This study aims to determine satisfaction rates after hip and knee arthroplasty in patients who did not initially respond to PROMs, characteristics of non-responders, and contact preferences to maximise response rates. We performed a prospective cohort study of 709 patients undergoing THA and 737 patients undergoing TKA in a single centre in 2018. EQ-5D health related quality of life score and Oxford Hip/knee scores (OHS/OKS) were completed preoperatively and at 1year postoperatively via post when satisfaction was also assessed. Univariate, multivariate and receiver operator curve analysis were performed. 151/709 (21.2%) hip patients were non-responders, 83 (55.0%) of whom were contactable. 108/737 (14.6%) knee patients were non-responders, 91 (84.3%) of whom were contactable. There was no difference in satisfaction after arthroplasty between initial non-responders and responders for hips (74/81 vs 476/516, p=0.847) or knees (81/93 vs 470/561, p=0.480). Initial and persistent non-response was associated with younger age, higher BMIs and significantly worse preoperative PROMS for both hip and knee patients (p=0.05). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that younger age, higher BMI and poorer pre-operative OHS were independently associated with persistent non-response to hip PROMs (p<0.05). For the entire cohort (n=1352) patients <67 years were less likely to respond to postal PROMs with OR 0.63 (0.558 to 0.711). Using a threshold of >66.4 years predicted a preference for contact by post with 65.4% sensitivity and 68.1% specificity (AUC 0.723 (0.647-0.799 95%CI, p<0.001)). Most initial non-responders were ultimately contactable with effort. Satisfaction rates were not inferior in patients who did not initially respond to PROMs

Aims

Currently, periprosthetic fractures are excluded from the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) definition of atypical femoral fracture (AFFs). This study aims to report on a series of periprosthetic femoral fractures (PFFs) that otherwise meet the criteria for AFFs. Secondary aims were to identify predictors of periprosthetic atypical femoral fractures (PAFFs) and quantify the complications of treatment.

The aim of this study was to compare the operating time, length of stay (LOS), adverse events and rate of re-admission for elderly patients with a fracture of the hip treated using either general or spinal anaesthesia. Patients aged ≥ 70 years who underwent surgery for a fracture of the hip between 2010 and 2012 were identified from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) database. Of the 9842 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 7253 (73.7%) were treated with general anaesthesia and 2589 (26.3%) with spinal anaesthesia. On propensity-adjusted multivariate analysis, general anaesthesia was associated with slightly increased operating time (+5 minutes, 95% confidence interval (CI) +4 to +6, p < 0.001) and post-operative time in the operating room (+5 minutes, 95% CI +2 to +8, p < 0.001) compared with spinal anaesthesia. General anaesthesia was associated with a shorter LOS (hazard ratio (HR) 1.28, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.34, p < 0.001). Any adverse event (odds ratio (OR) 1.21, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.32, p < 0.001), thromboembolic events (OR 1.90, 95% CI 1.24 to 2.89, p = 0.003), any minor adverse event (OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.32, p < 0.001), and blood transfusion (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.49, p < 0.001) were associated with general anaesthesia. General anaesthesia was associated with decreased rates of urinary tract infection (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.87, p < 0.001). There was no clear overall advantage of one type of anaesthesia over the other, and surgeons should be aware of the specific risks and benefits associated with each type.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015; 97-B:689–95.