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
This study aimed to develop a virtual clinic for the purpose of reducing face-to-face orthopaedic consultations. Anonymized experts (hip and knee arthroplasty patients, surgeons, physiotherapists, radiologists, and arthroplasty practitioners) gave feedback via a Delphi Consensus Technique. This consisted of an iterative sequence of online surveys, during which virtual documents, made up of a patient-reported questionnaire, standardized radiology report, and decision-guiding algorithm, were modified until consensus was achieved. We tested the patient-reported questionnaire on seven patients in orthopaedic clinics using a ‘think-aloud’ process to capture difficulties with its completion.Aims
Patients and Methods
Increasing demand for total hip and knee arthroplasty (THA/TKA)
and associated follow-up has placed huge demands on orthopaedic
services. Feasible follow-up mechanisms are therefore essential. We conducted an audit of clinical follow-up decision-making for
THA/TKA based on questionnaire/radiograph review compared with local
practice of Arthroplasty Care Practitioner (ACP)-led outpatient
follow-up. In all 599 patients attending an ACP-led THA/TKA follow-up
clinic had a pelvic/knee radiograph, completed a pain/function questionnaire
and were reviewed by an ACP. An experienced orthopaedic surgeon
reviewed the same radiographs and questionnaires, without patient
contact or knowledge of the ACP’s decision. Each pathway classified
patients into: urgent review, annual monitoring, routine follow-up
or discharge. Aims
Methods
