Background

A cornerstone in treating low back pain (LBP) is the provision of information to patients, and the internet is increasingly being used as a source of health information delivery. However, the effect of and satisfaction with online information have been questioned.

Background

Information about low back pain (LBP) and help to support patients' self-management are recommended in the majority of guidelines for LBP management. However, the delivery of patient information and advice can be time consuming, and with short available consultation times for general practitioners (GPs), new methods to support the delivery of sufficient patient information is called for.

Background

Advice to stay active should be delivered to all patients with low back pain (LBP) without a serious underlying condition. However, some patients still believe that the avoidance of activities will help them to recover. These patients may be less likely to experience favourable outcomes.

The optimal timing of total knee replacement (TKR) in patients with osteoarthritis, in relation to the severity of disease, remains controversial. This prospective study was performed to investigate the effect of the severity of osteoarthritis and other commonly available pre- and post-operative clinical parameters on the clinical outcome in a consecutive series of cemented TKRs. A total of 176 patients who underwent unilateral TKR were included in the study. Their mean age was 68 years (39 to 91), 63 (36%) were male and 131 knees (74%) were classified as grade 4 on the Kellgren–Lawrence osteoarthritis scale. A total of 154 patients (87.5%) returned for clinical review 12 months post-operatively, at which time the outcome was assessed using the Knee Society score.

A low radiological severity of osteoarthritis was not associated with pain 12 months post-operatively. However, it was significantly associated with an inferior level of function (p = 0.007), implying the need for increased focus on all possible reasons for pain in the knee and the forms of conservative treatment which are available for patients with lower radiological severity of osteoarthritis.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014; 96-B:1498–1502.

Introduction: NSAID’s are routinely used as either pain-killer or in prevention of heterotopic bone formation (HBF) after total hip replacement (THR). Experimental animal studies have in two decades shown NSAID’s to influence bone remodelling, and thereby also to reduce fixation and bone healing round non-cemented implants. Clinical studies have, however, non been able to demonstrate these observations, too. This may be due a low power in such studies with only few observations. The present study present results from The Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register (DHR) on the effect of NSAID’s to revision of cemented implants due aseptic loosening.

Materials and Methods: DHR was established January 1, 1995 and covers all Danish clinics. All report both primary and revision cases to a central database. Every Danish citizen have an unique civil register number - making it possible to follow both primary and revision cases and to investigate survival due various circumstances. Cox’s regression analysis to estimate the relative risks (RR) of revision and data are presented with 95% confidence intervals.

Results: During the period 1995–2006 total 64.725 primary THR’s were recorded in DHR. Of these 8.531 cases had prophylactic NSAID after surgery in prevention of HBF. Total 409 hips (4.8%) of this population undergoing revision THR had been treated with NSAID’s after surgery. In contrast, 2.536 (4.3%) undergoing revision in the population had no NSAID’s. Overall the risk for revision for any reason was reduced for patients treated with NSAID’s (RR = 0.88 (0.79–0.98) p=0.02). This was even more significant in revision due to aseptic loosening (RR = 0.76 (0.64–0.90) p< 0.01). Subgroup analysis showed that the reduction was in the cemented THR (RR = 0.82 (0.70–0.95) p=0.01) with a further more significant sign in revision due aseptic loosening (RR = 0.69 (0.55–0.87) p< 0.01). In contrast there was no differences in cementless THR neither in revision for any reason (RR = 1.19 (0.86–1.63) p=0.30) nor for aseptic loosening (RR = 1.72 (0.87–3.43) p=0.12).

Discussion and Conclusion: The present investigation from the DHR is a good example of what can be evaluated from a register, and never possibly concluded from standard clinical studies. The results demonstrate that NSAID’s administrated in order to prevent HBF after primary THR surprisingly did not increase the risk of revision in non-cemented implants, but in contrast did reduce the risk for revision in cemented THR. The reason for this reduction is speculated, and be relate to the phenomenon that NSAID’s did not only influence the osteoblastic activity, but also the osteoclasts and thereby prevent early postoperative bone degradation after cemented THR where heat from the bone-cement may impose devascu-larisation of vital bone near the implant.

Introduction: We studied the survival of primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) in patients undergoing surgery because of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and compared our results to the survival of primary THA in patients undergoing surgery because of osteoarthritis (OA). Furthermore, we evaluated the effect of primary THA-survival in RA-patients concerning multiple confounders such as age, gender, comorbidity, and cemented/uncemented prosthesis.

Material and Methods: Using the Danish Hip Arthroplasty Register we gathered info concerning 1.302 primary THA’s in 1.106 RA-patients and 41.848 primary THA’s in 35.729 OA-patients. These patients underwent surgery from 1995 to 2004. Using the Cox regression model we estimated the relative risk (RR) for revision due to aseptic loosening, other reasons, and all reasons and adjusted for above mentioned confounders.

Results: The adjusted RR’s for cup-revision of primary THA’s in patients with RA (compared to OA) were 1.22 (aseptic loosening − 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.75–1.99), 0.90 (other causes for revision − 95% CI 0.61–1.32), and 1.00 (all revisions − 95% CI 0.74–1.35). For the stem the RR’s were 0.50 (aseptic loosening − 95% CI 0.25–0.99), 0.58 (other causes for revision − 95% CI 0.35–0.95), and 0.54 (all revisions − 95% CI 0.36–0.80). RR for all revisions (both cup and stem) was 0.83 (95% CI 0.64–1.09). The RAsubanalysis showed an increased RR (all revisions) for men compared to women (RR 2.60; 95% CI 1.19–5.66). No significant result concerning all revisions for age, comorbidity, and cemented/ uncemented prosthesis was found. The mean follow-up was 5,4 years for RA and 4,8 years for OA.

Conclusion: The survival of primary THA’s in RA could not be associated with any clearly overall increased risk of revision when compared to OA. However, male gender seems to be a risk factor for undergoing revision-THA in the RA-subgroup.

Aim: We determined 90 days mortality following primary total hip replacement (THR) and examined the impact of age and level of comorbidity.

Methods: We used data from the nationwide population based Danish Hip Arthroplasty Registry between 1 January 1995 and 31 December 2004. Each THR patient was matched according to gender and age on the time of surgery with 3 persons from the general population randomly sampled using the Danish Civil Registration system, resulting in a total of 44 818 THA patients and 120 883 controls. We used a Cox regression analyses to computed age and comorbidity specific mortality rates (MR) and mortality rate ratio (MRR) with 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) for THR patients compared with the general population, as well as Number Needed to Harm (NNH).

Results: The MRs for THR patients relative to those for the general population were highest in the patients younger than 60 years, corresponding to an adjusted MRR of 3.6 (95% CI: 2.2–5.5). Similar, an adjusted MRR was 1.2 (95% CI: 1.0–1.4) in patients aged 80 years and over. The THR patients younger than 60 years had more comorbidity than the controls, whereas distribution of comorbidity was equal in all other age groups. MRRs increase with comorbidity level for both THR patients and controls in all age groups. MRR for THR patients vs. controls within high comorbidity level aged below 60 years and aged 80 years and over was 3.5 (1.3–9.8) and 0.7 (0.5–0.9), respectively. However, hospitalisation with particularly cardio–og cerebrovasculaar disease before surgery increase mortality risk for both age groups, whereas hospitalisation with cancer increase mortality risk for patients younger than 60 years and decrease it for patients aged 80 years and over.

Conclusions: Overall mortality of THR patients relative to those in the general population was higher 90 days after surgery. Our findings apply particularly for THR patients aged 10 to 59 and 80 years and over. Although THR patients aged 80 years and over with high comorbidity level had lower mortality than corresponding persons from the general population, some particular groups of medical condition prior to surgery is associated with increased mortality risk whereas other medical conditions are associated with decreased mortality risk. We should be careful in making clinical decisions based on the Charslon comorbidity index; subgroups analyses may be necessary.

Further, we will present data on 90 days cause of death following primary THR and predictors for death, including age, gender and comorbidity (analyses are not finished yet).