Clinical registries are an important aspect of orthopaedic research in assessing the outcomes of surgical intervention and track medical devices. This study aimed to explore the research methodology available to account for patients lost to follow-up (LTFU) specifically in studies related to arthroscopic intervention and whether the rates of patient LTFU are within the acceptable margins for survey studies. A scoping review, where a literature search for studies from nine arthroscopy registries, was performed on EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the annual reports of each registry. Inclusion criteria included studies with information on patient-reported outcome measures and being based on nine national registries identified. Exclusion criteria included review articles, conference abstracts, studies not based on registry data, and studies from regional, claims-based, or multi-centre registries. Studies were then divided into categories based on method of LTFU analysis used.Abstract
Purpose
Methods
Prosthetic implants used in primary total hip replacements have a range of bearing surface combinations (metal-on-polyethylene, ceramic-on-polyethylene, ceramic-on-ceramic, metal-on-metal); head sizes (small <36mm, large 36mm+); and fixation techniques (cemented, uncemented, hybrid, reverse hybrid), which influence prosthesis survival, patient quality of life, and healthcare costs. This study compared the lifetime cost-effectiveness of implants to determine the optimal choice for patients of different age and gender profiles. In an economic decision Markov model, the probability that patients required one or more revision surgeries was estimated from analyses of UK and Swedish hip joint registries, for males and females aged <55, 55–64, 65–74, 75–84, and 85+ years. Implant and healthcare costs were estimated from hospital procurement prices, national tariffs, and the literature. Quality-adjusted life years were calculated using utility estimates, taken from Patient-Reported Outcome Measures data for hip procedures in the UK.Background
Methods
Preoperative planning for Total Hip Arthroplasty has been acknowledged as a vital step to facilitate a successful outcome. Templating ascertains the dimensions and positioning of the implants, minimizing both intraoperative and postoperative complications. The purpose of this study is to compare the accuracy of digital templating to acetate templating in the preoperative planning of Total Hip Arthroplasty. Preoperative planning was performed on 40 consecutive patients (mean age = 70.5 years), undergoing Total Hip Arthroplasty. Digital templating was performed by the Hip fellow 1, using Orthoview software (Jacksonville, FL, USA) and recorded the sizes of the cup and stem for each of the 40 patients. Subsequently, the same 40 patients were templated by Hip fellow 2, with X-rays done with a lead marker of known size by the side of the femur, using, acetate templating method. Templating results were compared to the actual sizes of the implants used, as noted in operative notes. Templating scores for the acetabular cup were 40% (16/40) with digital templating and 50% (20/40) with acetate templating. The templating scores for stem were 28% (11/40) with digital templating and 90% (36/40) with acetate templating. The differences between templating and actual implant sizes were plotted in Bland–Altman plot. Acetate templating proved to be statistically, significantly more accurate than digital templating (p value= 0.0083). Our results indicate that the traditional acetate method is solid and valid to use for preoperative planning. This method is accurate and offers a more affordable option for preoperative templating. Although the templated size is one, there is a tendency to increase cup size to use bigger heads, which is the recent National Joint
