The National Institute for Health and Clinical
Excellence (NICE) has thus far relied on historical data and predominantly
industry-sponsored trials to provide evidence for venous thromboembolic
(VTE) prophylaxis in joint replacement patients. We argue that the
NICE guidelines may be reliant on assumptions that are in need of
revision. Following the publication of large scale, independent
observational studies showing little difference between low-molecular-weight
heparins and aspirin, and recent changes to the guidance provided
by other international bodies, should NICE reconsider their recommendations? Cite this article:
Little information is available relating to patient demographics, reasons for failure and types of implants used at time of revision following failure of patellofemoral joint (PFJ) replacement. Using data extracted from the NJR a series of 128 PFJ revisions in whom the index primary procedure was also recorded in the NJR were identified. This cohort therefore represents early failures of PFJ replacements revised over a 2 year period which were implanted after April 2003 and included revisions of 11 different brands of PFJ replacement from 6 different manufacturers. The median age at primary procedure was 59.0 (Range 21.1 to 83.2) of which 43 patients were <55 years old (31 males, 97 females). 19% of the revisions were performed in the first year after implantation, in the second year in 33 cases (26%), in the third year in 39 cases (31%) and between years 4 to 7 in 32 patients (25%). The commonest reasons for revision were pain (35%), aseptic loosening (18%), subluxation, dislocation or instability (11%), PE wear (7%) and component malalignment (6%). No reason for revision was stated in 30% and only 2 cases were revised for infection. Reason for revision differed according to year of failure but was consistent with respect to age at primary surgery. PFJ revision reason differed from those stated for revisions of primary UKR and TKR from the same period with pain being more prevalent and aseptic loosening and infection being less prevalent in the PFJ group. Single stage revision was performed in 124 cases and 118 underwent cemented revision.Purpose
Methods and Results
For cemented knees 15-year survival=80.7% (95%CI, 71.5–87.4), 10-year survival=91.7 (95%CI, 87.1–94.8). For cementless knees 15-year survival=75.3% (95% CI, 63.5–84.3), 10-year survival=93.3% (95%CI, 88.4–96.2). There was no difference between these two groups. When comparing the covariates (operation, sex, age, diagnosis, side), there was no significant difference between operation type (Hazard ratio=0.83 (95%CI, 0.45–1.52) p=0.545), side of operation (HR=0.58 (95%CI, 0.32–1.05) p=0.072), age (HR=0.97 (95%CI, 0.93–1.01) p=0.097), diagnosis (OA vs. non OA, (HR=1.25 (95%CI,0.38–4.12) p=0.718). However, there was a significant gender difference (Males vs. Females (HR=2.48 (95%CI, 1.34–4.61) p=0.004). The worst case scenario was calculated to include those patients that have also been listed for revision. Cemented 15-yr survival = 78.3%, (95%CI, 68.9–85.4), cementless 15-yr survival = 72.0%, (95%CI, 59.9–81.5).
Data was analysed to investigate the relationship between the OKS, satisfaction rate and the background factors. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to establish which factors influenced patient satisfaction.
Regression modelling showed that patients with higher scores relating to the pain and function elements of the OKS had lower levels of satisfaction (p<
0.001) and that ongoing pain was a stronger predictor of lower levels of satisfaction. Other predictors of lower levels of satisfaction included female gender (p<
0.05), a primary diagnosis of osteoarthritis (p=0.02) and unicondylar replacement (p=0.002). Differences in satisfaction rate were also observed dependent upon age and ASA grade 609 patients (7.4%) had undergone further surgery and 1476 patients (17.9%) indicated another procedure was planned. Both the OKS and satisfaction rates were significantly better in patients who had not suffered complications.
