Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 3 of 3
Results per page:
The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 106-B, Issue 3 Supple A | Pages 110 - 114
1 Mar 2024
Yee AHF Chan VWK Fu H Chan P Chiu KY

Aims

The aim of this study was to evaluate the survival of a collarless, straight, hydroxyapatite-coated femoral stem in total hip arthroplasty (THA) at a minimum follow-up of 20 years.

Methods

We reviewed the results of 165 THAs using the Omnifit HA system in 138 patients, performed between August 1993 and December 1999. The mean age of the patients at the time of surgery was 46 years (20 to 77). Avascular necrosis was the most common indication for THA, followed by ankylosing spondylitis and primary osteoarthritis. The mean follow-up was 22 years (20 to 31). At 20 and 25 years, 113 THAs in 91 patients and 63 THAs in 55 patients were available for review, respectively, while others died or were lost to follow-up. Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed to evaluate the survival of the stem. Radiographs were reviewed regularly, and the stability of the stem was evaluated using the Engh classification.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 102-B, Issue 4 | Pages 434 - 441
1 Apr 2020
Hamilton DF Burnett R Patton JT MacPherson GJ Simpson AHRW Howie CR Gaston P

Aims

There are comparatively few randomized studies evaluating knee arthroplasty prostheses, and fewer still that report longer-term functional outcomes. The aim of this study was to evaluate mid-term outcomes of an existing implant trial cohort to document changing patient function over time following total knee arthroplasty using longitudinal analytical techniques and to determine whether implant design chosen at time of surgery influenced these outcomes.

Methods

A mid-term follow-up of the remaining 125 patients from a randomized cohort of total knee arthroplasty patients (initially comprising 212 recruited patients), comparing modern (Triathlon) and traditional (Kinemax) prostheses was undertaken. Functional outcomes were assessed with the Oxford Knee Score (OKS), knee range of movement, pain numerical rating scales, lower limb power output, timed functional assessment battery, and satisfaction survey. Data were linked to earlier assessment timepoints, and analyzed by repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) mixed models, incorporating longitudinal change over all assessment timepoints.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 96-B, Issue 5 | Pages 622 - 628
1 May 2014
Hamilton DF Lane JV Gaston P Patton JT MacDonald DJ Simpson AHRW Howie CR

Satisfaction with care is important to both patients and to those who pay for it. The Net Promoter Score (NPS), widely used in the service industries, has been introduced into the NHS as the ‘friends and family test’; an overarching measure of patient satisfaction. It assesses the likelihood of the patient recommending the healthcare received to another, and is seen as a discriminator of healthcare performance. We prospectively assessed 6186 individuals undergoing primary lower limb joint replacement at a single university hospital to determine the Net Promoter Score for joint replacements and to evaluate which factors contributed to the response.

Achieving pain relief (odds ratio (OR) 2.13, confidence interval (CI) 1.83 to 2.49), the meeting of pre-operative expectation (OR 2.57, CI 2.24 to 2.97), and the hospital experience (OR 2.33, CI 2.03 to 2.68) are the domains that explain whether a patient would recommend joint replacement services. These three factors, combined with the type of surgery undertaken (OR 2.31, CI 1.68 to 3.17), drove a predictive model that was able to explain 95% of the variation in the patient’s recommendation response. Though intuitively similar, this ‘recommendation’ metric was found to be materially different to satisfaction responses. The difference between THR (NPS 71) and TKR (NPS 49) suggests that no overarching score for a department should be used without an adjustment for case mix. However, the Net Promoter Score does measure a further important dimension to our existing metrics: the patient experience of healthcare delivery.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:622–8.