Although it has been suggested that the outcome after revision of a unicondylar knee replacement (UKR) to total knee replacement (TKR) is better when the mechanism of failure is understood, a comparative study on this subject has not been undertaken.

A total of 30 patients (30 knees) who underwent revision of their unsatisfactory UKR to TKR were included in the study: 15 patients with unexplained pain comprised group A and 15 patients with a defined cause for pain formed group B. The Oxford knee score (OKS), visual analogue scale for pain (VAS) and patient satisfaction were assessed before revision and at one year after revision, and compared between the groups.

The mean OKS improved from 19 (10 to 30) to 25 (11 to 41) in group A and from 23 (11 to 45) to 38 (20 to 48) in group B. The mean VAS improved from 7.7 (5 to 10) to 5.4 (1 to 8) in group A and from 7.4 (2 to 9) to 1.7 (0 to 8) in group B. There was a statistically significant difference between the mean improvements in each group for both OKS (p = 0.022) and VAS (p = 0.002). Subgroup analysis in group A, performed in order to define a patient factor that predicts outcome of revision surgery in patients with unexplained pain, showed no pre-operative differences between both subgroups.

These results may be used to inform patients about what to expect from revision surgery, highlighting that revision of UKR to TKR for unexplained pain generally results in a less favourable outcome than revision for a known cause of pain.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1204–8.

Objectives

The Kaplan-Meier estimation is widely used in orthopedics to calculate the probability of revision surgery. Using data from a long-term follow-up study, we aimed to assess the amount of bias introduced by the Kaplan-Meier estimator in a competing risk setting.

Diabetes mellitus is recognised as a risk factor for carpal tunnel syndrome. The response to treatment is unclear, and may be poorer than in non-diabetic patients. Previous randomised studies of interventions for carpal tunnel syndrome have specifically excluded diabetic patients. The aim of this study was to investigate the epidemiology of carpal tunnel syndrome in diabetic patients, and compare the outcome of carpal tunnel decompression with non-diabetic patients. The primary endpoint was improvement in the QuickDASH score. The prevalence of diabetes mellitus was 11.3% (176 of 1564). Diabetic patients were more likely to have severe neurophysiological findings at presentation. Patients with diabetes had poorer QuickDASH scores at one year post-operatively (p = 0.028), although the mean difference was lower than the minimal clinically important difference for this score. After controlling for underlying differences in age and gender, there was no difference between groups in the magnitude of improvement after decompression (p = 0.481). Patients with diabetes mellitus can therefore be expected to enjoy a similar improvement in function.

Objectives

We aimed first to summarise minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) after total hip (THR) or knee replacement (TKR) in health-related quality of life (HRQoL), measured using the Short-Form 36 (SF-36). Secondly, we aimed to improve the precision of MCID estimates by means of meta-analysis.

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly being used to assess functional outcome and patient satisfaction. They provide a framework for comparisons between surgical units, and individual surgeons for benchmarking and financial remuneration. Better performance may bring the reward of more customers as patients and commissioners seek out high performers for their elective procedures. Using National Joint Registry (NJR) data linked to PROMs we identified 22 691 primary total knee replacements (TKRs) undertaken for osteoarthritis in England and Wales between August 2008 and February 2011, and identified the surgical factors that influenced the improvements in the Oxford knee score (OKS) and EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D) assessment using multiple regression analysis. After correction for patient factors the only surgical factors that influenced PROMs were implant brand and hospital type (both p < 0.001). However, the effects of surgical factors upon the PROMs were modest compared with patient factors. For both the OKS and the EQ-5D the most important factors influencing the improvement in PROMs were the corresponding pre-operative score and the patient’s general health status. Despite having only a small effect on PROMs, this study has shown that both implant brand and hospital type do influence reported subjective functional scores following TKR. In the current climate of financial austerity, proposed performance-based remuneration and wider patient choice, it would seem unwise to ignore these effects and the influence of a range of additional patient factors.

In a prospective observational study we compared the two-year outcome of lumbar fusion by a simple technique using translaminar screws (n = 57) with a more extensive method using transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion and pedicular screw fixation (n = 63) in consecutive patients with degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. Outcome was assessed using the validated multidimensional Core Outcome Measures Index. Blood loss and operating time were significantly lower in the translaminar screw group (p < 0.01). The complication rates were similar in each group (2% to 4%). In all, 91% of the patients returned their questionnaire at two-years. The groups did not differ in Core Outcome Measures Index score reduction, 3.6 (sd 2.5) (translaminar screws) vs 4.0 (sd 2.8) (transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion) (p = 0.39); ‘good’ global outcomes, 78% (translaminar screws) vs 78% (transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion) (p = 0.99) or satisfaction with treatment, 82% (translaminar screws) vs 86% (transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion) (p = 0.52).

The two fusion techniques differed markedly in their extent and the cost of the implants, but were associated with almost identical patient-orientated outcomes.

Extensive three-point stabilisation is not always required to achieve satisfactory patient-orientated results at two years.

We undertook a randomised controlled trial to compare the outcomes of skin adhesive and staples for skin closure in total hip replacement. The primary outcome was the cosmetic appearance of the scar at three months using a surgeon-rated visual analogue scale. In all, 90 patients were randomised to skin closure using either skin adhesive (n = 45) or staples (n = 45). Data on demographics, surgical details, infection and oozing were collected during the in-patient stay. Further data on complications, patient satisfaction and evaluation of cosmesis were collected at three-month follow-up, and a photograph of the scar was taken. An orthopaedic and a plastic surgeon independently evaluated the cosmetic appearance of the scars from the photographs. No significant difference was found between groups in the cosmetic appearance of scars at three months (p = 0.172), the occurrence of complications (p = 0.3), or patient satisfaction (p = 0.42). Staples were quicker and easier to use than skin adhesive and also less expensive. Skin adhesive and surgical staples are both effective skin closure methods in total hip replacement.

We compared a group of 46 somatised patients with a control group of 41 non-somatised patients who had undergone elective surgery to the lumbar spine in an attempt to identify pre-operative factors which could predict the outcome. In a prospective single-centre study, the Distress and Risk Assessment method consisting of a modified somatic perception questionnaire and modified Zung depression index was used pre-operatively to identify somatised patients. The type and number of consultations were correlated with functional indicators of outcome, such as the Oswestry disability index and a visual analogue score for pain in the leg after follow-up for six and 12 months.

Similar improvements in the Oswestry disability index were found in the somatised and non-somatised groups. Somatised patients who had a good outcome on the Oswestry disability index had an increased number of orthopaedic consultations (50 of 83 patients (60%) vs 29 of 73 patients (39.7%); p = 0.16) and waited less time for their surgery (5.5 months) (sd 5.26) vs 10.1 months (sd 6.29); p = 0.026). No other identifiable factors were found. A shorter wait for surgery appeared to predict a good outcome. Early review by a spinal surgeon and a reduced waiting time to surgery appear to be of particular benefit to somatised patients.

Between January 1990 and December 2000 we carried out 226 SB Charité III disc replacements for lumbar disc degeneration in 160 patients. They were reviewed at a mean follow-up of 79 months (31 to 161) to determine the clinical and radiological outcome. The clinical results were collected by an independent observer, who was not involved in patient selection, treatment or follow-up, using a combination of outcome measures, including the Oswestry Disability Index. Pain was recorded using a visual analogue score, and the most recent radiographs were reviewed.

Survival of the device was analysed by the Kaplan-Meier method and showed a cumulative survival of 35% at 156 months when radiological failure was taken as the endpoint. The mean improvement in the Oswestry disability index scores after disc replacement was 14% (6% to 21%) and the mean improvement in the pain score was 1.6 (0.46 to 2.73), both falling below the clinically significant threshold. Removal of the implant was required in 12 patients, four because of implant failure.

These poor results indicate that further use of this implant is not justified.

The Oxford hip and knee scores have been extensively used since they were first described in 1996 and 1998. During this time, they have been modified and used for many different purposes. This paper describes how they should be used and seeks to clarify areas of confusion.