Aims. To review the evidence and reach consensus on recommendations for follow-up after total hip and knee arthroplasty. Methods. A programme of work was conducted, including: a systematic review of the clinical and cost-effectiveness literature; analysis of routine national datasets to identify pre-, peri-, and postoperative predictors of mid-to-late term revision; prospective data analyses from 560 patients to understand how patients present for revision surgery; qualitative interviews with NHS managers and orthopaedic surgeons; and health economic modelling. Finally, a consensus meeting considered all the work and agreed the final recommendations and research areas. Results. The UK poSt Arthroplasty Follow-up rEcommendations (UK SAFE) recommendations apply to post-primary hip and knee arthroplasty follow-up. The ten-year time point is based on a lack of robust evidence beyond ten years. The term 'complex cases' refers to individual patient and surgical factors that may increase the risk for arthroplasty failure. For Orthopaedic Data Evaluation Panel (ODEP) 10A* minimum implants, it is safe to disinvest in routine follow-up from one to ten years post-non-complex hip and knee arthroplasty provided there is rapid access to orthopaedic review. For ODEP 10A* minimum implants in complex cases, or non-ODEP 10A* minimum implants, periodic follow-up post-hip and knee arthroplasty may be required from one to ten years. At ten years post-hip and knee arthroplasty, clinical and radiological evaluation is recommended. After ten years post-hip and knee arthroplasty, frequency of further follow-up should be based on the ten-year assessment; ongoing rapid access to orthopaedic review is still required. Conclusion. Complex cases, implants not meeting the ODEP 10A* criteria, and follow-up after revision surgery are not covered by this recommendation. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(2):72–78

Aim. Restarting elective services presents a challenge to restore and improve many of the planned patient care pathways which have been suspended during the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. A significant backlog of planned elective work has built up representing a considerable volume of patient need. We aimed to investigate the health status, quality of life, and the impact of delay for patients whose referrals and treatment for symptomatic joint arthritis had been delayed as a result of the response to COVID-19. Methods. We interviewed 111 patients referred to our elective outpatient service and whose first appointments had been cancelled as a result of the response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Results. Patients reported significant impacts on their health status and quality of life. Overall, 79 (71.2%) patients reported a further deterioration in their condition while waiting, with seven (6.3%) evaluating their health status as ‘worse than death’. Conclusions. Waiting lists are clearly not benign and how to prioritize patients, their level of need, and access to assessment and treatment must be more sophisticated than simply relying on the length of time a patient has been waiting. This paper supports the contention that patients awaiting elective joint arthroplasty report significant impacts on their quality of life and health status. This should be given appropriate weight when patients are prioritized for surgery as part of the recovery of services following the COVID-19 pandemic. Elective surgery should not be seen as optional surgery—patients do not see it in this way

Aims

The aims were to assess whether preoperative joint-specific function (JSF) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) were associated with level of clinical frailty in patients waiting for a primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) or knee arthroplasty (KA).

Aims

The aim of this study is to assess the impact of a pilot enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programme on length of stay (LOS) and post-discharge resource usage via service evaluation and cost analysis.