Aims. The number of patients undergoing surgery for degenerative cervical radiculopathy has increased. In many countries, public hospitals have limited capacity. This has resulted in long waiting times for elective treatment and a need for supplementary private healthcare. It is uncertain whether the management of patients and the outcome of treatment are equivalent in public and private hospitals. The aim of this study was to compare the management and patient-reported outcomes among patients who underwent surgery for degenerative cervical radiculopathy in public and private hospitals in Norway, and to assess whether the effectiveness of the treatment was equivalent. Methods. This was a comparative study using prospectively collected data from the Norwegian Registry for Spine Surgery. A total of 4,750 consecutive patients who underwent surgery for degenerative cervical radiculopathy and were followed for 12 months were included. Case-mix adjustment between those managed in public and private hospitals was performed using propensity score matching. The primary outcome measure was the change in the Neck Disability Index (NDI) between baseline and 12 months postoperatively. A mean difference in improvement of the NDI score between public and private hospitals of ≤ 15 points was considered equivalent. Secondary outcome measures were a numerical rating scale for neck and arm pain and the EuroQol five-dimension three-level health questionnaire. The duration of surgery, length of hospital stay, and complications were also recorded. Results. The mean improvement from baseline to 12 months postoperatively of patients who underwent surgery in public and private hospitals was equivalent, both in the unmatched cohort (mean NDI difference between groups 3.9 points (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.2 to 5.6); p < 0.001) and in the matched cohort (4.0 points (95% CI 2.3 to 5.7); p < 0.001). Secondary outcomes showed similar results. The duration of surgery and length of hospital stay were significantly longer in public hospitals. Those treated in private hospitals reported significantly fewer complications in the unmatched cohort, but not in the matched cohort. Conclusion. The clinical effectiveness of surgery for degenerative cervical radiculopathy performed in public and private hospitals was equivalent 12 months after surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(1):64–71

Aims. The aim of this study was to estimate the clinical and economic burden of dislocation following primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) in England. Methods. This retrospective evaluation used data from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink database. Patients were eligible if they underwent a primary THA (index date) and had medical records available 90 days pre-index and 180 days post-index. Bilateral THAs were excluded. Healthcare costs and resource use were evaluated over two years. Changes (pre- vs post-THA) in generic quality of life (QoL) and joint-specific disability were evaluated. Propensity score matching controlled for baseline differences between patients with and without THA dislocation. Results. Among 13,044 patients (mean age 69.2 years (SD 11.4), 60.9% female), 191 (1.5%) had THA dislocation. Two-year median direct medical costs were £15,333 (interquartile range (IQR) 14,437 to 16,156) higher for patients with THA dislocation. Patients underwent revision surgery after a mean of 1.5 dislocations (1 to 5). Two-year costs increased to £54,088 (IQR 34,126 to 59,117) for patients with multiple closed reductions and a revision procedure. On average, patients with dislocation had greater healthcare resource use and less improvement in EuroQol five-dimension index (mean 0.24 (SD 0.35) vs 0.44 (SD 0.35); p < 0.001) and visual analogue scale (0.95 vs 8.85; p = 0.038) scores, and Oxford Hip Scores (12.93 vs 21.19; p < 0.001). Conclusion. The cost, resource use, and QoL burden of THA dislocation in England are substantial. Further research is required to understand optimal timing of revision after dislocation, with regard to cost-effectiveness and impact on QoL. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(7):811–819

Aims. The aim of this study was to conduct a cross-sectional, observational cohort study of patients presenting for revision of a total hip, or total or unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, to understand current routes to revision surgery and explore differences in symptoms, healthcare use, reason for revision, and the revision surgery (surgical time, components, length of stay) between patients having regular follow-up and those without. Methods. Data were collected from participants and medical records for the 12 months prior to revision. Patients with previous revision, metal-on-metal articulations, or hip hemiarthroplasty were excluded. Participants were retrospectively classified as ‘Planned’ or ‘Unplanned’ revision. Multilevel regression and propensity score matching were used to compare the two groups. Results. Data were analyzed from 568 patients, recruited in 38 UK secondary care sites between October 2017 and October 2018 (43.5% male; mean (SD) age 71.86 years (9.93); 305 hips, 263 knees). No significant inclusion differences were identified between the two groups. For hip revision, time to revision > ten years (odds ratio (OR) 3.804, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.353 to 10.694), p = 0.011), periprosthetic fracture (OR 20.309, 95% CI (4.574 to 90.179), p < 0.001), and dislocation (OR 12.953, 95% CI (4.014 to 41.794), p < 0.001), were associated with unplanned revision. For knee, there were no associations with route to revision. Revision after ten years was more likely for those who were younger at primary surgery, regardless of route to revision. No significant differences in cost outcomes, length of surgery time, and access to a health professional in the year prior to revision were found between the two groups. When periprosthetic fractures, dislocations, and infections were excluded, healthcare use was significantly higher in the unplanned revision group. Conclusion. Differences between characteristics for patients presenting for planned and unplanned revision are minimal. Although there was greater healthcare use in those having unplanned revision, it appears unlikely that routine orthopaedic review would have detected many of these issues. It may be safe to disinvest in standard follow-up provided there is rapid access to orthopaedic review. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(1):59–67

Aims

The aim of this study was to determine whether national standards of best practice are associated with improved health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes in hip fracture patients.