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
To calculate how the likelihood of obtaining measurable benefit from hip or knee arthroplasty varies with preoperative patient-reported scores. Existing UK data from 222,933 knee and 209,760 hip arthroplasty patients were used to model an individual’s probability of gaining meaningful improvement after surgery based on their preoperative Oxford Knee or Hip Score (OKS/OHS). A clinically meaningful improvement after arthroplasty was defined as ≥ 8 point improvement in OHS, and ≥ 7 in OKS.Aims
Methods
Fifty-seven Stanmore Total Hip replacements were implanted between 1974 and 1986 in patients under the age of 50 years. We have reviewed the results in terms of survivorship and function, and assessed the reasons for revision. Of the original 57, 22 (39%) have been revised at an average of 12 years from implantation, usually for aseptic loosening. Most of them had originally been implanted for osteoarthritis. Prostheses cemented with second-generation techniques have lasted significantly longer, and acetabular loosening emerged as a continuing problem. The overall survivorship was 90% at
