To assess the cost-effectiveness of a two-layer compression bandage versus a standard wool and crepe bandage following total knee arthroplasty, using patient-level data from the Knee Replacement Bandage Study (KReBS). A cost-utility analysis was undertaken alongside KReBS, a pragmatic, two-arm, open label, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial, in terms of the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Overall, 2,330 participants scheduled for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) were randomized to either a two-layer compression bandage or a standard wool and crepe bandage. Costs were estimated over a 12-month period from the UK NHS perspective, and health outcomes were reported as QALYs based on participants’ EuroQol five-dimesion five-level questionnaire responses. Multiple imputation was used to deal with missing data and sensitivity analyses included a complete case analysis and testing of costing assumptions, with a secondary analysis exploring the inclusion of productivity losses.Aims
Methods
The tibial component of total knee arthroplasty can either be an all-polyethylene (AP) implant or a metal-backed (MB) implant. This study aims to compare the five-year functional outcomes of AP tibial components to MB components in patients aged over 70 years. Secondary aims are to compare quality of life, implant survivorship, and cost-effectiveness. A group of 130 patients who had received an AP tibial component were matched for demographic factors of age, BMI, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, sex, and preoperative Knee Society Score (KSS) to create a comparison group of 130 patients who received a MB tibial component. Functional outcome was assessed prospectively by KSS, quality of life by 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey questionnaire (SF-12), and range of motion (ROM), and implant survivorships were compared. The SF six-dimension (6D) was used to calculate the incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER) for AP compared to MB tibial components using quality-adjusted life year methodology.Aims
Methods
Debate remains whether the patella should be resurfaced during total knee replacement (TKR). For non-resurfaced TKRs, we estimated what the revision rate would have been if the patella had been resurfaced, and examined the risk of re-revision following secondary patellar resurfacing. A retrospective observational study of the National Joint Registry (NJR) was performed. All primary TKRs for osteoarthritis alone performed between 1 April 2003 and 31 December 2016 were eligible (n = 842,072). Patellar resurfacing during TKR was performed in 36% (n = 305,844). The primary outcome was all-cause revision surgery. Secondary outcomes were the number of excess all-cause revisions associated with using TKRs without (versus with) patellar resurfacing, and the risk of re-revision after secondary patellar resurfacing.Aims
Methods
Responsiveness to clinically important change is a key feature of any outcome measure. Throughout Europe, health-related quality of life following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is routinely measured with EuroQol five-dimension (EQ-5D) questionnaires. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System 10-Question Short-Form (PROMIS-10 Global Health) score is a new general heath outcome tool which is thought to offer greater responsiveness. Our aim was to compare these two tools. We accessed data from a prospective multicentre cohort study in the United Kingdom, which evaluated outcomes following TKA. The median age of the 721 patients was 69.0 years (interquartile range, 63.3 to 74.6). There was an even division of sex, and approximately half were educated to secondary school level. The preoperative EQ-5D, PROMIS-10, and Oxford Knee Scores (OKS) were available and at three, six, and 12 months postoperatively. Internal responsiveness was assessed by standardized response mean (SRM) and effect size (Cohen’s Aims
Patients and Methods
This review summarises the opinions and conclusions
reached from a symposium on infected total knee replacement (TKR)
held at the British Association of Surgery of the Knee (BASK) annual
meeting in 2011. The National Joint Registry for England and Wales
reported 5082 revision TKRs in 2010, of which 1157 (23%) were caused
by infection. The diagnosis of infection beyond the acute post-operative
stage relies on the identification of the causative organism by
aspiration and analysis of material obtained at arthroscopy. Ideal
treatment then involves a two-stage surgical procedure with extensive
debridement and washout, followed by antibiotics. An articulating
or non-articulating drug-eluting cement spacer is used prior to
implantation of the revision prosthesis, guided by the serum level
of inflammatory markers. The use of a single-stage revision is gaining popularity
and we would advocate its use in certain patients where the causative
organism is known, no sinuses are present, the patient is not immunocompromised,
and there is no radiological evidence of component loosening or
osteitis. It is our opinion that single-stage revision produces high-quality
reproducible results and will soon achieve the same widespread acceptance
as it does in infected hip arthroplasty.
