Aims. This study aimed to develop a virtual clinic for the purpose of reducing face-to-face orthopaedic consultations. Patients and Methods. Anonymized experts (hip and knee arthroplasty patients, surgeons, physiotherapists, radiologists, and arthroplasty practitioners) gave feedback via a Delphi Consensus Technique. This consisted of an iterative sequence of online surveys, during which virtual documents, made up of a patient-reported questionnaire, standardized radiology report, and decision-guiding algorithm, were modified until consensus was achieved. We tested the patient-reported questionnaire on seven patients in orthopaedic clinics using a ‘think-aloud’ process to capture difficulties with its completion. Results. A patient-reported 13-item questionnaire was developed covering pain, mobility, and activity. The radiology report included up to ten items (e.g. progressive periprosthetic bone loss) depending on the type of arthroplasty. The algorithm concludes in one of three outcomes: review at surgeon’s discretion (three to 12 months); see at next available clinic; or long-term follow-up/discharge. Conclusion. The virtual clinic approach with attendant documents achieved consensus by orthopaedic experts, radiologists, and patients. The robust development and testing of this standardized virtual clinic provided a sound platform for organizations in the United Kingdom to adopt a virtual clinic approach for follow-up of hip and knee arthroplasty patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:951–959

Survival analysis is an important tool for assessing the outcome of total joint replacement. The Kaplan-Meier method is used to estimate the incidence of revision of a prosthesis over time, but does not account appropriately for competing events which preclude revision. In the presence of competing death, this method will lead to statistical bias and the curve will lose its interpretability. A valid comparison of survival results between studies using the method is impossible without accounting for different rates of competing events. An alternative and easily applicable approach, the cumulative incidence of competing risk, is proposed. Using three simulated data sets and realistic data from a cohort of 406 consecutive cementless total hip prostheses, followed up for a minimum of ten years, both approaches were compared and the magnitude of potential bias was highlighted. The Kaplan-Meier method overestimated the incidence of revision by almost 4% (60% relative difference) in the simulations and more than 1% (31.3% relative difference) in the realistic data set. The cumulative incidence of competing risk approach allows for appropriate accounting of competing risk and, as such, offers an improved ability to compare survival results across studies.