;471:3358–66. 10.1007/s11999-013-3049-923670675
  43. R Gandhi, F Razak, JR Davey, et alMetabolic syndrome and the functional outcomes of hip and knee arthroplasty. J Rheumatol2010;37:1917–22. 10.3899/jrheum.09124220634242
  44. N Hamoui, S Kantor, K Vince, et alLong-term outcome of total knee replacement: does obesity matter?Obes Surg2006;16:35–8. 10.1381/09608920677522214016417755
  45. KE Heiberg, A Ekeland, V Bruun-Olsen, et alRecovery and prediction of physical functioning outcomes during the first year after total hip arthroplasty. Arch Phys Med Rehabil2013;94:1352–9. 10.1016/j.apmr.2013.01.01723385111
  46. T Ibrahim, S Hobson, A Beiri, et alNo influence of body mass index on early outcome following total hip arthroplasty. Int Orthop2005;29:359–61. 10.1007/s00264-005-0012-816184403
  47. MP Jackson, SA Sexton, WL Walter, et alThe impact of obesity on the mid-term outcome of cementless total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg Br2009;91:1044–8. 10.1302/0301-620X.91B8.2212919651831
  48. SS Jameson, JM Mason, PN Baker, et alThe impact of body mass index on patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) and complications following primary hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty2014;29:1889–98. 10.1016/j.arth.2014.05.01924996585
  49. E Jämsen, P Nevalainen, A Eskelinen, et alObesity, diabetes, and preoperative hyperglycemia as predictors of periprosthetic joint infection: a single-center analysis of 7181 primary hip and knee replacements for osteoarthritis. J Bone Joint Surg Am2012;94:e101.110.2106/JBJS.J.0193522810408
  50. E Jämsen, M Varonen, H Huhtala, et alIncidence of prosthetic joint infections after primary knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty2010;25:87–92. 10.1016/j.arth.2008.10.013
  51. J Järvenpää, J Kettunen, H Kröger, et alObesity may impair the early outcome of total knee arthroplasty a prospective study of 100 patients. Scandinavian Journal of Surgery2010;99:45–9. 10.1177/14574969100990011020501358
  52. J Järvenpää, J Kettunen, T Soininvaara, et alObesity has a negative impact on clinical outcome after total knee arthroplasty. Scand J Surg2012;101:198–203. 10.1177/14574969121010031022968244
  53. A Judge, C Cooper, S Williams, et alPatient-reported outcomes one year after primary hip replacement in a European Collaborative Cohort. Arthritis Care Res2010;62:480–8. 10.1002/acr.20038
  54. A Kandil, BC Werner, WF Gwathmey, et alObesity, morbid obesity and their related medical comorbidities are associated with increased complications and revision rates after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty2015;30:456–60. 10.1016/j.arth.2014.10.01625453628
  55. S Kessler, W KäferOverweight and obesity: two predictors for worse early outcome in total hip replacement?Obesity2007;15:2840–5. 10.1038/oby.2007.33718070776
  56. KI Kim, KY Cho, W Jin, et alRecent Korean perspective of deep vein thrombosis after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty2011;26:1112–6. 10.1016/j.arth.2011.02.02121474272
  57. NP Kort, JJ van Raay, JJ van HornThe Oxford phase III unicompartmental knee replacement in patients less than 60 years of age. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc2007;15:356–60. 10.1007/s00167-006-0204-917028868
  58. CK Ledford, RA Ruberte Thiele, JS Appleton, et alPercent body fat more associated with perioperative risks after total joint arthroplasty than body mass index. J Arthroplasty2014;29(Suppl):150–4. 10.1016/j.arth.2013.12.03624973929
  59. B Liabaud, DA Patrick, JA GellerHigher body mass index leads to longer operative time in total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty2013;28:563–5. 10.1016/j.arth.2012.07.03723141864
  60. A Liljensøe, JO Lauersen, K Søballe, et alOverweight preoperatively impairs clinical outcome after knee arthroplasty. Acta Orthop2013;84:392–7. 10.3109/17453674.2013.79941923992141
  61. A Lübbeke, JN Katz, TV Perneger, et alPrimary and revision hip arthroplasty: 5-year outcomes and influence of age and comorbidity. J Rheumatol200734:394–400.17143967
  62. A Lübbeke, R Stern, G Garavaglia, et alDifferences in outcomes of obese women and men undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty. Arthritis Rheum2007;57:327–34. 10.1002/art.2254217330288
  63. A Mackie, K Muthumayandi, M Shirley, et alAssociation between body mass index change and outcome in the first year after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty2015;30:206–9. 10.1016/j.arth.2014.09.00325311165
  64. AA Madsen, BC Taylor, C Dimitris, et alSafety of bilateral total knee arthroplasty in morbidly obese patients. Orthopedics2014;37:e252–9. 10.3928/01477447-20140225-5724762152
  65. P Maisongrosse, B Lepage, E Cavaignac, et alObesity is no longer a risk factor for dislocation after total hip arthroplasty with a double-mobility cup. Int Orthop2015;3910.1007/s00264-014-2612-7
  66. JR McLaughlin, KR LeeThe outcome of total hip replacement in obese and non-obese patients at 10- to 18-years. J Bone Joint Surg Br2006;88:1286–92. 10.1302/0301-620X.88B10.1766017012415
  67. PK Michalka, RJ Khan, MC Scaddan, et alThe influence of obesity on early outcomes in primary hip arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty2012;27:391–6. 10.1016/j.arth.2011.05.01221802250
  68. DW Murray, H Pandit, JS Weston-Simons, et alDoes body mass index affect the outcome of unicompartmental knee replacement?Knee2013;20:461–5. 10.1016/j.knee.2012.09.01723110877
  69. FD Naal, C Neuerburg, GM Salzmann, et alAssociation of body mass index and clinical outcome 2 years after unicompartmental knee arthroplasty. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg2009;129:463–8. 10.1007/s00402-008-0633-718414881
  70. RS Namba, L Paxton, DC Fithian, et alObesity and perioperative morbidity in total hip and total knee arthroplasty patients. J Arthroplasty2005;20(Suppl 3):46–50. 10.1016/j.arth.2005.04.02316214002
  71. RJ Napier, S O’Brien, D Bennett, et alIntra-operative and short term outcome of total knee arthroplasty in morbidly obese patients. Knee2014;21:784–8. 10.1016/j.knee.2014.02.01624637067
  72. JM Naylor, AR Harmer, RC HeardSevere other joint disease and obesity independently influence recovery after joint replacement surgery: an observational study. Aust J Physiother2008;54:57–64. 10.1016/S0004-9514(08)70067-918298360
  73. M Ollivier, S Frey, S Parratte, et alDoes impact sport activity influence total hip arthroplasty durability?Clin Orthop Relat Res2012;470:3060–6. 10.1007/s11999-012-2362-z22535588
  74. AD Patel, M AlbrizioRelationship of body mass index to early complications in knee replacement surgery. Arch Orthop Trauma Surg2008;128:5–9. 10.1007/s00402-007-0364-117522874
  75. MF Pietschmann, L Wohlleb, P Weber, et alSports activities after medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty Oxford III-what can we expect?Int Orthop2013;37:31–7. 10.1007/s00264-012-1710-723180099
  76. S Poortinga, I van den Akker-Scheek, SK Bulstra, et alPreoperative physical activity level has no relationship to the degree of recovery one year after primary total hip or knee arthroplasty: a cohort study. PLoS One2014;9:e11555910.1371/journal.pone.011555925535744
  77. L Pulido, E Ghanem, A Joshi, et alPeriprosthetic joint infection: the incidence, timing, and predisposing factors. Clin Orthop Relat Res2008;466:1710–5. 10.1007/s11999-008-0209-418421542
  78. V Rajgopal, RB Bourne, BM Chesworth, et alThe impact of morbid obesity on patient outcomes after total knee arthroplasty. J Arthroplasty2008;23:795–800. 10.1016/j.arth.2007.08.00518534516
  79. VF Sechriest, RF Kyle, DJ Marek, et alActivity level in young patients with primary total hip arthroplasty: a 5-year minimum follow-up. J Arthroplasty2007;22:39–47. 10.1016/j.arth.2006.02.083
  80. P Aranda Villalobos, JL Navarro-Espigares, E Hernández-Torres, et alBody mass index as predictor of health-related quality-of-life changes after total hip arthroplasty: a cross-over study. J Arthroplasty2013;28:666–70. 10.1016/j.arth.2012.07.01123142451
  81. M Vogl, R Wilkesmann, C Lausmann, et alThe impact of preoperative patient characteristics on health states after total hip replacement and related satisfaction thresholds: a cohort study. Health Qual Life Outcomes2014;12:10810.1186/s12955-014-0108-125273621
  82. W Wang, TA Morrison, JA Geller, et alPredicting short-term outcome of primary total hip arthroplasty:a prospective multivariate regression analysis of 12 independent factors. J Arthroplasty2010;25:858–64. 10.1016/j.arth.2009.06.01119679437
  83. H Yasunaga, K Tsuchiya, Y Matsuyama, et alAnalysis of factors affecting operating time, postoperative complications, and length of stay for total knee arthroplasty: nationwide web-based survey. J Orthop Sci2009;14:10–16. 10.1007/s00776-008-1294-719214682
  84. ZJ Zhang, XY Zhao, Y Kang, et alThe influence of body mass index on life quality and clinical improvement after total hip arthroplasty. J Orthop Sci2012;17:219–25. 10.1007/s00776-012-0197-922323012
  85. MM Dowsey, PF ChoongObesity is a major risk factor for prosthetic infection after primary hip arthroplasty. Clin Orthop Relat Res2008;466:153–8. 10.1007/s11999-007-0016-318196388
  86. TE McAlindon, RR Bannuru, MC Sullivan, et alOARSI guidelines for the non-surgical management of knee osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage2014;22:363–88. 10.1016/j.joca.2014.01.00324462672
  87. I Atukorala, J Makovey, L Lawler, et alIs there a dose-response relationship between weight loss and symptom improvement in persons with knee osteoarthritis?Arthritis Care Res2016;68:1106–14. 10.1002/acr.22805
The underlying source XML for this text is taken from https://www.ebi.ac.uk/europepmc/webservices/rest/PMC5855486/fullTextXML. The license for the article is Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial. The main subject has been identified as obesity.