header advert
You currently have no access to view or download this content. Please log in with your institutional or personal account if you should have access to through either of these
The Bone & Joint Journal Logo

Receive monthly Table of Contents alerts from The Bone & Joint Journal

Comprehensive article alerts can be set up and managed through your account settings

View my account settings

Get Access locked padlock


Guidelines for the follow-up of total hip arthroplasty

do they need to be revised?

Download PDF



The aim of this retrospective audit was to determine the route of referral or presentation of patients requiring revision following primary total hip arthroplasty (THA).

Patients and Methods

A total of 4802 patients were implanted with an Orthopaedic Data Evaluation Panel (ODEP) 10A* cementless implant (Corail/Pinnacle) between 2005 and 2015; 80 patients with a mean age of 67.8 years (sd 10.8) underwent a subsequent revision. The primary outcome measure was route of referral for revision.


Of the 80 revisions, 31 (38.8%) took place within the first year and 69 (86.3%) took place within six years. Only two of the 80 patients were picked up at a routine review clinic, one for infection and the other for liner dissociation. A total of 36 revised patients (45.0%) were reviewed following self-referral. Of the remaining 44 revised patients (55.0%), 15 (18.8%) were General Practitioner referrals, 13 (16.3%) were other hospital referrals, six (7.5%) were inpatients, six (7.5%) were Emergency Department referrals, and two (2.5%) were readmitted from their homes. No revisions were carried out on asymptomatic patients.


Our experience suggests that if there is a robust system in place for self-referral, patients with an ODEP 10A* hip implant can, if asymptomatic, be safely discharged at the time of their first postoperative review.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:536–539.

Correspondence should be sent to R. S. Cassidy; email:

For access options please click here