Introduction: Joint replacement has a low mortality rate, few adverse occurrences, excellent survivorship and is considered a cost-effective intervention to reduce disability in the community. However, the assessment of complications and survivorship fail to measure the success of joint replacement in achieving pain relief and restoration of functional ability. The aim of this large cross-sectional postal survey was to provide information on the prevalence of pain, disability, poor quality of life and patient dissatisfaction at 1–3 years after a range of lower limb orthopaedic surgeries in the UK.

Patient and Methods: A questionnaire was posted to all 3,125 consecutive alive patients who underwent a primary THR, hip resurfacing, TKR, UKR or patellar resurfacing at the Avon Orthopaedic Centre between January 2004 – April 2006. The questionnaire included the WOMAC, HOOS/KOOS quality of life scale and a validated satisfaction scale. All questionnaires are scored on a 0–100 scale (worst-best) and a poor outcome was defined as a score of ≤ 50 on the outcome measure.

Results: Completed questionnaires were received from 2,085 patients (response rate of 67%). Patients had a mean age of 67 years and 42% were male. The mean length of follow-up was 28 months (range 14–44 months). 911 patients had a THR, 157 patients had a hip resurfacing, 866 patients had a TKR, 100 patients had a UKR and 51 patients had a patellar resurfacing.

Pain: the prevalence of poor outcomes were 6% of patients with a THR, 4% with a hip resurfacing, 12% with a TKR, 9% with a UKR and 31% with a patellar resurfacing.

Conclusion: This survey has provided descriptive data on the prevalence of patient-reported levels of pain, disability, poor joint-related quality of life and dissatisfaction after lower limb arthroplasty. It is important that patient-reported outcomes after joint replacement are rigorously assessed in order to provide information on which patients do poorly after surgery, with the aim of targeting these patients with an intervention to improve their outcome.

North Bristol Trust Small Grants Scheme provided funding for the consumables for this study.

Background: Because of the changing demographics of the population and improvements in prosthesis design and surgical technique, ever-increasing numbers of younger patients are undergoing joint replacement. Younger patients often receive hip resurfacing rather than conventional THR because of the preservation of bone stock and the lower risk of dislocation. However, pain relief and restoration of function for younger patients is particularly important to continue with a normal, active life. Yet there is little existing research to establish if hip resurfacing results in better patient-reported outcomes than conventional total hip replacement (THR). Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare patient-reported outcomes after hip resurfacing and THR, after controlling for age, gender, general health and length of follow-up.

Methods: A postal survey was sent to all patients who had a hip resurfacing or primary THR between April 2004 - April 2006 at the Avon Orthopaedic Centre. To assess hip pain and function, quality of life, general health and satisfaction with the outcome of surgery, the questionnaire included the WOMAC, HOOS Quality of Life Scale, SF-12 and a validated satisfaction scale. The continuous outcome scores were compared for those who had a THR and those who had hip resurfacing, after adjusting for age, sex, general health and length of follow-up, using Analysis of Variance.

Results: Completed questionnaires were received from 911 THR patients and 157 hip resurfacing patients (response rate of 68% and 71%). Hip resurfacing patients had a mean age of 52 years and 71% were male. THR patients had a mean age of 68 years and 37% were male. After controlling for the effects of age, gender, general health and follow-up length, there was no significant difference in pain (p=0.70), function (0.85), hip-related quality of life (p=0.66) or satisfaction (0.09) between hip resurfacing patients and THR patients at 1–3 years post-operative.

Conclusions: The findings from this study suggest that hip resurfacing has no short-term clinical advantage over conventional THR. A prospective randomised controlled trial is necessary to further compare patient outcomes after hip resurfacing and THR.

Our aim was to determine the pre-operative sporting profiles of patients undergoing primary joint replacement and to establish if they were able to return to sport after surgery. A postal survey was completed by 2085 patients between one and three years after operation. They had undergone one of five operations, namely total hip replacement, hip resurfacing, total knee replacement, unicompartmental knee replacement or patellar resurfacing. In the three years before operation 726 (34.8%) patients were participating in sport, the most common being swimming, walking and golf. A total of 446 (61.4%) had returned to their sporting activities by one to three years after operation and 192 (26.4%) were unable to do so because of their joint replacement, with the most common reason being pain. The largest decline was in high-impact sports including badminton, tennis and dancing. After controlling for the influence of age and gender, there was no significant difference in the rate of return to sport according to the type of operation.