Follow-up of arthroplasty varies widely across the UK. The aim of this NIHR-funded study was to employ a mixed-methods approach to examine the requirements for arthroplasty follow-up and produce evidence-based and consensus-based recommendations. It has been supported by BHS, BASK, BOA, ODEP and NJR. Four interconnected work packages have recently been completed: (1) a systematic literature review; (2a) analysis of routinely collected National Health Service data from four 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 to guide appropriate follow-up care after primary hip and knee arthroplasty.
For ODEP10A∗ minimum implants, it is safe to disinvest in routine follow-up from 1 to 10 years post non-complex hip and knee replacement provided there is rapid access to orthopaedic review For ODEP10A∗ minimum implants in complex cases, or non-ODEP10A∗ minimum implants, periodic follow-up post hip and knee replacement may be required from 1 to 10 years At 10 years post hip and knee replacement, we recommend clinical, which may be virtual, and radiographic evaluation After 10 years post hip and knee replacement, frequency of further follow-up should be based on the 10-year assessment; ongoing rapid access to orthopaedic review is still required These recommendations apply to post primary hip and knee replacement follow-up The 10-year time point in these recommendations is based on a lack of robust evidence beyond ten years The term complex cases refer to individual patient and surgical factors that may increase the risk for replacement failure
Overarching statements
Reverse hybrid total hip replacement (THR) offers significant theoretical benefits but is uncommonly used. Our primary objective was to evaluate implant survival with all cause revision and revision for aseptic loosening of either component as endpoints. Data was collected prospectively on 1, 088 (988 patients) consecutive reverse hybrid THRs. Mean patient age was 69.3 years (range, 21–94) and mean follow-up was 8.2 years (range, 5–11.3). No patients were lost to follow-up. Overall, 194 (17.8%) procedures were performed in patients under 60 years, 666 (61.1%) were performed in female patients and 349 (32.1%) were performed by a trainee. Acetabular components were ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene in 415 (38.1%) hips, highly cross-linked polyethylene in 669 (61.5%) hips and vitamin E stabilised polyethylene in 4 (0.4%) hips. Femoral stems were collared in 757 (69.7%) hips and collarless in 331 (30.3%) hips. Femoral head sizes were 28 mm in 957 (87.9%) hips and 32 mm in 131 (12.1%) hips. Survival analysis was performed using Kaplan Meier methodology. Log rank tests were used to asses differences in survival by age, gender, head size and surgeon grade.Introduction
Patients/Materials & Methods
In the UK, the posterior approach (PA) and direct lateral approach (DLA) are the most common total hip arthroplasty (THA) procedures. Few studies however, have compared the subsequent functional outcomes. This exploratory study aimed to examine the effect of PA and DLA approaches on post-operative hip kinematics, strength and hip muscle cross-sectional area (CSA), compared to healthy controls. Participants comprised of 15 cases in the DLA group, > 12 month post-operatively, (ten male, age 68.9+/-5.5 years, BMI 26.9+/-3.0), 13 cases in the PA group (six male; age 72.9+/-6.9 years, BMI 27.1+/-3.6) and 11 age/BMI-matched healthy control participants. All participants underwent 3D kinematic (Vicon, Oxford, UK) and kinetic (AMTI, USA) analysis whist performing self-selected and fast walking as well as sit-to-stand and stand-to-sit. Isometric dynamometry was performed (Biodex Medical systems, USA) for all major muscle groups around the operated hip, and a subset of five participants (three DLA v two PA) underwent “slice encoding for metal artefact correction” (SEMAC) MRI imaging to measure muscle CSA. Patient-reported outcome measures were collected. Both post-operative surgical groups exhibited altered gait, particularly in limited hip extension, compared to the control participants. The DLA group demonstrated forced hip extension matching controls only under fast walking conditions while the PA group did not achieve hip extension. Both surgical approaches achieved high PROMs scores. The PA group were weaker for all strength activities tested, whereas the DLA cases demonstrated similar hip strength to controls. SEMAC imaging revealed reduced CSA for those muscles dissected during surgery, compared to the contralateral side. This exploratory study demonstrated small but measurable differences between surgical approaches for muscle CSA, hip strength of major hip muscle groups and a number of gait variables, although both approaches produce satisfactory functional outcomes for patients after surgery.
