We determined the survival of primary total hip and knee replacements and patients who had undergone surgery between 1989 and 2007 in Dunedin with the aim to using these figures to provide information on
whether our arthroplasty population is changing, what the likely future demands are on follow-up services, whether we can predict which patients will require follow-up. The initial search using records held by the audit department at Dunedin Hospital returned 6,328 patient records with total hip and knee arthroplasty between 1988 and 2007. These reports however, included many procedures which were neither hip/knee nor primary/revision total joint arthroplasty. The data was filtered, resulting in 4,773 hip and knee arthroplasties. The final data included 3194 primary total hip replacements and 1579 primary total knee replacements. Comorbidity scoring of these patients was also undertaken. The mean age of patients who underwent primary hip replacement was 67.6 yrs (SD 12.4) and the mean age of patients who underwent a primary knee replacement was 70.8 yrs (SD 9.8). Around 25% of patients who have had a primary joint replacement died after a mean of 10 yrs after the operation. In the group of patients who died after 10 years, the mean age at surgery was around 74 years. The mean age at the time of death was around 80 years. No difference was found in the death rate, revision rate, and the combined outcomes with death or revision as the end point with respect to the following-THRs. TKR, the grade of the surgeon, the comorbidity score or in men vs. women as compared to the general population. Patients over 59 years of age at time of primary arthroplasty have a >
90% chance of dying before the need for revision surgery. Patients of less than 51 years of age have a >
90% chance of requiring revision surgery. Patients of 55 years of age have a 50% chance of requiring revision surgery. In a setting of ongoing scarce resources symptomatic/questionnaire targeted follow-up with radiology may be the only long term viable solution.
There has been debate in the literature over the years regarding whether
rib resection, and surgical approach have a significant impact on long term respiratory function following corrective surgery in idiopathic scoliosis patients. We undertook a minimum 10 year review of prospective data in patients who had undergone corrective surgery for idiopathic scoliosis. Patients had pre-operative, two year (where available) and 10 year follow-up respiratory function tests performed. Variables noted were sex, age at surgery, surgical approach, rib release (simple rib osteotomy, not resection), and percentage correction of curvature. All absolute respiratory function values were converted to percentages relative to a normal population of the same height, sex and age with reference to both arm span and height nomograms thus avoiding the need for a control group. Using accepted statistical norms and appropriate analysis we would be able to confirm a 10% difference in respiratory function. A literature review was also undertaken as part of this study. The only statistically significant change in respiratory function was a drop in FVC at 10 years in patients in whom a posterior approach had been used for correction without a rib release. In no other group (by other approach, sex, age, initial curvature, or curvature correction) was there a significant difference in long term respiratory function. In our study the surgical approach did not have a significant impact on long term respiratory function. Rib release is a safe procedure to undertake as part of scoliosis correction.