Abstract
Over five years, 85 low-cost primary total arthroplasties (Eortopal Bulteamex) were done at a referral hospital. These were followed up for a mean of 48 months (minimum of 18 months). There were 11 revisions (13%), with four (4.7%) necessary for aseptic loosening, two (2.3%) for recurrent dislocations, four (4.7%) for sepsis and one (1.3%) for a periprosthetic fracture.
When these results were compared with the Trent Regional Arthroplasty Register, the revision rate was noted to be four times higher than in the Trent study, with aseptic revisions being twice as high and infection rates three times higher. Dislocation rates were half those in the Trent study. We concluded that our lower dislocation rate probably reflected the quality of our surgery. Our higher sepsis rate was probably related to the hospital environment, and the high aseptic loosening rate due to the quality of the ‘low-cost’ prosthesis.
We conclude that to be cost-efficient, ‘low-cost’ pros-theses must be of good quality and that the hospital environment must be optimal. This study highlights the need for an Arthroplasty Register in South Africa.
The abstracts were prepared by Professor M. B. E. Sweet. Correspondence should be addressed to him at PO Box 47363, Parklands, Johannesburg 2121, South Africa.
