Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 2 of 2
Results per page:
Applied filters
The Bone & Joint Journal

Include Proceedings
Dates
Year From

Year To
The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 102-B, Issue 7 Supple B | Pages 47 - 51
1 Jul 2020
Kazarian GS Schloemann DT Barrack TN Lawrie CM Barrack RL

Aims

The aims of this study were to determine the change in the sagittal alignment of the pelvis and the associated impact on acetabular component position at one-year follow-up after total hip arthroplasty (THA).

Methods

This study represents the one-year follow-up of a previous short-term study at our institution. Using the patient population from our prior study, the radiological pelvic ratio was assessed in 91 patients undergoing THA, of whom 50 were available for follow-up of at least one year (median 1.5; interquartile range (IQR) 1.1 to 2.0). Anteroposterior radiographs of the pelvis were obtained in the standing position preoperatively and at one year postoperatively. Pelvic ratio was defined as the ratio between the vertical distance from the inferior sacroiliac (SI) joints to the superior pubic symphysis and the horizontal distance between the inferior SI joints. Apparent acetabular component position changes were determined from the change in pelvic ratio. A change of at least 5° was considered clinically meaningful.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 102-B, Issue 7 Supple B | Pages 85 - 89
1 Jul 2020
Barrack TN Abu-Amer W Schwabe MT Adelani MA Clohisy JC Nunley RM Lawrie CM

Aims

Routine surveillance of primary hip and knee arthroplasties has traditionally been performed with office follow-up visits at one year postoperatively. The value of these visits is unclear. The present study aims to determine the utility and burden of routine clinical follow-up at one year after primary arthroplasty to patients and providers.

Methods

All patients (473) who underwent primary total hip (280), hip resurfacing (eight), total knee (179), and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (six) over a nine-month period at a single institution were identified from an institutional registry. Patients were prompted to attend their routine one-year postoperative visit by a single telephone reminder. Patients and surgeons were given questionnaires at the one-year postoperative visit, defined as a clinical encounter occurring at nine to 15 months from the date of surgery, regarding value of the visit.