Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 7 de 7
Filter
1.
PLoS Med ; 21(10): e1004462, 2024 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39352892

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Postoperative periprosthetic femoral fracture (POPFF) after total hip replacement (THR) requires complex surgery and is associated with a high morbidity, mortality, and cost. Although the United Kingdom based National Joint Registry (NJR) captures over 95% of THRs treated with revision, before June 2023 it did not capture POPFF treated with fixation. We aimed to estimate the incidence and epidemiology of POPFF treated with either surgery in England. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We performed a retrospective analysis of a mandatory, prospective database (NJR) linked to Hospital Episode Statistics (HES). All linkable primary THRs between 01/01/2004 and 31/12/2020 were included. Revision or fixation of POPFF were identified using a combination of procedural and diagnosis codes. We identified 809,832 THRs representing 5,542,332 prosthesis years at risk. A total of 5,100 POPFF were identified that had been surgically treated by revision, fixation, or both, and 2,831 of these fractures were treated with fixation alone, meaning 56% were not represented with revision data alone. The incidence of POPFF needing surgery was 0.92 (95% CI 0.90, 0.95) per 1,000 prostheses years. This incidence was higher in patients over the age of 70 at the time of primary THR (1.31 [95% CI 1.26, 1.35] per 1,000 prostheses years) and for patients who underwent THR for hip fracture (2.19 [95% CI 1.97, 2.42] per 1,000 prostheses years). This incidence appears to be increasing year on year. The cumulative probability of sustaining a POPFF within 10 years of THR was 1% and over 15% of patients died within 1 year of surgery for a POPFF. CONCLUSIONS: To date, the incidence of POPFF may have been underestimated with over 50% of cases missed if the case identification in this study is correct. After including these cases, we observed that POPFF is the largest reason for major reoperation following THR and patients sustaining these injuries have a high risk of death. The prevention and treatment of POPFF and requires further resource allocation and research.


Subject(s)
Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip , Femoral Fractures , Periprosthetic Fractures , Registries , Reoperation , Humans , Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip/adverse effects , Incidence , Aged , Male , Female , Periprosthetic Fractures/epidemiology , Periprosthetic Fractures/etiology , Periprosthetic Fractures/surgery , Femoral Fractures/surgery , Femoral Fractures/epidemiology , Femoral Fractures/etiology , Middle Aged , United Kingdom/epidemiology , Aged, 80 and over , Retrospective Studies , Postoperative Complications/epidemiology , Postoperative Complications/etiology
2.
PLoS Med ; 18(7): e1003704, 2021 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34270557

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: One in 10 people in the United Kingdom will need a total knee replacement (TKR) during their lifetime. Access to this life-changing operation has recently been restricted based on body mass index (BMI) due to belief that high BMI may lead to poorer outcomes. We investigated the associations between BMI and revision surgery, mortality, and pain/function using what we believe to be the world's largest joint replacement registry. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We analysed 493,710 TKRs in the National Joint Registry (NJR) for England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the Isle of Man from 2005 to 2016 to investigate 90-day mortality and 10-year cumulative revision. Hospital Episodes Statistics (HES) and Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) databases were linked to the NJR to investigate change in Oxford Knee Score (OKS) 6 months postoperatively. After adjustment for age, sex, American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) grade, indication for operation, year of primary TKR, and fixation type, patients with high BMI were more likely to undergo revision surgery within 10 years compared to those with "normal" BMI (obese class II hazard ratio (HR) 1.21, 95% CI: 1.10, 1.32 (p < 0.001) and obese class III HR 1.13, 95% CI: 1.02, 1.26 (p = 0.026)). All BMI classes had revision estimates within the recognised 10-year benchmark of 5%. Overweight and obese class I patients had lower mortality than patients with "normal" BMI (HR 0.76, 95% CI: 0.65, 0.90 (p = 0.001) and HR 0.69, 95% CI: 0.58, 0.82 (p < 0.001)). All BMI categories saw absolute increases in OKS after 6 months (range 18-20 points). The relative improvement in OKS was lower in overweight and obese patients than those with "normal" BMI, but the difference was below the minimal detectable change (MDC; 4 points). The main limitations were missing BMI particularly in the early years of data collection and a potential selection bias effect of surgeons selecting the fitter patients with raised BMI for surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Given revision estimates in all BMI groups below the recognised threshold, no evidence of increased mortality, and difference in change in OKS below the MDC, this large national registry shows no evidence of poorer outcomes in patients with high BMI. This study does not support rationing of TKR based on increased BMI.


Subject(s)
Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee/mortality , Body Mass Index , Obesity/mortality , Reoperation/mortality , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Cohort Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Registries , United Kingdom
3.
PLoS Med ; 17(8): e1003291, 2020 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32866147

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Nearly 100,000 people underwent total hip replacement (THR) in the United Kingdom in 2018, and most can expect it to last at least 25 years. However, some THRs fail and require revision surgery, which results in worse outcomes for the patient and is costly to the health service. Variation in the survival of THR implants has been observed between units and reducing this unwarranted variation is one focus of the "Getting it Right First Time" (GIRFT) program in the UK. We aimed to investigate whether the statistically improved implant survival of THRs in a high-performing unit is associated with the implants used or other factors at that unit, such as surgical skill. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We analyzed a national, mandatory, prospective, cohort study (National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man [NJR]) of all THRs performed in England and Wales. We included the 664,761 patients with records in the NJR who have received a stemmed primary THR between 1 April 2003 and 31 December 2017 in one of 461 hospitals, with osteoarthritis as the only indication. The exposure was the unit (hospital) in which the THR was implanted. We compared survival of THRs implanted in the "exemplar" unit with THRs implanted anywhere else in the registry. The outcome was revision surgery of any part of the THR construct for any reason. Net failure was calculated using Kaplan-Meier estimates, and adjusted analyses employed flexible parametric survival analysis. The mean age of patients contributing to our analyses was 69.9 years (SD 10.1), and 61.1% were female. Crude analyses including all THRs demonstrated better implant survival at the exemplar unit with an all-cause construct failure of 1.7% (95% CI 1.3-2.3) compared with 2.9% (95% CI 2.8-3.0) in the rest of the country after 13.9 years (log-rank test P < 0.001). The same was seen in analyses adjusted for age, sex, and American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) score (difference in restricted mean survival time 0.12 years [95% CI 0.07-0.16; P < 0.001]). Adjusted analyses restricted to the same implants as the exemplar unit show no demonstrable difference in restricted mean survival time between groups after 13.9 years (P = 0.34). A limitation is that this study is observational and conclusions regarding causality cannot be inferred. Our outcome is revision surgery, and although important, we recognize it is not the only marker of success of a THR. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that the "better than expected" implant survival results of this exemplar center are associated with implant choice. The survival results may be replicated by adopting key treatment decisions, such as implant selection. These decisions are easier to replicate than technical skills or system factors.


Subject(s)
Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip/instrumentation , Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip/trends , Databases, Factual/trends , Prosthesis Failure/trends , Registries , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip/standards , Cohort Studies , England/epidemiology , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Northern Ireland/epidemiology , Prospective Studies , United Kingdom/epidemiology , Wales/epidemiology
6.
BMJ Open ; 14(9): e084678, 2024 Sep 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39289012

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To determine the feasibility of conducting a randomised controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate a prehabilitation programme for frail patients undergoing total hip replacement (THR) or total knee replacement (TKR). DESIGN: Randomised feasibility study with embedded qualitative work. SETTING: Three National Health Service hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged ≥65 years, frail and scheduled for primary THR or TKR. INTERVENTION: Appointment with a physiotherapist to individualise a home-based exercise programme. Participants were encouraged to do the home exercises daily for 12 weeks pre-operative and were provided with a daily protein supplement. Participants were supported by six telephone calls over the 12-week intervention period. OUTCOME MEASURES: Eligibility and recruitment rates, intervention adherence, data completion rates of patient-reported outcome measures, retention rates and acceptability of the trial and intervention. Qualitative interviews were conducted with participants and non-participants and analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Between December 2022 and August 2023, 411 patients were sent a screening pack. Of the 168 patients who returned a screening questionnaire, 79 were eligible and consented to participate, and 64 were randomised. Of the 33 participants randomised to the intervention, 26 attended the intervention appointment. Eighteen participants (69%) received all six intervention follow-up telephone calls. Nineteen participants (73%) completed an intervention adherence log; 13 (68%) adhered to the exercise programme and 11 (58%) adhered to the protein supplementation. The overall retention rate was 86% (55/64 overall) at 12 weeks. The 12-week follow-up questionnaire was returned by 46 of the 55 participants (84%) who were sent a questionnaire. Interviews with 19 patients found that the trial processes and intervention were generally acceptable, but areas of potential improvements were identified. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated that a larger study is possible and has identified improvements to optimise the design of an RCT. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN11121506.


Subject(s)
Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip , Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee , Feasibility Studies , Preoperative Exercise , Humans , Aged , Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip/rehabilitation , Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip/methods , Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee/rehabilitation , Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee/methods , Male , Female , United Kingdom , Aged, 80 and over , Frail Elderly , Exercise Therapy/methods
7.
Shoulder Elbow ; 15(4): 390-397, 2023 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37538525

ABSTRACT

Background: Early diagnosis and fixation of fractures unlikely to unite can prevent months of morbidity. The Radiographic Union Score for Humeral fractures (RUSHU) is a summative scoring system developed to aid identification of patients at higher risk of developing humeral shaft non-union. Plain radiographs taken six weeks after injury are given a score between four and 12 based on signs of union. Our aim was to assess the validity of the RUSHU prognostic model in an external population. Methods: The radiographs of fifty-seven patients were scored independently according to RUSHU methodology by three reviewers (blinded to patient outcome). Interobserver intraclass correlation (ICC) was calculated. Results: Of the cohort, six (10.5%) progressed to non-union after six months. We observed an interobserver ICC co-efficient of 0.89 (95%CI0.84,0.93) in RUSHU score at six weeks. Median score was significantly higher in the union cohort (10v5 p < 0.001). Using the score of < 8 to predict non-union gave an area under the ROC curve of 0.87 (95%CI 0.83,0.90). Conclusions: In this retrospective single-centre study, we have demonstrated good inter-rater reliability. We would suggest that the RUSHU model be assessed in further external validation studies. RUSHU has the potential to reduce morbidity of delayed treatment of non-union.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL