Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 2 of 2
Results per page:
Applied filters
Include Proceedings
Dates
Year From

Year To
Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 101-B, Issue SUPP_1 | Pages 3 - 3
1 Jan 2019
Hughes LD Chamberlain KA Sloan A Choudry Q Robinson H
Full Access

MHRA guidance for patients with metal on metal hip replacements (MOM) was provided in 2012 and updated in 2017 to assist in the early detection of soft tissue reactions due to metal wear debris. A large number of metal on metal hip replacements were undertaken at our trust. A program of recall for all patients with metal on metal hip replacements was undertaken and MHRA guidelines implemented.

Identification and recall of all patients from 2001 with MOM hip replacements using theatre logs, patient records and consultant log books. Two consultant review of X-rays and patient records. Postal questionnaires and GP requests for cobalt & chromium blood tests. Two consultant led MOM review clinics undertaken with metal artefact reduction scans (MARS) performed following consultation in 2017.

674 patients, 297 available for review. 59 refused follow up. 87 moved out of area, 36 untraceable, 26 not MOM, 147 RIP, 22 already revised. From 297 patients 126 female, 171 male, age range 39 – 95 yrs. 126 resurfacing, 171 MOM THR. 26 patients with elevated metal ions, MARS performed of which 17 positive, 9 negative. Of 17 positive scans 10 patients asymptomatic, 7 waiting revision.

A time consuming effort and additional resource was needed and supported by the trust. From 297 hips 17 positive MARs were identified (5.7%). A new database registry has been developed to track MOM patients, clinics set up for ongoing follow up with radiological protocols for imaging. An arthroplasty advanced nurse practitioner (ANP) is now trained reviewing patients independently.


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 86-B, Issue SUPP_IV | Pages 423 - 423
1 Apr 2004
Brander V Villoch C Robinson H Stulberg S Adams A
Full Access

Introduction: Hospital accrediting organizations have recently emphasized the evaluation of and response to postoperative pain as the “fifth vital sign”. However, there are no prospective studies describing normal pain patterns after TKA to guide appropriate clinical responses. Similarly, there are no studies describing those at risk for unusual pain.

Purpose: To outline the pattern of normal recovery and identify factors predictive of significant pain after TKA.

Method: Prospective, observational, single surgeon design. Inclusion criteria: primary, cemented TKA for osteoarthritis. Clinical & radiographic measures obtained pre-op and at 1,3,6 and 12 months post-operatively. Predictive factors and post-operative outcomes included body mass index visual analogue scale (VAS), demographics, physical therapy, and component design, alignment and fixation. Psychometric testing included the Beck Depression Inventory and McGill Pain Questionnaire.

Results: 96 patients, 125 knees (mean age = 66, 55.2% women). Mean VAS at pre-op, 1,3, 6 and 12 month visits were 51.1(SD 23.8), 37.4(21.8), 27.0(22.2), 20.8(20.3), and 18.0(21.0), respectively. significant pain (VAS> 40) was reported by 61.51% of patients pre-op, 41.7% at 1 month, 24.0% 3 months, 16.7% 6 months, and 8.3% 12 months. There were no differences in pain based on the type of anesthesia, weight, age or gender. Preoperative elevated depression, anxiety and pain-related suffering descriptors predicted greater pain during the first 6 months after surgery, but did not ultimately affect recovery. Patients who had greater pain (VAS> 40) used more home and outpatient physical therapy (p=0.25).

Conclusion: Contrary to common beliefs, many patients (22%) still experience significant pain up to six months after TKA, despite absence of clinical or radiographic abnormalities. significant pain (VAS > 40mm) after six months may be indicative of an abnormal pain experience. Preoperative pain, depression and suffering are associated with increased early pain andutilization of therapy.