header advert
Orthopaedic Proceedings Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from Orthopaedic Proceedings

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Visit Orthopaedic Proceedings at:

Loading...

Loading...

Full Access

Research

DOES ONE YEAR FOLLOW UP ALTER MANAGEMENT IN TOTAL KNEE AND HIP ARTHROPLASTY PATIENTS?

Glasgow Meeting of Orthopaedic Research (GLAMOR)



Abstract

The number of primary Total Knee Arthroplasty (TKA) and primary Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA) procedures carried out in England and Wales is increasing annually. The British Orthopaedic Association guidelines for follow up currently differ for patients with TKA and THA. In THA the BOA recommends that Orthopaedic Data Evaluation Panel (ODEP) 10A rated implants should be followed up in the first year, once at seven years and three yearly thereafter. The BOA guidelines for TKA minimum requirement is radiographs at 5 years and each five years thereafter. Few studies have investigated if early follow up affects patient management following total hip and knee arthroplasty

We carried out a retrospective review of all revision procedures carried out in our institution between April 2010 to April 2013. The medical notes and radiographs for each patient were examined to determine the operative indications and patients symptoms. 92 knee revisions and 143 hip revisions were identified. Additionally we retrospectively reviewed the outcome of 300 one year routine arthroplasty follow up appointments.

The mean time of hip revision was 8.5years (range 0 to 27years) and 5.6years (range 0 to 20years) for knee revisions. The commonest cause for revision was aseptic loosening associated with pain in 49 (53%) of knee revision patients and 89 (63%) of hip revisions. Infection accounted for 26 (28%) knee revisions and 16 (12%) hip revisions. Only 1% of hip and knee revisions was carried out in asymptomatic patients with aseptic loosening.

We did not identify any cases were a patients management was altered at the routine arthroplasty review clinic and none were referred on for further surgical treatment. The findings of our study suggest there is no evidence for a routine one year arthroplasty review and revisions were carried out in asymptomatic patients in 1% of patients.