We followed up 76 consecutive hips with symptomatic acetabular dysplasia treated by acetabular shelf augmentation for a mean period of 11 years. Survival analysis using conversion to hip replacement as an end-point was 86% at five years and 46% at ten years. Forty-four hips with slight or no narrowing of the joint space pre-operatively had a survival of 97% at five and 75% at ten years. This was significantly higher (p = 0.0007) than that of the 32 hips with moderate or severe narrowing of the joint-space, which was 76% at five and 22% at ten years. There was no significant relationship between survival and age (p = 0.37) or the pre- and post-operative centre-edge (p = 0.39) and acetabular angles (p = 0.85).

Shelf acetabuloplasty is a reliable, safe procedure offering medium-term symptomatic relief for adults with acetabular dysplasia. The best results were achieved in patients with mild and moderate dysplasia of the hip with little arthritis.

The Oxford hip score (OHS) is a patient-based instrument for assessment of outcome which is often used after total hip replacement, and the EuroQol 5D (EQ5D) is a patient-based generic questionnaire for health assessment. In an analysis of the outcome at one year of 609 revision hip replacements (RHRs), we compared the OHS and EQ5D scores, postoperative patient satisfaction and change in pain. About 25% of the operations were repeat RHRs. At one year, 57% of patients were very pleased with their operation. The correlation between preoperative and postoperative scores and change scores for the OHS and EQ5D was high. For both instruments the effect sizes were large, but the greater effect size of the OHS suggests that it is particularly sensitive to improvements after RHR. The effect scores of the OHS declined with the number of previous RHRs, while those for the EQ5D seemed less sensitive. Our results confirm the value of the OHS in assessing outcome after RHR.

We have developed a 12-item questionnaire for patients having a total knee replacement (TKR). We made a prospective study of 117 patients before operation and at follow-up six months later, asking them to complete the new questionnaire and the form SF36. Some also filled in the Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ). An orthopaedic surgeon completed the American Knee Society (AKS) clinical score.

The single score derived from the new questionnaire had high internal consistency, and its reproducibility, examined by test-retest reliability, was found to be satisfactory. Its validity was established by obtaining significant correlations in the expected direction with the AKS scores and the relevant parts of the SF36 and HAQ. Sensitivity to change was assessed by analysing the differences between the preoperative scores and those at follow-up.

We also compared change in scores with the patients’ retrospective judgement of change in their condition. The effect size for the new questionnaire compared favourably with those for the relevant parts of the SF36. The change scores for the new knee questionnaire were significantly greater (p < 0.0001) for patients who reported the most improvement in their condition.

The new questionnaire provides a measure of outcome for TKR that is short, practical, reliable, valid and sensitive to clinically important changes over time.

We developed a 12-item questionnaire for completion by patients having total hip replacement (THR). A prospective study of 220 patients was undertaken before operation and at follow-up six months later. Each completed the new questionnaire as well as the SF36, and some the Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales (AIMS). An orthopaedic surgeon assessed the Charnley hip score.

The single score derived from the questionnaire had a high internal consistency. Reproducibility was examined by test-retest reliability and was found to be satisfactory. The validity of the questionnaire was established by obtaining significant correlation in the expected direction with the Charnley scores and relevant scales of the SF36 and the AIMS. Sensitivity to change was assessed by analysing the differences between the preoperative scores and those at the follow-up. The standardised effect size for the new questionnaire compared favourably with that for the SF36 and the AIMS.

The new questionnaire provides a measure of outcome for THR which is short, practical, reliable, valid and sensitive to clinically important changes.