The rate of day-case total knee replacement (TKR) in the UK is currently ~0.5%. Reducing length of stay improves efficiency, increases operative throughput and tackles the rising demand for joint replacement surgery and the COVID-19 related backlog. We report safe delivery of day-case TKR in an NHS Trust via inpatient wards, with no additional resources. Day-case TKRs, defined as patients discharged on the same calendar day as surgery, were retrospectively reviewed with a minimum follow-up of six-months. Analysis of hospital and primary care records was performed to determine readmission and reattendance rates. Telephone interviews were conducted to determine patient satisfaction.Abstract
Introduction
Methodology
National BOAST guidelines have been developed to coordinate and improve the standard of care for all patients with problems after knee replacement surgery. Since the inception of these guidelines we wanted to assess the impact of these guidelines on patients and their pathways following their discussions at our weekly revision MDT meetings. Trust casenotes programs, PACS software and MDT notes were evaluated over the past 12 months (January 2022 to December 2022) to collect data for all patients with problematic knee replacements. Current in-patients discussed at MDT were excluded.Abstract
Introduction
Methodology
Following arthroplasty of the knee, the patient’s
perception of improvement in symptoms is fundamental to the assessment
of outcome. Better clinical outcome may offset the inferior survival
observed for some types of implant. By examining linked National
Joint Registry (NJR) and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs)
data, we aimed to compare PROMs collected at a minimum of six months
post-operatively for total (TKR: n = 23 393) and unicondylar knee
replacements (UKR: n = 505). Improvements in knee-specific (Oxford
knee score, OKS) and generic (EuroQol, EQ-5D) scores were compared
and adjusted for case-mix differences using multiple regression.
Whereas the improvements in the OKS and EQ-5D were significantly
greater for TKR than for UKR, once adjustments were made for case-mix
differences and pre-operative score, the improvements in the two
scores were not significantly different. The adjusted mean differences
in the improvement of OKS and EQ-5D were 0.0 (95% confidence interval (CI)
-0.9 to 0.9; p = 0.96) and 0.009 (95% CI -0.034 to 0.015; p = 0.37),
respectively. We found no difference in the improvement of either knee-specific
or general health outcomes between TKR and UKR in a large cohort
of registry patients. With concerns about significantly higher revision
rates for UKR observed in worldwide registries, we question the
widespread use of an arthroplasty that does not confer a significant
benefit in clinical outcome.
To investigate the reasons for revision of Oxford Unicondylar Knee Replacement (UKR). Does insert size used relate to requirement for revision? We retrospectively reviewed the cases needing revision from a single surgeon consecutive series of 209 ‘Oxford’ UKRs. 10 cases required early (within 2 years) revision. The reasons for revision were investigated. A comparison of cases requiring revision by insert size implanted was made.Objective
Methods
