The primary objective of this study was to compare migration of the cemented ATTUNE fixed bearing cruciate retaining tibial component with the cemented Press-Fit Condylar (PFC)-sigma fixed bearing cruciate retaining tibial component. The secondary objectives included comparing clinical and radiological outcomes and Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs). A single blinded randomized, non-inferiority study was conducted including 74 patients. Radiostereometry examinations were made after weight bearing, but before hospital discharge, and at three, six, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. PROMS were collected preoperatively and at three, six, 12, and 24 months postoperatively. Radiographs for measuring radiolucencies were collected at two weeks and two years postoperatively.Aims
Methods
To define Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) thresholds
for the Oxford hip score (OHS) and Oxford knee score (OKS) at mid-term
follow-up. In a prospective multicentre cohort study, OHS and OKS were collected
at a mean follow-up of three years (1.5 to 6.0), combined with a
numeric rating scale (NRS) for satisfaction and an external validation
question assessing the patient’s willingness to undergo surgery
again. A total of 550 patients underwent total hip replacement (THR)
and 367 underwent total knee replacement (TKR).Objectives
Methods
Electronic forms of data collection have gained interest in recent
years. In orthopaedics, little is known about patient preference
regarding pen-and-paper or electronic questionnaires. We aimed to
determine whether patients undergoing total hip (THR) or total knee
replacement (TKR) prefer pen-and-paper or electronic questionnaires
and to identify variables that predict preference for electronic
questionnaires. We asked patients who participated in a multi-centre cohort study
investigating improvement in health-related quality of life (HRQoL)
after THR and TKR using pen-and-paper questionnaires, which mode
of questionnaire they preferred. Patient age, gender, highest completed
level of schooling, body mass index (BMI), comorbidities, indication
for joint replacement and pre-operative HRQoL were compared between
the groups preferring different modes of questionnaire. We then
performed logistic regression analyses to investigate which variables
independently predicted preference of electronic questionnaires.Objectives
Methods
The Kaplan-Meier estimation is widely used in orthopedics to
calculate the probability of revision surgery. Using data from a
long-term follow-up study, we aimed to assess the amount of bias
introduced by the Kaplan-Meier estimator in a competing risk setting. We describe both the Kaplan-Meier estimator and the competing
risk model, and explain why the competing risk model is a more appropriate
approach to estimate the probability of revision surgery when patients
die in a hip revision surgery cohort. In our study, a total of 62 acetabular
revisions were performed. After a mean of 25 years, no patients
were lost to follow-up, 13 patients had undergone revision surgery
and 33 patients died of causes unrelated to their hip.Objectives
Methods
The Kaplan Meier estimator is widely used in orthopedics. In situations where another event prevents the occurrence of the event of interest, the Kaplan Meier estimator is not appropriate and a competing risks model has to be applied. We questioned how much bias is introduced by erroneous use of the Kaplan Meier estimator instead of a competing risks model in a hip revision surgery cohort. In our previously published cohort study, 62 acetabular revisions (58 patients) were performed between January 1979 and March 1986. Twenty to twenty-five years after surgery, no patients were lost to follow-up. Thirteen patients underwent revision surgery. During the 20 to 25 years follow-up, 30 patients (33 acetabular revisions) died of causes unrelated to their hip surgery.Introduction
Methods
We aimed first to summarise minimal clinically important differences
(MCIDs) after total hip (THR) or knee replacement (TKR) in health-related
quality of life (HRQoL), measured using the Short-Form 36 (SF-36).
Secondly, we aimed to improve the precision of MCID estimates by
means of meta-analysis. We conducted a systematic review of English and non-English articles
using MEDLINE, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (1960–2011),
EMBASE (1991–2011), Web of Science, Academic Search Premier and
Science Direct. Bibliographies of included studies were searched
in order to find additional studies. Search terms included MCID
or minimal clinically important change, THR or TKR and Short-Form
36. We included longitudinal studies that estimated MCID of SF-36
after THR or TKR.Objectives
Methods