This study aimed to investigate the estimated change in primary and revision arthroplasty rate in the Netherlands and Denmark for hips, knees, and shoulders during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 (COVID-period). Additional points of focus included the comparison of patient characteristics and hospital type (2019 vs COVID-period), and the estimated loss of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and impact on waiting lists. All hip, knee, and shoulder arthroplasties (2014 to 2020) from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register, and hip and knee arthroplasties from the Danish Hip and Knee Arthroplasty Registries, were included. The expected number of arthroplasties per month in 2020 was estimated using Poisson regression, taking into account changes in age and sex distribution of the general Dutch/Danish population over time, calculating observed/expected (O/E) ratios. Country-specific proportions of patient characteristics and hospital type were calculated per indication category (osteoarthritis/other elective/acute). Waiting list outcomes including QALYs were estimated by modelling virtual waiting lists including 0%, 5% and 10% extra capacity.Aims
Methods
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. 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.Aims
Methods
We examined the risk of thrombotic and major
bleeding events in patients undergoing total hip and knee replacement
(THR and TKR) treated with thromboprophylaxis, using nationwide
population-based databases. We identified 83 756 primary procedures
performed between 1997 and 2011. The outcomes were symptomatic venous thromboembolism
(VTE), myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, death and major bleeding
requiring hospitalisation within 90 days of surgery. A total of 1114 (1.3%) and 483 (0.6%) patients experienced VTE
and bleeding, respectively. The annual risk of VTE varied between
0.9% and 1.6%, and of bleeding between 0.4% and 0.8%. The risk of
VTE and bleeding was unchanged over a 15-year period. A total of
0.7% of patients died within 90 days, with a decrease from 1% in
1997 to 0.6% in 2011 (p <
0.001). A high level of comorbidity
and general anaesthesia were strong risk factors for both VTE and
bleeding, with no difference between THR and TKR patients. The risk
of both MI and stroke was 0.5%, which remained unchanged during
the study period. In this cohort study of patients undergoing THR and TKR patients
in routine clinical practice, approximately 3% experienced VTE,
MI, stroke or bleeding. These risks did not decline during the 15-year
study period, but the risk of dying fell substantially. Cite this article:
The results of hip and knee replacement surgery
are generally regarded as positive for patients. Nonetheless, they are
both major operations and have recognised complications. We present
a review of relevant claims made to the National Health Service
Litigation Authority. Between 1995 and 2010 there were 1004 claims
to a value of £41.5 million following hip replacement surgery and
523 claims to a value of £21 million for knee replacement. The most common
complaint after hip surgery was related to residual neurological
deficit, whereas after knee replacement it was related to infection.
Vascular complications resulted in the highest costs per case in
each group. Although there has been a large increase in the number of operations
performed, there has not been a corresponding relative increase
in litigation. The reasons for litigation have remained largely
unchanged over time after hip replacement. In the case of knee replacement,
although there has been a reduction in claims for infection, there
has been an increase in claims for technical errors. There has also
been a rise in claims for non-specified dissatisfaction. This information
is of value to surgeons and can be used to minimise the potential
mismatch between patient expectation, informed consent and outcome. Cite this article:
