Component mal-positioning in total hip replacement (THR) and total knee replacement (TKR) can increase the risk of revision for various reasons. Compared to conventional surgery, relatively improved accuracy of implant positioning can be achieved using computer assisted technologies including navigation, patient-specific jigs, and robotic systems. However, it is not known whether application of these technologies has improved prosthesis survival in the real-world. This study aimed to compare risk of revision for all-causes following primary THR and TKR, and revision for dislocation following primary THR performed using computer assisted technologies compared to conventional technique. We performed an observational study using National Joint Registry data. All adult patients undergoing primary THR and TKR for osteoarthritis between 01/04/2003 to 31/12/2020 were eligible. Patients who received metal-on-metal bearing THR were excluded. We generated propensity score weights, using Sturmer weight trimming, based on: age, gender, ASA grade, side, operation funding, year of surgery, approach, and fixation. Specific additional variables included position and bearing for THR and patellar resurfacing for TKR. For THR, effective sample sizes and duration of follow up for conventional versus computer-guided and robotic-assisted analyses were 9,379 and 10,600 procedures, and approximately 18 and 4 years, respectively. For TKR, effective sample sizes and durations of follow up for conventional versus computer-guided, patient-specific jigs, and robotic-assisted groups were 92,579 procedures over 18 years, 11,665 procedures over 8 years, and 644 procedures over 3 years, respectively. Outcomes were assessed using Kaplan-Meier analysis and expressed using hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).Abstract
Introduction
Methods
Depression and anxiety are widely prevalent amongst patients suffering from chronic diseases including osteoarthritis. National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines recommend vigilance and routine screening in such chronic disease patients, and a recent King's Fund report found depression causes considerable expense to the NHS, with £1 for every £8 spent on chronic disease spent on patients mental health, costing between £8-13 billion annually. Depression increases length of hospital stay, and poorer clinical outcomes: depressed patients are 3.5 x as likely to die after suffering from myocardial infarction. Despite this, depression screening is not performed widely pre operatively. To see if there is a basis to recommend routine pre operative depression screening in hip and knee arthroplasty patients, we asked all patients attending Joint School to complete a Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). This is a well-validated tool for assessing the presence and degree (either mild, moderate or severe if present) of anxiety and depression, using fourteen questions, and providing a score out of 21 for each. We then correlated these results to pre operative Oxford Knee and Oxford Hip Scores to see if there was any relationship between the extent of impact of disease and any mood disorder present. 190 patients completed the questionnaire pre operatively. Of those, 82 (43%) scored as anxious. 73 (38%) scored as depressed. 47 (25%) scored as both. Overall 107 (56%) were either anxious, depressed or both. The median anxiety score was 7, with 44 (54%) scoring 8–10 (mild), 35 (43%) 11–15 (moderate) and 3 (4%) 16+ (severe). The median depression score was 6, with 53 (73%) scoring 8–10 (mild), 19 (26%) 11–15 (moderate) and 1 (1%) 16+ (severe). In order to look for an association between the severity of depression or anxiety and Oxford Scores, we grouped the Oxford Scores according to the patient's score on the HADS, and performed analysis of variance (ANOVA) to look for a significant difference between the Oxford Scores in the groups. There was no significant link between increase in Oxford Score and anxiety score (p=0.173314) but there was between Oxford Score and depression score (p=0.001377). There was equally no correlation between scores in patients classified simply as anxious or not anxious (p=0.14918) but a significant difference in Oxford Score was present between patients designated as depressed or not depressed (p=0.000297). We thus conclude depression and anxiety are very common amongst pre operative arthroplasty patients and thus assessment for this should be considered routinely preoperatively. In addition, there is a link between severity of osteoarthritis and severity of depression with increasing depression score associated with increasing Oxford Score. This makes further work to assess the reasons for this link imperative: does increasing severity of osteoarthritis result in increasing severity of depression, or does depression cause patients to feel the effects of their disease more keenly, and thus score higher on Oxford Scores? If this is the case, would patients treated for depression find the effect of their joint problems severe enough to warrant undertaking arthroplasty surgery?
