Current analysis of unicondylar knee replacements (UKR) by national registries is based on the pooled results of medial and lateral implants. Using data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales (NJR) we aimed to determine the proportion of lateral UKR implanted, their survival and reason for failure in comparison to medial UKR. By combining information on the side of operation with component details held on the NJR we were able to determine implant laterality (medial vs. lateral) for 32,847 of the 35,624 (92%) UKR registered before December 2010. Kaplan Meier plots, Life tables and Cox' proportion hazards were used to compare the risk of failure for lateral and medial UKRs after adjustment for patient and implant covariates.Background
Methods
Both surgeon and hospital volume influence patient outcomes following revision knee arthroplasty. To audit all centres performing revision knee procedures in England and Wales over a 2-year period. All centres were audited against two pre-defined standards linked to hospital volume Operative volume should be greater than 10 revisions per year; More than 2.5 revisions should be performed for every 100 primary arthroplasties implanted.Background
Purpose
High flexion knee arthroplasties have been designed to allow up to 155 degrees flexion and enable high flexion activities such as kneeling and squatting. To date randomised controlled trials have shown no difference in range of movement (ROM) between high flexion and standard designs. The aim of this study was to determine if there is a difference in functional outcome and ROM between the standard and high flexion design of the PFC Sigma TKA system.Introduction
Objectives
Following in-depth analysis of the market leading brand combinations in which we identified implant influences on risk of revision, we compared revision in patients implanted with different categories of hip replacement in order to find implant with the lowest revision risk, once known flawed options were removed. All patients with osteoarthritis who underwent a hip replacement (2003–2010) using an Exeter-Contemporary (cemented), Corail-Pinnacle (cementless), Exeter-Trident (Hybrid) or a Birmingham Hip resurfacing (BHR) were initially included within the analysis. Operations involving factors that were significant predictors of revision were excluded. Cox proportional hazard models were then used to assess the relative risk of revision for a category of implant (compared with cemented), after adjustment for patient covariates.Introduction
Methods
To determine how patient characteristics; health status and pre-operative knee function effect patient reported satisfaction and operative success following total knee replacement (TKR). We hypothesised that a number of patient factors would influence the reported levels of symptomatic improvement (success) and satisfaction and that these two outcomes would represent different aspects of the patient's perception of outcome. Retrospective cohort analysis of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) and National Joint Registry (NJR) data. Complete patient data was available for 9,874 TKRs performed for osteoarthritis between 1/8/08 and 31/12/10. The relationship of the background factors to patient perceived satisfaction and success was investigated using ordinal logistic regression and structural equation modelling (SEM).Purpose
Design
The most appropriate form of chemical thromboprophylaxis following knee replacement is a contentious issue. Most national guidelines recommend the use of low molecular weight Heparin (LMWH) whilst opposing the use of aspirin. We compared thromboembolic events, major haemorrhage and death after knee replacement in patients receiving either aspirin or LMWH. Data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales was linked to an administrative database of hospital admissions in the English National Health Service. A total of 156 798 patients undergoing knee replacement between April 2003 and September 2008 were included and followed up for 90 days. Multivariable risk modelling was used to estimate odds ratios adjusted for baseline risk factors (AOR). An AOR < 1 indicates that risk rates are lower with LMWH than with aspirin.Background
Methods
To examine how patients viewed the outcome of their joint replacement at least one year post surgery. Emphasis was placed on investigating the relative influence of ongoing pain and functional limitation on patient satisfaction. Questionnaire based assessment of the Oxford Knee Score (OKS), patient satisfaction, and need for reoperation in a group of 10,000 patients who had undergone primary unilateral knee replacement between April and December 2003. Questionnaires were linked to the NJR database to provide data on background demographics, clinical parameters and intraoperative surgical information for each patient. Data was analysed to investigate the relationship between the OKS, satisfaction rate and the background factors. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to establish which factors influenced patient satisfaction.Purpose
Method
We have carried out a 15 year survival analysis of a prospective, randomised trial comparing cemented with cementless fixation of press-fit condylar primary total knee replacements. A consecutive series of 501 PFC knee replacements received either cemented (219 patients, 277 implants) or cementless (177 patients, 224 implants) fixation. No patients were lost to follow up. Revision was defined as further surgery, irrespective of indication, that involved replacement of any of the three originally inserted components (Femur, Tibia, Patella).Introduction
Methods
The purpose of this study was to establish whether men and women with a fragility hip fracture were equally investigated and treated for osteoporosis. A retrospective review was carried out including 91 patients (48 females, 43 males) who were admitted with a fragility hip fracture between March 2003 and April 2004. Data about age, sex, investigations and medication were collected from the case notes, GP surgeries and the bone densitometry database. Investigations and treatment were compared with current guideline recommendations (SIGN 2003, NICE 2005). Data were analysed using SPSS Version 13.0.Introduction
Methods
