Abstract
Aims: In order to reduce the waiting list, the Spanish National Institute of Health sent a large number of patients from Badajoz to other private hospitals, from October 1996 to December 2000, to undergo knee replacement. No medium or long-term follow-up was arranged. Our aims were to compare revision operations in those patients with the ones performed locally.
Material and methods: In that period of time 791 knee arthroplasties were sent to distant centres and 620 were performed in our institution. All revision surgery was performed in our hospital after two months of the index operation in the distant hospitals. We stopped entry of patients in this study in December 2003.
Results: 82 (10.3%) knees have so far required revision surgery in the distant centres group. Of these, 45 have been for deep infection, 26 for aseptic loosening, 5 failed unicompartmental, 3 stiffness, 2 painful non-replaced patellas, 1 non-union of the tibial tuberosity
In the local group 17 (2.6%) knees have so far been revised in the same period of time. Of these 10 have been for deep infection, 3 for aseptic loosening, 3 for instability, and 1 for soft tissue impingement.
Conclusion: The causes for such a difference in revision rates were analysed and include implant selection, surgical technique and absence of follow-up. A constant and angry complaint of all patients sent to other hospitals and subsequently revised was the lack of follow-up.
Theses abstracts were prepared by Professor Roger Lemaire. Correspondence should be addressed to EFORT Central Office, Freihofstrasse 22, CH-8700 Küsnacht, Switzerland.
