This study describes the variation in the annual volumes of revision hip arthroplasty (RHA) undertaken by consultant surgeons nationally, and the rate of accrual of RHA and corresponding primary hip arthroplasty (PHA) volume for new consultants entering practice. National Joint Registry (NJR) data for England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the Isle of Man were received for 84,816 RHAs and 818,979 PHAs recorded between April 2011 and December 2019. RHA data comprised all revision procedures, including first-time revisions of PHA and any subsequent re-revisions recorded in public and private healthcare organizations. Annual procedure volumes undertaken by the responsible consultant surgeon in the 12 months prior to every index procedure were determined. We identified a cohort of ‘new’ HA consultants who commenced practice from 2012 and describe their rate of accrual of PHA and RHA experience.Aims
Methods
This study aimed to identify risk factors (patient, healthcare system, and socioeconomic) for mortality after hip fractures and estimate their relative importance. Further, we aimed to elucidate mortality and survival patterns following fractures and the duration of excess mortality. Data on 37,394 hip fractures in the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register from January 2014 to December 2018 were linked to data from the Norwegian Patient Registry, Statistics Norway, and characteristics of acute care hospitals. Cox regression analysis was performed to estimate risk factors associated with mortality. The Wald statistic was used to estimate and illustrate relative importance of risk factors, which were categorized in modifiable (healthcare-related) and non-modifiable (patient-related and socioeconomic). We calculated standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) comparing deaths among hip fracture patients to expected deaths in a standardized reference population.Aims
Methods
We compared the clinical outcomes of curved intertrochanteric varus osteotomy (CVO) with bone impaction grafting (BIG) with CVO alone for the treatment of osteonecrosis of the femoral head (ONFH). This retrospective comparative study included 81 patients with ONFH; 37 patients (40 hips) underwent CVO with BIG (BIG group) and 44 patients (47 hips) underwent CVO alone (CVO group). Patients in the BIG group were followed-up for a mean of 12.2 years (10.0 to 16.5). Patients in the CVO group were followed-up for a mean of 14.5 years (10.0 to 21.0). Assessment parameters included the Harris Hip Score (HHS), Oxford Hip Score (OHS), Japanese Orthopaedic Association Hip-Disease Evaluation Questionnaire (JHEQ), complication rates, and survival rates, with conversion to total hip arthroplasty (THA) and radiological failure as the endpoints.Aims
Methods
The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical and radiographic
outcomes of total ankle arthroplasty (TAA) in patients with pre-operatively
moderate and severe arthritic varus ankles to those achieved for
patients with neutral ankles. A total of 105 patients (105 ankles), matched for age, gender,
body mass index, and follow-up duration, were divided into three
groups by pre-operative coronal plane tibiotalar angle; neutral
(<
5°), moderate (5° to 15°) and severe (>
15°) varus deformity.
American Orthopaedic Foot and Ankle Society (AOFAS) ankle-hindfoot
score, a visual analogue scale (VAS), and Short Form (SF)-36 score
were used to compare the clinical outcomes after a mean follow-up period
of 51 months (24 to 147).Aims
Patients and Methods
To determine the outcomes following revision surgery of metal-on-metal
hip arthroplasties (MoMHA) performed for adverse reactions to metal
debris (ARMD), and to identify factors predictive of re-revision. We performed a retrospective observational study using National
Joint Registry (NJR) data on 2535 MoMHAs undergoing revision surgery
for ARMD between 2008 and 2014. The outcomes studied following revision were
intra-operative complications, mortality and re-revision surgery.
Predictors of re-revision were identified using competing-risk regression
modelling.Aims
Patients and Methods
There is a large amount of evidence available
about the relative merits of unicompartmental and total knee arthroplasty
(UKA and TKA). Based on the same evidence, different people draw
different conclusions and as a result, there is great variability
in the usage of UKA. The revision rate of UKA is much higher than TKA and so some
surgeons conclude that UKA should not be performed. Other surgeons
believe that the main reason for the high revision rate is that
UKA is easy to revise and, therefore, the threshold for revision
is low. They also believe that UKA has many advantages over TKA
such as a faster recovery, lower morbidity and mortality and better
function. They therefore conclude that UKA should be undertaken
whenever appropriate. The solution to this argument is to minimise the revision rate
of UKA, thereby addressing the main disadvantage of UKA. The evidence
suggests that this will be achieved if surgeons use UKA for at least
20% of their knee arthroplasties and use implants that are appropriate
for these broad indications. Cite this article:
