Abstract

The Montgomery ruling advocates patients be informed of ‘material risks’ of a procedure. With no guidelines for patients wishing to return to high activity levels after knee arthroplasty, we explore patient and surgeon perceptions in climbers.

Ethical approval was granted by the University of Central Lancashire. Anonymous questionnaires were sent via email and social media to consultant knee arthroplasty surgeons and to climbers/mountaineers across the UK. Consultants were asked about advice given for patients who participate in climbing. Climbers were asked about their experiences of knee arthroplasty and return to activity.

Of 33 knee arthroplasty surgeons, 11(33%) were firmly against any return to climbing, 10(30%) counselled against it, and 12(36%) were open to return to previous activity. Of 11(33%) surgeons who do not gather information about levels of climbing, 8 would not provide specific advice regarding risks of returning to sport. Of 28 climbers, only 5(18%) were informed to cease completely, with 11(39%) cautioned against and 12(43%) permitted to return. There was no correlation between the advice received and climbing ability post-operatively, (kappa=0.143,p=0.058), with a substantial agreement between ability 1-year post-operatively and currently, (kappa=0.689,p<0.001).

There is a discrepancy between the advice given and received by climbers/mountaineers prior to knee arthroplasty, with ability post-operatively having no relationship to advice given. Climbing is possible at high level with no reported complications following knee arthroplasty. The 1-year time point is predictive of longer-term outcome. This information should help surgeons better inform their patients preoperatively.

Climbers and mountaineers will present to arthroplasty surgeons in need of hip replacement surgeries. There is a lack of guidance for both parties with a paucity in the literature. Climbing is often considered a high-risk activity to perform with a total hip replacement, due to the positions the hip is weighted in, and the potential austere environment in which an injury may occur.

The aim was to assess levels of climbing and mountaineering possible following hip arthroplasty, and any factors affecting these levels.

Ethical approval was obtained from the University of Central Lancashire. An anonymous online questionnaire was disseminated via email, social media and word-of-mouth to include all climbers, hill-walkers or mountaineers across the UK. This was used to collect climbing and mountaineering ability at various timepoints, along with scores such as the Oxford Hip Score and UCLA Score. The Kappa statistic was used to assess for correlations.

Of the responders, 28 had undergone right hip arthroplasty surgery, with 11 having left hips and 22 receiving bilateral hips. A total of 67 of the replaced hips were total hip replacements, with 16 having undergone hip resurfacing. There is a fair agreement in level of climbing ability 3 months pre- and 3 months post-operatively (kappa=0.287, p<0.001), and a substantial agreement between 1 year post-operatively and currently for both climbing (kappa=0.730, p<0.001) and mountaineering (kappa=0.684, p<0.001). Impressively, 17 participants are climbing at more than E1 trad or 6c sport at one or more time points post operatively, which is regarded as an advanced level within the climbing community. Out of those 17 participants, 8 were climbing at this level within 3 months post-operatively.

The level of climbing possible following hip arthroplasty surgery is above what is expected and perhaps desired by the operating surgeon. It is essential to take the individual patient into account when planning an operative intervention such as arthroplasty. The one year post-operative time point is highly predictive of longer term outcomes for both climbing and mountaineering.

A hip fracture represents the extreme end of osteoporosis, placing a significant burden on secondary care, society, and the individual patient. The National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) reports each hospital's attainment of the BPT with other measures, along with reporting outcomes. There is clearly wide variability in provision of orthogerriatrician (OG) services across the dataset. Unfortunately, despite overwhelming evidence that provision of an OG service is of benefit, it is presently challenging to recruit to this important specialty within the UK.

Publicly available reports from the NHFD were obtained for each of the 177 participating hospitals for 2017. This was matched with information held within the annual NHFD Facilities Audit for the same period, which include hours of OG support for each hospital. This information was combined with a Freedom of Information request made by email to each hospital for further details concerning OG support. The outcome measures used were Length of Stay (LoS), mortality, and return to usual residence. Comparison was made with provision of OG services by use of Pearson's correlation coefficient. In addition, differences in services were compared between the 25% (44) hospitals delivering outcomes at the extremes for each measure.

Attainment of BPT correlated fairly with LoS (−0.48) and to less of a degree with mortality (−0.1) and return home (0.05). Perioperative medical assessment contributed very strongly with BPT attainment (0.75). In turn perioperative medical assessment correlated fairly with LoS (−0.40) and mortality (−0.23) but not return home (0.02). Provision of perioperative medical assessment attainment was correlated fairly with total OG minutes available per new patient (0.22), total OG minutes available per patient per day (0.29) and number of days per week of OG cover (0.34); with no link for number of patients per orthogeriatrician (0.01). Mortality for the best units were associated with 30% more consultant OG time available per patient per day, and 51% more OG time available per patient. Units returning the most patients to their usual residence had little association with OG time, although had 59% fewer patients per OG, the best units had a 19% longer LoS. For all three measures results for the best had on average 0.5 days per week better routine OG access.

There is no doubt that good quality care gives better results for this challenging group of patients. However, the interaction of BPT, other care metrics, level of OG support and patient factors with outcomes is complex. We have found OG time available per patient per day appears to influence particularly LoS and mortality. Options to increase OG time per patient include reducing patient numbers (ensuring community osteoporosis/falls prevention in place, including reducing in-patient falls); increasing OG time across the week (employing greater numbers/spreading availability over 7 days per week); and reducing LoS. A reduction in LoS has the largest effect of increasing OG time, and although it is dependent on OG support, it is only fairly correlated with this and many other factors play a part, which could be addressed in units under pressure.