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
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
The results of hip and knee replacement surgery
are generally regarded as positive for patients. Nonetheless, they are
both major operations and have recognised complications. We present
a review of relevant claims made to the National Health Service
Litigation Authority. Between 1995 and 2010 there were 1004 claims
to a value of £41.5 million following hip replacement surgery and
523 claims to a value of £21 million for knee replacement. The most common
complaint after hip surgery was related to residual neurological
deficit, whereas after knee replacement it was related to infection.
Vascular complications resulted in the highest costs per case in
each group. Although there has been a large increase in the number of operations
performed, there has not been a corresponding relative increase
in litigation. The reasons for litigation have remained largely
unchanged over time after hip replacement. In the case of knee replacement,
although there has been a reduction in claims for infection, there
has been an increase in claims for technical errors. There has also
been a rise in claims for non-specified dissatisfaction. This information
is of value to surgeons and can be used to minimise the potential
mismatch between patient expectation, informed consent and outcome. Cite this article:
