Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

We compared the long-term clinical and radiological results of hybrid total hip replacement (THR) with metal-on-metal Birmingham hip resurfacing (BHR) in two groups of 54 young patients matched for age, gender, body mass index and pre-operative levels of activity.

The clinical outcome was assessed by the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) activity score, the Oxford Hip Score (OHS) and the EuroQol scores. Radiologically, all hips were assessed for migration and osteolysis, the hybrid THRs for polyethylene wear and the BHRs for a pedestal sign.

The mean follow-up of the patients with a hybrid THR was 16 years and for those with a BHR, 15 years. 12 patients with a hybrid THR and 6 with a BHR had died. 2 patients with a BHR refused follow up but remain unrevised and 5 were lost to follow-up, as was 1 with a hybrid THR. The revision rate of the hybrid THRs was 28% (15 of 54) and of the BHRs 11% (6 of 54) (p = 0.029). Radiographs of a further 13 hybrid THRs demonstrated wear and osteolysis but are functioning well and are under observation. Of the unrevised BHRs 96% had radiological changes, of which approximately 17% had progressed over the previous 6 years. All hybrid THRs demonstrated linear polyethylene wear with a mean of 1.84mm (0.06 to 2.6). The BHRs recorded superior OHS (p = 0.03), UCLA (p = 0.0096), and EuroQol visual analogue scores (p = 0.03).

After 15 years, patients with BHRs remained more active and had a lower rate of revision and death than those with hybrid THRs. Both groups demonstrated progressive radiological changes at long-term follow-up.

Introduction

Incidence of adverse soft tissue reaction following metal on metal hip has a reported incidence of up to 48%. The current imaging modality of choice is metal artefact reduction sequence (MARS) MRI. Consensus is that large, symptomatic pseudotumours should be treated surgically, changing the bearing surfaces to other materials. There is debate as to how asymptomatic pseudotumours should be monitored and managed.

Time at the surgical ‘coal-face’ has been reduced by introduction of the European Working Time Directive (EWTD) significantly impacting training opportunity. Our null hypothesis was that duration of surgery is significantly longer if a trainee were performing the operation despite supervision or level of trainee experience.

Cemented hip hemiarthroplasty was chosen as our index procedure as complexity is largely comparable between cases. 461 patients were identified on the hospital trauma database. Data were augmented by information regarding level of surgeon, assistant and time of surgery from the hospital theatre database.

There was no significant difference in registrar and consultant operative times, mean time 69 and 72 minutes respectively. SHOs were significantly slower (mean 80 minutes, p=0.0006). Junior (ST5 or less) registrars were significantly slower (mean 81minutes, p=0.0002) whereas senior registrars were not. Supervision level had no effect on duration of senior registrar operations but when junior registrars were consultant supervised they were not significantly slower (mean 75 minutes, p=0.09).

Supervised operating therefore reduces time variability and should be promoted within a climate of training. Increase in mean operative time in registrars and SHOs is insignificant within a day's operating and is unlikely to lead to cancellations of cases.

A number of studies suggest revision of unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) to total knee replacement (TKR) is straightforward. We hypothesise that this is not always the case in terms of complexity, cost and clinical outcome.

We identified 23 consecutive patients revised from UKR to TKR by 2 consultant surgeons (2005–2008). These were matched by age, sex and comorbidity to a cohort of primary TKRs (42 patients) performed during the same period. Data were collected regarding demographics, cost (surgical time & implants) and 1 & 5-year follow-up of clinical outcome (OKS) and outpatients attended.

There was no statistically significant difference in cost of implants for revision UKR to TKR vs. primary TKR (p=0.08), however operative time was significantly higher in the revision group. One year mean OKS was significantly higher in the primary TKR group (mean 30 vs. 23 p=0.03), but 5-year follow up showed no significant difference (mean OKS 27 vs. 32 p=0.20). The revision group had statistically significantly greater number of follow-up appointments (mean 6 Vs. 2 p<0.0001).

Revision of UKR to TKR is not a universally straightforward procedure, carrying significant overall cost implications. Clinical outcomes, although significantly different at 1 year are almost the same at 5 years.

In previously published work, MR arthrogram (MRA) has sensitivities and specificities of 88–100% and 89–93% respectively in detection of glenoid labrum tears. Our practice suggested higher frequency of falsely negative reports. We aimed to assess accuracy of this costly modality in practice.

We retrospectively reviewed MRA reports of 90 consecutive patients with clinical shoulder instability who had undergone arthroscopy. All had history of traumatic anterior dislocation and had positive anterior apprehension tests. All underwent stabilisation during the same procedure. We compared the findings, using arthoscopy as gold standard in identification of glenoid labral tears.

83/90 patients had glenoid labrum tears at arthroscopy. Only 54 were correctly identified at MRA. All normal labra were identified. This gave sensitivity of 65% and specificity of 100% in identification of all types of glenoid labrum tear. The majority had anterior glenoid labral tears, which were detected at an even lower rate of sensitivity (58%).

Sensitivity of MRA in this series is significantly lower than previously published. This study highlights the importance of an accurate history and clinical examination by specialist shoulder surgeons in the management of glenohumeral instability. The need for this costly investigation may not be as high as is currently the case.

We present a retrospective study of a consecutive cohort of 109 patients, under the age of 60, who had either a patello-femoral replacement (PFR), uni-compartmental replacement (UKR) or a total knee replacement (TKR). They were operated on by 2 senior surgeons between 2002 and 2006 at the Avon Orthopaedic Centre in Bristol. The aim of this study was to look at the effect of knee replacement on the employment status of this group of patients.

Data were collected from patient’s hospital records and a questionnaire regarding occupational status sent postoperatively to patients. Statistical analysis showed that our groups were similar which meant that further comparison between them was valid.

Eighty two percent of patients who were working prior to surgery and who had either a TKR or UKR were able to return to work postoperatively. Only 54% of those who had a PFR were able to return to work and this was statistically significant when compared with patients in the other two groups p=0.047. The median time for return to work postoperatively for the study population was 12 weeks. Those in the PFR group took significantly longer to do so (20 weeks) compared to those who had either a UKR (11 weeks) or TKR (12 weeks) p=0.01. Patient’s subjective opinion as to their ability to work following knee arthroplasty was worse in the PFR group p=0.049.

This is the first study to compare employment status following patello-femoral, uni-compartmental knee and Total Knee Replacement. TKR and UKR are effective in returning patients to active employment and that this is typically 3 months following surgery. Patients who had a PFR did not experience the same benefits in terms of numbers returning to work, time to do so and their subjective opinion as to their ability to cope with normal duties.

We performed a retrospective study of a consecutive cohort of 109 patients, under the age of 60 years, who had either a Patellofemoral replacement (PFR), Uni-compartmental replacement (UKR) or a Total knee replacement (TKR). They were operated on by 2 senior surgeons between 2002 and 2006 at the Avon Orthopaedic Centre in Bristol. The aim of this study was to examine and compare the effect of knee replacement on the employment status of this group of patients.

Demographic and diagnostic data were collected from patient’s hospital records and a detailed questionnaire regarding occupational status sent postoperatively. Of the 109 patients, 37 underwent PFR, 31 UKR and 41 TKR. The study population included 38 men and 71 women and the mean age for both sexes was 53 years (range 40–60 years).

82% of patients who were working prior to surgery and who had either a TKR or UKR were able to return to work postoperatively. Only 54% of those who had a PFR were able to return to work and this was statistically significant when compared with patients in the other two groups p=0.47. The median time for return to work postoperatively for the study population was 12 months. Those in the PFR group took significantly longer to do so (20 months) compared to those who had either a UKR (11 months) or TKR (12 months) p=0.01. Patient’s subjective opinion as to their ability to work following knee arthroplasty was worse in the PFR group p=0.049.

This is the first study to compare employment status following Patellofemoral, Unicompartmental knee and Total Knee Replacement. TKR and UKR are effective in returning patients to active employment and this is typically one year following operation. Those patients who had a PFR did not experience the same benefits in terms of numbers returning to work, time to do so and their subjective opinion as to their ability to cope with normal duties.