Approximately 15–20% of patients report chronic pain three months after total knee replacement (TKR). The STAR care pathway is a clinically important and cost-effective personalised intervention for patients with pain 3 months after TKR. The pathway comprises screening, assesment, onward referral for treatment and follow-up over one year. In a multicentre randomised controlled trial comparing the pathway with usual care, the pathway improved pain at 6 and 12 months. This study examined the longer-term clinical and cost-effectiveness of the STAR care pathway. STAR trial participants were followed-up at a median of 4 years post-randomisation. Co-primary outcomes were self-reported pain severity and interference in the replaced knee, assessed with the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI). Resource use from electronic hospital records was valued with UK reference costs.Abstract
Introduction
Methodology
The aim of this study was to determine the polyethylene wear rate of Phase 3 Oxford Unicompartmental Knee Replacement bearings and to investigate the effects of resin type and manufacturing process. A total of 63 patients with at least ten years’ follow-up with three bearing types (1900 resin machined, 1050 resin machined, and 1050 resin moulded) were recruited. Patients underwent full weight-bearing model-based radiostereometric analysis to determine the bearing thickness. The linear wear rate was estimated from the change in thickness divided by the duration of implantation.Objectives
Methods
Although we know that smoking damages health, we do not know impact of smoking on a patient's outcome following primary knee arthroplasty (KA). In the UK, clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) have the authority (& funds) to commission healthcare services for their communities. Over the past decade, an increasing number of CCGs are using smoking as a contraindication for patients with end-stage symptomatic knee arthritis being referred to a specialist for due consideration of KA without any clear evidence of the associated risks & benefits. The overall objective of this study is to compare clinical outcomes after knee arthroplasty surgery in smokers, ex-smokers & non-smokers. We obtained data from the UK Clinical Research Practice Datalink (CPRD) that contains information on over 11 million patients (7% of the UK population) registered at over 600 general practices. CPRD data was linked to Hospital Episode Statistics, hospital admissions & Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) data. We collected data on all KAs (n=64,071) performed over a 21-year period (1995 to 2016). Outcomes assessed included: local & systemic complications (at 6-months post-surgery): infections (wound, respiratory, urinary), heart attack, stroke & transient ischaemic attack, venous thromboembolism, hospital readmissions & GP visits (1-year), analgesic use (1-year), surgical revision (up to 20-years), mortality (90-days and 1-year), & 6-month change from pre-operative scores in Oxford Knee Score (OKS). Regression modelling is used to describe the association of smoking on outcomes, adjusting for confounding factors.Introduction
Methods
Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) offers significant advantages over total knee arthroplasty (TKA) but is reported to have higher revision rates in joint registries. In both the New Zealand and the UK national registry the revision rate of cementless UKR is less than cementless. It is not clear whether this is because the cementless is better or because more experienced surgeons, who tend to get better results are using cementless. We aim to use registry data to compare cemented and cementless UKA outcomes, matching for surgical experience and other factors. We performed a retrospective observational study using National Joint Registry (NJR) data on 10,836 propensity matched Oxford UKAs (5418 cemented and 5418 cementless) between 2004 and 2015. Logistic regression was utilized to calculate propensity scores to match the cemented and cementless groups for multiple confounders using a one to one ratio. Standardised mean differences were used before and after matching to assess for any covariate imbalances. The outcomes studied were implant survival, reasons for revision and patient survival. The endpoint for implant survival was revision surgery (any component removal or exchange). Cumulative patient and implant survival rates were determined using the Kaplan-Meier method. Patients not undergoing revision or death were censored on the study end date. The study endpoints implant and patient survival were compared between cemented and cementless groups using Cox regression models with a robust variance estimator.Introduction
Methods
The Oxford Knee Score (OKS) is a validated and widely used PROM that has been successfully used in assessing the outcome of knee arthroplasty (KA). It has been adopted as the nationally agreed outcome measure for this procedure and is now routinely collected. Increasingly, it is being used on an individual patient basis as a pre-operative measure of osteoarthritis and the need for joint replacement, despite not being validated for this use. The aim of this paper is to present evidence that challenges this new role for the OKS. We have analysed pre-operative and post-operative OKS data from 3 large cohorts all undergoing KA, totalling over 3000 patients. In addition we have correlated the OKS to patient satisfaction scores. We have validated our findings using data published from the UK NJR.Purpose
Method
