Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 3 of 3
Results per page:
Applied filters
The Bone & Joint Journal

Include Proceedings
Dates
Year From

Year To
The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 98-B, Issue 7 | Pages 925 - 933
1 Jul 2016
Sidaginamale RP Joyce TJ Bowsher JG Lord JK Avery PJ Natu S Nargol AVF Langton DJ

Aims

We wished to investigate the influence of metal debris exposure on the subsequent immune response and resulting soft-tissue injury following metal-on-metal (MoM) hip arthroplasty. Some reports have suggested that debris generated from the head-neck taper junction is more destructive than equivalent doses from metal bearing surfaces.

Patients and Methods

We investigated the influence of the source and volume of metal debris on chromium (Cr) and cobalt (Co) concentrations in corresponding blood and hip synovial fluid samples and the observed agglomerated particle sizes in excised tissues using multiple regression analysis of prospectively collected data. A total of 199 explanted MoM hips (177 patients; 132 hips female) were analysed to determine rates of volumetric wear at the bearing surfaces and taper junctions.


The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery British Volume
Vol. 94-B, Issue 8 | Pages 1058 - 1066
1 Aug 2012
Baker PN Deehan DJ Lees D Jameson S Avery PJ Gregg PJ Reed MR

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly being used to assess functional outcome and patient satisfaction. They provide a framework for comparisons between surgical units, and individual surgeons for benchmarking and financial remuneration. Better performance may bring the reward of more customers as patients and commissioners seek out high performers for their elective procedures. Using National Joint Registry (NJR) data linked to PROMs we identified 22 691 primary total knee replacements (TKRs) undertaken for osteoarthritis in England and Wales between August 2008 and February 2011, and identified the surgical factors that influenced the improvements in the Oxford knee score (OKS) and EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) assessment using multiple regression analysis. After correction for patient factors the only surgical factors that influenced PROMs were implant brand and hospital type (both p < 0.001). However, the effects of surgical factors upon the PROMs were modest compared with patient factors. For both the OKS and the EQ-5D the most important factors influencing the improvement in PROMs were the corresponding pre-operative score and the patient’s general health status. Despite having only a small effect on PROMs, this study has shown that both implant brand and hospital type do influence reported subjective functional scores following TKR. In the current climate of financial austerity, proposed performance-based remuneration and wider patient choice, it would seem unwise to ignore these effects and the influence of a range of additional patient factors.


The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery British Volume
Vol. 94-B, Issue 7 | Pages 919 - 927
1 Jul 2012
Baker PN Petheram T Jameson SS Avery PJ Reed MR Gregg PJ Deehan DJ

Following arthroplasty of the knee, the patient’s perception of improvement in symptoms is fundamental to the assessment of outcome. Better clinical outcome may offset the inferior survival observed for some types of implant. By examining linked National Joint Registry (NJR) and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) data, we aimed to compare PROMs collected at a minimum of six months post-operatively for total (TKR: n = 23 393) and unicondylar knee replacements (UKR: n = 505). Improvements in knee-specific (Oxford knee score, OKS) and generic (EuroQol, EQ-5D) scores were compared and adjusted for case-mix differences using multiple regression. Whereas the improvements in the OKS and EQ-5D were significantly greater for TKR than for UKR, once adjustments were made for case-mix differences and pre-operative score, the improvements in the two scores were not significantly different. The adjusted mean differences in the improvement of OKS and EQ-5D were 0.0 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.9 to 0.9; p = 0.96) and 0.009 (95% CI -0.034 to 0.015; p = 0.37), respectively.

We found no difference in the improvement of either knee-specific or general health outcomes between TKR and UKR in a large cohort of registry patients. With concerns about significantly higher revision rates for UKR observed in worldwide registries, we question the widespread use of an arthroplasty that does not confer a significant benefit in clinical outcome.