The aim of this study was to conduct a cross-sectional, observational cohort study of patients presenting for revision of a total hip, or total or unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, to understand current routes to revision surgery and explore differences in symptoms, healthcare use, reason for revision, and the revision surgery (surgical time, components, length of stay) between patients having regular follow-up and those without. Data were collected from participants and medical records for the 12 months prior to revision. Patients with previous revision, metal-on-metal articulations, or hip hemiarthroplasty were excluded. Participants were retrospectively classified as ‘Planned’ or ‘Unplanned’ revision. Multilevel regression and propensity score matching were used to compare the two groups.Aims
Methods
The aim of this study was to perform a cost–utility
analysis of total hip (THR) and knee replacement (TKR). Arthritis is
a disabling condition that leads to long-term deterioration in quality
of life. Total joint replacement, despite being one of the greatest
advances in medicine of the modern era, has recently come under
scrutiny. The National Health Service (NHS) has competing demands,
and resource allocation is challenging in times of economic restraint. Patients
who underwent THR (n = 348) or TKR (n = 323) between January and
July 2010 in one Scottish region were entered into a prospective
arthroplasty database. A health–utility score was derived from the
EuroQol (EQ-5D) score pre-operatively and at one year, and was combined
with individual life expectancy to derive the quality-adjusted life years
(QALYs) gained. Two-way analysis of variance was used to compare
QALYs gained between procedures, while controlling for baseline
differences. The number of QALYs gained was higher after THR than
after TKR (6.5 Cite this article:
