Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 4 of 4
Results per page:
Applied filters
Content I can access

Include Proceedings
Dates
Year From

Year To
Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 3, Issue 5 | Pages 146 - 149
1 May 2014
Jameson SS Baker PN Deehan DJ Port A Reed MR

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: Bone Joint Res 2014;3:146–9.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 94-B, Issue SUPP_XXIX | Pages 82 - 82
1 Jul 2012
Baker PN Gregg PJ Deehan DJ
Full Access

Purpose

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.

Methods and Results

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.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 90-B, Issue SUPP_III | Pages 580 - 580
1 Aug 2008
Baker PN Khaw FM Kirk LMG Morris RW Gregg PJ
Full Access

Purpose: To compare the survivorship, at 15 years, of cemented versus cementless fixation of press-fit condylar primary total knee replacements.

Methods: A prospective randomised consecutive series of 501 primary knee replacements received either cemented (219 patients, 277 implants) or cementless (177 patients, 224 implants) fixation. All operations were performed either by, or under the direct supervision of, a single surgeon (PJG). Patients were followed up to establish the rate of implant survival. No patients were lost to follow up. Revision was defined as further surgery, irrespective of indication, that involved replacement of any of the three original components. Life table analysis was used to assess survival. Cox’s proportional hazards regression analysis was used to compare the cumulative survival rates for the two groups.

Results: Altogether 44 patients underwent revision surgery (24 cemented vs. 20 cementless). 11 cases were revised secondary to infection, 26 were revised due to aseptic loosening and 7 cases were revised for other reasons (instability, anterior knee pain, polyethylene wear, patellar malallignment). At time of analysis a further 7 had revision planned.

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).

Conclusion: This single surgeon series, with no loss to follow up, provides reliable data of the revision rates of the most commonly used total knee replacement. The survival of the press-fit condylar total knee replacement remains good at 15 years irrespective of the method of fixation. This information is useful for strategic health authorities when establishing future requirements for revision knee surgery.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 90-B, Issue SUPP_III | Pages 579 - 579
1 Aug 2008
Baker PN Van Der Meulen J Lewsey J Gregg PJ
Full Access

Purpose: To examine how patients viewed the outcome of their joint replacement at least one year post surgery. Emphasis was placed on investigating the relative influence of ongoing pain and functional limitation on patient satisfaction.

Method: Questionnaire based assessment of the Oxford Knee Score (OKS), patient satisfaction, and need for reoperation in a group of 10,000 patients who had undergone primary unilateral knee replacement between April and December 2003. Questionnaires were linked to the NJR database to provide data on background demographics, clinical parameters and intraoperative surgical information for each patient.

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.

Results: 87.4% patients returned questionnaires. Overall 81.8% indicated they were satisfied with their knee replacement, with 7.0% unsatisfied and 11.2% unsure. The mean OKS varied dependent upon patients’ satisfaction (satisfied=22.04 (S.D 7.87), unsatisfied=41.70 (S.D 8.32), unsure=35.17 (S.D 8.24)). These differences were statistically significant (p< 0.001).

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.

Conclusion: This study highlights a number of clinically important factors that influence patient satisfaction following knee replacement. This information could be used when planning surgery to counsel patients and help form realistic expectations of the anticipated postoperative result.