Long-term follow-up care recommendations after total hip and knee arthroplasty

2003 ◽  
Vol 18 (8) ◽  
pp. 954-962 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven M Teeny ◽  
Sally C York ◽  
J.Wesley Mesko ◽  
Ruth E Rea
2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 214-219 ◽  
Author(s):  
Imran Ilyas ◽  
Syed Kashif ◽  
Majed F. Algashiri ◽  
Samar A. Rabbani ◽  
Sahar S. Aldakhil ◽  
...  

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. e031351
Author(s):  
Carolyn J Czoski Murray ◽  
Sarah R Kingsbury ◽  
Nigel K Arden ◽  
Jenny Hewison ◽  
Andrew Judge ◽  
...  

IntroductionHip and knee arthroplasties have revolutionised the management of degenerative joint diseases and, due to an ageing population, are becoming increasingly common. Follow-up of joint prostheses is to identify problems in symptomatic or asymptomatic patients due to infection, osteolysis, bone loss or potential periprosthetic fracture, enabling timely intervention to prevent catastrophic failure at a later date. Early revision is usually more straight-forward surgically and less traumatic for the patient. However, routine long-term follow-up is costly and requires considerable clinical time. Therefore, some centres in the UK have curtailed this aspect of primary hip and knee arthroplasty services, doing so without an evidence base that such disinvestment is clinically or cost-effective.MethodsGiven the timeline from joint replacement to revision, conducting a randomised controlled trial (RCT) to determine potential consequences of disinvestment in hip and knee arthroplasty follow-up is not feasible. Furthermore, the low revision rates of modern prostheses, less than 10% at 10 years, would necessitate thousands of patients to adequately power such a study. The huge variation in follow-up practice across the UK also limits the generalisability of an RCT. This study will therefore use a mixed-methods approach to examine the requirements for arthroplasty follow-up and produce evidence-based and consensus-based recommendations as to how, when and on whom follow-up should be conducted. Four interconnected work packages will be completed: (1) a systematic literature review; (2a) analysis of routinely collected National Health Service data from five national data sets to understand when and which patients present for revision surgery; (2b) prospective data regarding how patients currently present for revision surgery; (3) economic modelling to simulate long-term costs and quality-adjusted life years associated with different follow-up care models and (4) a Delphi-consensus process, involving all stakeholders, to develop a policy document which includes a stratification algorithm to determine appropriate follow-up care for an individual patient.Ethics and DisseminationFavourable ethical opinion has been obtained for WP2a (RO-HES) (220520) and WP2B (220316) from the National Research Ethics Committee. Following advice from the Confidentiality Advisory Group (17/CAG/0122), data controllers for the data sets used in WP2a (RO-HES) – NHS Digital and The Phoenix Partnership – confirmed that Section 251 support was not required as no identifiable data was flowing into or out of these parties. Application for approval of WP2a (RO-HES) from the Independent Group Advising on the Release of Data (IGARD) at NHS Digital is in progress (DARS-NIC-147997). Section 251 support (17/CAG/0030) and NHS Digital approval (DARS-NIC-172121-G0Z1H-v0.11) have been obtained for WP2a (NJR-HES-PROMS). ISAC (11_050MnA2R2) approval has been obtained for WP2a (CPRD-HES).


Author(s):  
A. V. Mellblom ◽  
C. E. Kiserud ◽  
C. S. Rueegg ◽  
E. Ruud ◽  
J. H. Loge ◽  
...  

Abstract Purpose The majority of childhood, adolescent, and young adult cancer survivors (CAYACS) are at risk of late effects but may not receive long-term follow-up care for these. Here, we investigated (1) self-reported late effects, (2) long-term follow-up care, and (3) factors associated with receiving follow-up care in a population-based sample of Norwegian long-term CAYACS. Methods Survivors were identified by the Cancer Registry of Norway. All > 5-year survivors diagnosed between 1985 and 2009 with childhood cancer (CCS, 0–18 years old, excluding CNS), breast cancer (BC, stages I–III), colorectal cancer (CRC), leukemias (LEUK), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), or malignant melanoma (MM) at age 19–39 years were mailed a questionnaire (NOR-CAYACS study). Descriptive statistics and logistic regression models were used to analyze occurrence of late effects, long-term follow-up care for these, and associated factors. Results Of 2104 responding survivors, 1889 were eligible for analyses. Of these, 68% were females, with a mean age of 43 years at survey, on average 17 years since diagnosis, and diagnosed with CCS (31%), BC (26%), CRC (8%), NHL (12%), LEUK (7%), and MM (16%). Overall, 61.5% reported the experience of at least one late effect, the most common being concentration/memory problems (28.1%) and fatigue (25.2%). Sixty-nine percent reported not having received long-term follow-up care focusing on late effects. Lower age at survey (p = 0.001), higher education (p = 0.012), and increasing number of late effects (p = < 0.001) were associated with increased likelihood of follow-up care in the multivariate model. Conclusions The majority of survivors reported at least one late effect, but not receiving specific follow-up care for these. This indicates a need for structured models of long-term follow-up to ensure adequate access to care.


1985 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 757-769 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles N. Cornell ◽  
Eduardo A. Salvati ◽  
Paul M. Pellicci

Coatings ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. 442 ◽  
Author(s):  
Georg Hauer ◽  
Lukas Leitner ◽  
Marc C. Ackerl ◽  
Sebastian Klim ◽  
Ines Vielgut ◽  
...  

Background: The impact of titanium nitride (TiN) coating on implant components is controversial. TiN coating is proposed as having superior biomechanical properties compared to conventional cobalt-chromium (CoCr) alloy. This study compared long-term clinical data as well as meteoro-sensitivity in patients who underwent total knee arthroplasty (TKA), with either CoCr alloy or TiN coating. Methods: In this retrospective observational study, the clinically approved cemented “low contact stress” (LCS) TKA with conventional CoCr coating, was compared to un-cemented TiN-coated “advanced coated system” (ACS) TKA. Propensity score matching identified comparable patients based on their characteristics in a one-to-one ratio using the nearest-neighbor method. The final cohort comprised 260 knees in each cohort, with a mean follow-up of 10.1 ± 1.0 years for ACS patients and 14.9 ± 3.0 years for the LCS group. Physical examinations, meteoro-sensitivity, and knee scoring were assessed. Results: The clinical and functional Knee Society Score (KSS) (82.6 vs. 70.8; p < 0.001 and 61.9 vs. 71.1; p = 0.011), the postoperative Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) (2.9 vs. 1.4; p = 0.002), and the postoperative Tegner Score (2.6 vs. 2.2; p = 0.001) showed significant intergroup differences. The postoperative Western Ontario & McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) was similar (79.9 vs. 81.3; p = 0.453) between groups. Meteoro-sensitivity of the artificial joint was significantly more prevalent in the ACS patient cohort (56% vs. 23%; p < 0.001). Conclusion: This study suggests that TiN coating does not provide improved clinical outcomes in this patient cohort after a long-term follow-up. Interestingly, sensitivity to weather changes were more correlated with un-cemented ACS implants.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document