To review the evidence and reach consensus on recommendations for follow-up after total hip and knee arthroplasty. 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.Aims
Methods
Our main aim was to describe the trend in the comorbidities of patients undergoing elective total hip arthroplasties (THAs) and knee arthroplasties (KAs) between 1 January 2005 and 31 December 2018 in England. We combined data from the National Joint Registry (NJR) on primary elective hip and knee arthroplasties performed between 2005 and 2018 with pre-existing conditions recorded at the time of their primary operation from Hospital Episodes Statistics. We described the temporal trend in the number of comorbidities identified using the Charlson Comorbidity Index, and how this varied by age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, index of multiple deprivation, and type of KA.Aims
Methods
We obtained information from the Elective Orthopaedic
Centre on 1523 patients with baseline and six-month Oxford hip scores
(OHS) after undergoing primary hip replacement (THR) and 1784 patients
with Oxford knee scores (OKS) for primary knee replacement (TKR)
who completed a six-month satisfaction questionnaire. Receiver operating characteristic curves identified an absolute
change in OHS of 14 points or more as the point that discriminates
best between patients’ satisfaction levels and an 11-point change
for the OKS. Satisfaction is highest (97.6%) in patients with an
absolute change in OHS of 14 points or more, compared with lower
levels of satisfaction (81.8%) below this threshold. Similarly,
an 11-point absolute change in OKS was associated with 95.4% satisfaction
compared with 76.5% below this threshold. For the six-month OHS
a score of 35 points or more distinguished patients with the highest
satisfaction level, and for the six-month OKS 30 points or more identified
the highest level of satisfaction. The thresholds varied according
to patients’ pre-operative score, where those with severe pre-operative
pain/function required a lower six-month score to achieve the highest
levels of satisfaction. Our data suggest that the choice of a six-month follow-up to
assess patient-reported outcomes of THR/TKR is acceptable. The thresholds
help to differentiate between patients with different levels of
satisfaction, but external validation will be required prior to
general implementation in clinical practice.
