Background

This article reviews four commonly used approaches to assess patient responsiveness to a treatment or therapy [Return To Normal (RTN), Minimal Important Difference (MID), Minimal Clinically Important Difference (MCID), OMERACT-OARSI (OO)], and demonstrates how each of the methods can be formulated in a multi-level modelling (MLM) framework.

Physical functioning in patients undergoing hip surgery is commonly assessed in three ways: patient-reported outcome measure (PROM), performance test, or clinician-administered measure. It is recommended that several types of measures are used concurrently to capture an extended picture of function. Patient fatigue and burden, time, resources and logistical constraints of clinic and research appointments mean that collecting multiple measures is seldom feasible, leading to focus on a limited number of measures, if not a single one. While there is evidence that performance-tests and PROMs do not fully correlate, correlations between PROMs, performance tests and clinician-administrated measures are yet to be evaluated. It is also not known if the associations between function and patient characteristics depend on how function is measured. The aim of our study was to use different measures to assess function in the same group of patients before their hip surgery to determine 1. how well PROMs, performance tests and clinician-administrated measures correlate with one another and 2. Whether these measures are associated with the same patient characteristics.

We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of the pre-operative information of 125 participants listed for hip replacement. The WOMAC function subscale, Harris Hip Score (HHS) and walk-, step- and balance-tests were assessed by questionnaire or during a clinic visit. Participant socio-demographics and medical characteristics were also collected. Correlations between functional measures were investigated with correlation coefficients (r). Regression models were used to test the association between the patient's characteristics and each of the three types of functional measures.

None of the correlations between the PROM, clinician-administrated measure and performance tests were very high (r<0.90). The highest correlations were found between the WOMAC-function and the HHS (r=0.7) or the Walk-test (r=0.6), and between the HHS and the walk-test(r=0.7). All the other performance-tests had low correlations with the other measures(r ranging between 0.3 and 0.5).

The associations between patient characteristics and functional scores varied by type of measure. Psychological status was associated with the WOMAC function (p-value<0.0001) but not with the other measures. Age was associated with the performance test measures (p-value ranging from ≤0.01 to <0.0001) but not with the WOMAC function. The clinician-administered (HHS) measure was not associated with age or psychological status.

When evaluating function prior to hip replacement clinicians and researchers should be aware that each assessment tool captures different aspects of function and that patient characteristics should be taken into account. Psychological status influences the perception of function; patients may be able to do more than they think they can do, and may need encouragement to overcome anxiety. A performance test like a walk-test would provide a more comprehensive assessment of function limitations than a step or balance test, although performance tests are influenced by age.

For the most precise description of functional status a combination of measures should be used. Clinicians should supplement their pre-surgery assessment of function with patient-reported measure to include the patient's perspective.

Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is an uncommon but serious complication of hip and knee replacement. We investigated the rates of revision surgery for the treatment of PJI following primary and revision hip and knee replacement, explored time trends, and estimated the overall surgical burden created by PJI.

We analysed the National Joint Registry for England and Wales for revision hip and knee replacements performed for a diagnosis of PJI and their index procedures from 2003–2014. The index hip replacements consisted of 623,253 primary and 63,222 aseptic revision hip replacements with 7,642 revisions subsequently performed for PJI; for knee replacements the figures were 679,010 primary and 33,920 aseptic revision knee replacements with 8,031 revisions subsequently performed for PJI. Cumulative incidence functions, prevalence rates and the burden of PJI in terms of total procedures performed as a result of PJI were calculated.

Revision rates for PJI equated to 43 out of every 10,000 primary hip replacements (2,705/623,253), i.e. 0.43%(95%CI 0.42–0.45), subsequently being revised due to PJI. Around 158 out of every 10,000 aseptic revision hip replacements performed were subsequently revised for PJI (997/63,222), i.e. 1.58%(1.48–1.67). For knees, the respective rates were 0.54%(0.52–0.56) for primary replacements, i.e. 54 out of every 10,000 primary replacements performed (3,659/679,010) and 2.11%(1.96–2.23) for aseptic revision replacements, i.e. 211 out of every 10,000 aseptic revision replacements performed (717/33,920). Between 2005 and 2013, the risk of revision for PJI in the 3 months following primary hip replacement rose by 2.29 fold (1.28–4.08) and after aseptic revision by 3.00 fold (1.06–8.51); for knees, it rose by 2.46 fold (1.15–5.25) after primary replacement and 7.47 fold (1.00–56.12) after aseptic revision. The rates of revision for PJI performed at any time beyond 3 months from the index surgery remained stable or decreased over time.

From a patient perspective, after accounting for the competing risk of revision for an aseptic indication and death, the 10-year cumulative incidence of revision hip replacement for PJI was 0.62%(95%CI 0.59–0.65) following primary and 2.25%(2.08–2.43) following aseptic revision; for knees, the figures were 0.75%(0.72–0.78) following primary replacement and 3.13%(2.81–3.49) following aseptic revision.

At a health service level, the absolute number of procedures performed as a consequence of hip PJI increased from 387 in 2005 to 1,013 in 2014, i.e. a relative increase of 2.6 fold. While 70% of those revisions were two-stage, the use of single stage revision increased from 17.6% in 2005 to 38.5% in 2014. For knees, the burden of PJI increased by 2.8 fold between 2005 and 2014. Overall, 74% of revisions were two-stage with an increase in use of single stage from 10.0% in 2005 to 29.0% in 2014.

Although the risk of revision due to PJI following hip or knee replacement is low, it is rising. Given the burden and costs associated with performing revision joint replacement for prosthetic joint infection and the predicted increased incidence of both primary and revision hip replacement, this has substantial implications for service delivery.

Patients report similar or better pain and function before revision hip arthroplasty than before primary arthroplasty but poorer outcomes after revision surgery. The trajectory of post-operative recovery during the first 12 months and any differences by type of surgery have received little attention. We explored the trajectories of change in pain and function after revision hip arthroplasty to 12-months post-operatively and compared them with those observed after primary hip arthroplasty.

We conducted a single-centre UK cohort study of patients undergoing primary (n = 80) or revision (n = 43) hip arthroplasty. WOMAC pain and function scores and 20-metres walking time were collected pre-operatively, at 3 and 12-months post-operatively. Multilevel regression models were used to chart and compare the trajectories of post-operative change (0–3 months and 3–12 months) between the types of surgery.

Patients undergoing primary arthroplasty had a total hip replacement (n=74) or hip resurfacing (n=6). Osteoarthritis was the indication for surgery in 92% of primary cases. Patients undergoing revision arthroplasty had revision of a total hip arthroplasty (n=37), hemiarthroplasty (n=2) or hip resurfacing (n=4). The most common indication for revision arthroplasty was aseptic loosening (n=29); the remaining indications were pain (n=4), aseptic lymphocyte-dominated vasculitis-associated lesion (n=4) or other reasons (n=6). Primary (87%) and revision arthroplasties (98%) were mostly commonly performed via a posterior surgical approach.

The improvements in pain and function following revision arthroplasty occurred within the first 3-months following operation (WOMAC-pain, p<0.0001; WOMAC-function, p<0.0001; timed 20-metres walk, p<0.0001) with no evidence of further change beyond this initial period (p>0.05)

While the pattern of recovery after revision arthroplasty was similar to that observed after primary arthroplasty, improvements in the first 3-months were smaller after revision compared to primary arthroplasty (p<0.0001). Patients listed for revision surgery reported lower pre-operative pain levels (p=0.03) but similar post-operative levels (p=0.268) compared to those undergoing primary surgery. At 12-months post-operation patients who underwent a revision arthroplasty had not reached the same level of function achieved by those who underwent primary arthroplasty (WOMAC-function p=0.015; Time walk p=0.004).

Patients undergoing revision hip arthroplasty should be informed that the majority of their improvement will occur in the first 3-months following surgery and that the expected improvement will be less marked than that experienced following primary surgery. More research is now required to 1.) identify whether specific in-patient and post-discharge rehabilitation tailored towards patients undergoing revision arthroplasty would improve or achieve equivalent outcomes to primary surgery and 2.) whether patients who are achieving limited improvements at 3-months post-operative would benefit from more intensive rehabilitation. This will become all the more important with the increasing volume of revision surgery and the high expectations of patients who aspire to a disease-free and active life.

Robust evidence on the effectiveness of peri-operative local anaesthetic infiltration (LAI) is required before it is incorporated into the pain management regimen for patients receiving total knee replacement (TKR). To assess the effectiveness of peri-operative LAI for pain management in patients receiving TKR we conducted a systematic review, fully powered randomised controlled trial (RCT) and economic evaluation.

We searched MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane databases for RCTs of peri-operative LAI in patients receiving TKR. Two reviewers screened abstracts and extracted data. Outcomes were pain, opioid use, mobilisation, hospital stay and complications. Authors were contacted if required. When feasible, we conducted meta-analysis with studies analysed separately if a femoral nerve block (FNB) was provided.

In the APEX RCT, we randomised 316 patients awaiting TKR to standard anaesthesia which included FNB, or to the same regimen with additional peri-operative LAI (60mls 0.25% bupivacaine plus adrenaline). Post-operatively, all patients received patient-controlled morphine. The primary outcome was joint pain severity (WOMAC-Pain) at 12 months. Patients and outcome assessors were blinded to allocation.

Within APEX, cost-effectiveness was assessed from the health and social-care perspective in relation to quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and WOMAC-Pain at 12-months. Resource use was collected from hospital records and patient questionnaires.

In the systematic review, 23 studies including 1,439 patients were identified. Compared with patients receiving no intervention, LAI reduced WOMAC-Pain by standardised mean difference (SMD) −0.40 (95%CI −0.58, −0.22; p<0.001) at 24 hours at rest and by SMD −0.27 (95%CI −0.50, −0.05; p=0.018) at 48 hours during activity. In three studies there was no difference in pain at any time point between randomised groups where all patients received FNB. Patients receiving LAI spent fewer days in hospital, used less opioids and mobilised earlier. Complications were similar between groups. Few studies reported long-term outcomes.

In the APEX RCT, pain levels in hospital were broadly similar between groups. Overall opioid use was similar between groups. Time to mobilisation and discharge were largely dependent on local protocols and did not differ between groups. There were no differences in pain outcomes between groups at 12 months.

In the economic evaluation, LAI was marginally associated with lower costs. Using the NICE £20,000 per QALY threshold, the incremental net monetary benefit was £264 (95%CI, −£710, £1,238) and the probability of being cost-effective was 62%.

Although LAI appeared to have some benefit for reduced pain in hospital after TKR there was no evidence of pain control additional to that provided by femoral nerve block, however it would be cost-effective at the current NICE thresholds.

Robust evidence on the effectiveness of peri-operative local anaesthetic infiltration (LAI) is required before it is incorporated into the pain management regimen for patients receiving total hip replacement (THR). We assessed the effectiveness of LAI using a systematic review and a fully powered randomised controlled trial (RCT) with economic evaluation.

We searched MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane databases for RCTs of peri-operative LAI in patients receiving THR. Two reviewers screened abstracts, extracted data, and liaised with authors. Outcomes were pain, opioid use, mobilisation, hospital stay and complications. If feasible, we conducted meta-analysis.

In the APEX RCT, we randomised 322 patients awaiting THR to receive additional peri-operative LAI (60mls 0.25% bupivacaine plus adrenaline) or standard anaesthesia alone. Post-operatively, all patients received patient-controlled morphine. The primary outcome was joint pain severity (WOMAC-Pain) at 12 months. Patients and outcome assessors were blinded to allocation.

Within APEX, cost-effectiveness was assessed from the health and social-care perspective in relation to quality adjusted life years (QALYs) and WOMAC-Pain at 12-months. Resource use was collected from hospital records and patient questionnaires.

In the systematic review, we identified 13 studies (909 patients). Patients undergoing THR receiving LAI experienced greater pain reduction at 24 hours at rest, standardised mean difference (SMD) −0.61 (95%CI −1.05, −0.16; p=0.008) and at 48 hours during activity, SMD −0.43 (95%CI −0.78, −0.09; p=0.014). Patients receiving LAI spent fewer days in hospital, used less opioids and mobilised earlier. Complications were similar between groups. Long-term outcomes were not a focus of these studies.

In the APEX RCT, pain levels in hospital were broadly similar between groups, probably due to patient-controlled analgesia. Opioid use was similar between groups. Time to mobilisation and discharge were largely dependent on local protocols and did not differ between groups. Patients receiving LAI were less likely to report severe pain at 12 months than those receiving standard care, odds ratio 10.2 (95%CI 2.1, 49.6; p=0.004). Complications were similar between groups.

In the economic evaluation, LAI was associated with lower costs and greater cost-effectiveness than standard care. Using a £20,000 per QALY threshold, the incremental net monetary benefit was £1,125 (95%CI £183, £2,067) and the probability of being cost-effective was greater than 98 %.

The evidence suggests that peri-operative LAI is a cost-effective intervention for reducing acute and chronic post-surgical pain after THR.

Total hip replacement causes a short-term increase in the risk of mortality. It is important to quantify this and to identify modifiable risk factors so that the risk of post-operative mortality can be minimised. We performed a systematic review and critical evaluation of the current literature on the topic. We identified 32 studies published over the last 10 years which provide either 30-day or 90-day mortality data. We estimate the pooled incidence of mortality during the first 30 and 90 days following hip replacement to be 0.30% (95% CI 0.22 to 0.38) and 0.65% (95% CI 0.50 to 0.81), respectively. We found strong evidence of a temporal trend towards reducing mortality rates despite increasingly co-morbid patients. The risk factors for early mortality most commonly identified are increasing age, male gender and co-morbid conditions, particularly cardiovascular disease. Cardiovascular complications appear to have overtaken fatal pulmonary emboli as the leading cause of death after hip replacement.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2014;3:175–82