Aims

To validate the English language Forgotten Joint Score-12 (FJS-12) as a tool to evaluate the outcome of hip and knee arthroplasty in a United Kingdom population.

Objectives

To assess the responsiveness and ceiling/floor effects of the Forgotten Joint Score -12 and to compare these with that of the more widely used Oxford Hip Score (OHS) in patients six and 12 months after primary total hip arthroplasty.

Objectives

The Oxford Hip and Knee Scores (OHS, OKS) have been demonstrated to vary according to age and gender, making it difficult to compare results in cohorts with different demographics. The aim of this paper was to calculate reference values for different patient groups and highlight the concept of normative reference data to contextualise an individual’s outcome.

Satisfaction with care is important to both patients and to those who pay for it. The Net Promoter Score (NPS), widely used in the service industries, has been introduced into the NHS as the ‘friends and family test’; an overarching measure of patient satisfaction. It assesses the likelihood of the patient recommending the healthcare received to another, and is seen as a discriminator of healthcare performance. We prospectively assessed 6186 individuals undergoing primary lower limb joint replacement at a single university hospital to determine the Net Promoter Score for joint replacements and to evaluate which factors contributed to the response.

Achieving pain relief (odds ratio (OR) 2.13, confidence interval (CI) 1.83 to 2.49), the meeting of pre-operative expectation (OR 2.57, CI 2.24 to 2.97), and the hospital experience (OR 2.33, CI 2.03 to 2.68) are the domains that explain whether a patient would recommend joint replacement services. These three factors, combined with the type of surgery undertaken (OR 2.31, CI 1.68 to 3.17), drove a predictive model that was able to explain 95% of the variation in the patient’s recommendation response. Though intuitively similar, this ‘recommendation’ metric was found to be materially different to satisfaction responses. The difference between THR (NPS 71) and TKR (NPS 49) suggests that no overarching score for a department should be used without an adjustment for case mix. However, the Net Promoter Score does measure a further important dimension to our existing metrics: the patient experience of healthcare delivery.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:622–8.

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.