Aims

This pilot study aimed to evaluate prospectively the use of inlet radiographs of the hip as an alternative method of the assessment of reduction after the surgical treatment of developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH).

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and total hip arthroplasty (THA) are recognised and proven interventions for patients with advanced arthritis. Studies to date have demonstrated a steady increase in the requirement for primary and revision procedures. Projected estimates made for the United States show that by 2030 the demand for primary TKA will grow by 673% and for revision TKA by 601% from the level in 2005. For THA the projected estimates are 174% and 137% for primary and revision surgery, respectively. The purpose of this study was to see if those predictions were similar for England and Wales using data from the National Joint Registry and the Office of National Statistics.

Analysis of data for England and Wales suggest that by 2030, the volume of primary and revision TKAs will have increased by 117% and 332%, respectively between 2012 and 2030. The data for the United States translates to a 306% cumulative rate of increase between 2012 and 2030 for revision surgery, which is similar to our predictions for England and Wales.

The predictions from the United States for primary TKA were similar to our upper limit projections. For THA, we predicted an increase of 134% and 31% for primary and revision hip surgery, respectively.

Our model has limitations, however, it highlights the economic burden of arthroplasty in the future in England and Wales as a real and unaddressed problem. This will have significant implications for the provision of health care and the management of orthopaedic services in the future.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1076–1081.

The August 2015 Research Roundup360 looks at: Lightbulbs, bleeding and procedure durations; Infection and rheumatoid agents; Infection rates and ‘bundles of care’ revisited; ACI: new application for a proven technology?; Hydrogel coating given the thumbs up; Hydroxyapatite as a smart coating?

The August 2015 Hip & Pelvis Roundup360 looks at: The well-fixed acetabular revision; Predicting complications in revision arthroplasty; Is infection associated with fixation?; Front or back? An enduring question in hip surgery; Muscle-sparing approaches?; Gabapentin as a post-operative analgesic adjunct; An Indian take on AVN of the hip; Weight loss and arthroplasty

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 vs 4.0 years, p < 0.001). The cost per QALY for THR was £1372 compared with £2101 for TKR. The predictors of an increase in QALYs gained were poorer health before surgery (p < 0.001) and younger age (p < 0.001). General health (EQ-5D VAS) showed greater improvement after THR than after TKR (p < 0.001). This study provides up-to-date cost-effectiveness data for total joint replacement. THR and TKR are extremely effective both clinically and in terms of cost effectiveness, with costs that compare favourably to those of other medical interventions.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:115–21.

The October 2014 Hip & Pelvis Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: functional acetabular orientation; predicting re-admission following THR; metal ions and resurfacing; lipped liners increase stability; all anaesthetics equal in hip fracture surgery; revision hip surgery in very young patients; and uncemented hips.

The routine use of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in evaluating the outcome after arthroplasty by healthcare organisations reflects a growing recognition of the importance of patients’ perspectives in improving treatment. Although widely embraced in the NHS, there are concerns that PROMs are being used beyond their means due to a poor understanding of their limitations.

This paper reviews some of the current challenges in using PROMs to evaluate total knee arthroplasty. It highlights alternative methods that have been used to improve the assessment of outcome.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:3–9.

The February 2014 Hip & Pelvis Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: length of stay; cementless metaphyseal fixation; mortality trends in over 400,000 total hip replacements; antibiotics in hip fracture surgery; blood supply to the femoral head after dislocation; resurfacing and THR in metal-on-metal replacement; diabetes and hip replacement; bone remodelling over two decades following hip replacement; and whether bisphosphonates affect acetabular fixation.

The October 2013 Spine Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Standing straighter may reduce falls; Operative management of congenital kyphosis; Athletic discectomy; Lumbar spine stenosis worsens with time; Flexible stabilisation?: spinal stenosis revisited; Do epidural steroids cause spinal fractures?; Who does well with cervical myelopathy?; Secretly adverse to BMP-2?

The August 2013 Spine Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: SPECT CT and facet joints; a difficult conversation: scoliosis and complications; time for a paradigm shift? complications under the microscope; minor trauma and cervical injury: a predictable phenomenon?; more costly all round: incentivising more complex operations?; minimally invasive surgery = minimal scarring; and symptomatic lumbar spine stenosis.

We summarise and highlight the safety concerns within the field of trauma and orthopaedic surgery with particular emphasis placed on current controversies and reforms within the United Kingdom National Health Service.

The February 2014 Research Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: blood supply to the femoral head after dislocation; diabetes and hip replacement; bone remodelling over two decades following hip replacement; sham surgery as good as arthroscopic meniscectomy; distraction in knee osteoarthritis; whether joint replacement prevent cardiac events; tranexamic acid and knee replacement haemostasis; cartilage colonisation in bipolar ankle grafts; CTs and proof of fusion; atorvastatin for muscle re-innervation after sciatic nerve transection; microfracture and short-term pain in cuff repair; promising early results from L-PRF augmented cuff repairs; and fatty degeneration in a rodent model.

We evaluated 535 consecutive primary cementless total knee replacements (TKR). The mean follow-up was 9.2 years (0.3 to 12.9) and information on implant survival was available for all patients. Patients were divided into two groups: 153 obese patients (BMI ≥ 30) and 382 non-obese (BMI < 30). A case-matched study was performed on the clinical and radiological outcome, comparing 50 knees in each group. We found significantly lower mean improvements in the clinical score (p = 0.044) and lower post-operative total clinical scores in the obese group (p = 0.041). There was no difference in the rate of radiological osteolysis or lucent lines, and no difference in alignment. Log rank test for survival showed no significant differences between the groups (p = 0.167), with a ten-year survival rate of 96.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 92 to 99) in the obese and 98% (95% CI 96 to 99) in the non-obese.

The mid-term survival of TKR in the obese and the non-obese are comparable, but obesity appears to have a negative effect on the clinical outcome. However, good results and high patient satisfaction are still to be expected, and it would seem unreasonable to deny patients a TKR simply on the basis of a BMI indicating obesity.

There has been considerable discussion as to the influence of obesity on the indications for, and the outcome after, joint replacement. Attempts have been made to withhold funding for such procedures in those who are overweight. What is the justification for this? This editorial examines the current evidence concerning the influence of obesity on joint replacement and suggests that it is only in the morbidly obese, with a body mass index > 40 kg/m², that significant contraindications to operation are present.