A survey of the current state of hip arthroplasty surveillance in the United Kingdom

Feasibility testing of a standardised virtual clinic for follow-up of patients after hip and knee arthroplasty

INTRODUCTION

Over 200,000 hip and knee total joint arthroplasties (TJAs) are performed annually in England and Wales. UK guidelines recommend regular follow-up because missed early failure can result in complex revision surgery, which places additional burden on overstretched orthopaedic services. This study evaluated the feasibility and acceptability of an expert, consensus-based, standardised virtual clinic (VC) approach for TJA follow-up.

METHODS

Five UK secondary care orthopaedic centres implemented a standardised VC. Feedback was obtained through patient satisfaction questionnaires and telephone interviews with arthroplasty care practitioners. Key stakeholders subsequently attended an expert discussion forum to achieve consensus on the final VC format and to address obstacles identified during testing.

RESULTS

From 19 June 2018 to 11 December 2018, 561 TJA patients [mean age (SD) 70 (9.4) years, 57.8% female, 69.0% hip TJA, 1-28 years postsurgery (median 5 years)] completed a VC. Of these 561 patients, 82.2% were discharged without attending an outpatient appointment and 46 (8.8%) required early face-to-face consultant review. Patient satisfaction with the VC was high (156/188; 83.0%); over 70% of patients indicated a preference for the VC.

DISCUSSION

This feasibility study suggested significant resource savings, including time spent by consultant orthopaedic surgeons in outpatient clinics, hospital transport and an estimated saving of up to two-thirds of usual clinic-allotted time. The expert discussion forum provided helpful feedback for supporting more efficient implementation of the VC.

CONCLUSIONS

A standardised VC is a feasible alternative to outpatient clinics for the follow-up of hip and knee TJA patients, and is acceptable to key stakeholders, including patients.

Association between outpatient follow-up and incidence of revision after knee and hip replacements: a population-based cohort study

BACKGROUND

Follow-up visits 5 or 7 years after surgery were recommended for people having primary hip or knee replacement. The benefits of this practice to patients and the healthcare system, however, have not yet been specifically examined. The aim of this study was to investigate the association between long-term follow-up outpatient hospital visits and revision rates for patients who undergo primary knee or hip replacement surgery.

METHODS

Cohorts were identified for patients undergoing knee or hip replacement surgery using medical records from primary care practices within the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) GOLD dataset linked to hospital records from the English Hospital Episodes Statistics (HES) data. Two groups of patients were compared in terms of revision and mortality rates: those with at least one long-term (between five and 10 years since primary surgery) follow-up visit at the orthopaedic department ('Follow-up' group), and those without ('No follow-up' group).

RESULTS

A total of 9856 (4349 in the Follow-up group) patients with knee replacement and 10,837 (4870 in the Follow-up group) with hip replacement were included in the analysis. For knee replacement, the incidence of revision was 3.6% for those followed-up and 0.6% for those not followed-up. An adjusted regression model confirmed the difference in the hazard ratio (HR) for revision was statistically significant (HR: 5.65 [95% CI 3.62 to 8.81]). Mortality at 4 years was lower for the Follow-up (17%) compared to the No follow-up group (21%), but this difference was not statistically significant (HR: 0.95 [0.84 to 1.07]). For hip replacement, the incidence of revision rates were 3.2 and 1.4% for the follow-up and not follow-up groups, respectively, the difference being statistically significant (HR: 2.34 [1.71 to 3.20]). Mortality was lower for the Follow-up (15%) compared to the No follow-up group (21%), but the difference was not statistically significant (HR: 0.91 [0.81 to 1.02]).

CONCLUSION

Patients attending follow-up orthopaedic consultations show a higher risk of revision surgery compared to those who are not followed-up. A cause for this difference could not be identified in this study but a likely explanation is that surgeons play an effective role as ultimate arbitrators when identifying patients to be included in long-term follow-up lists.

UK poSt Arthroplasty Follow-up rEcommendations (UK SAFE): what does analysis of linked, routinely collected national datasets tell us about mid-late term revision risk after knee replacement?

OBJECTIVE

To identify patients at risk of mid-late term revision of knee replacement (KR) to inform targeted follow-up.

DESIGN

Analysis of linked national datasets from primary and secondary care (Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD GOLD), National Joint Registry (NJR), English Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) and Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs)).

PARTICIPANTS

Primary elective KRs aged ≥18 years.

EVENT OF INTEREST

Revision surgery ≥5 years (mid-late term) postprimary KR.

STATISTICAL METHODS

Cox regression modelling to ascertain risk factors of mid-late term revision. HRs and 95% CIs assessed association of sociodemographic factors, comorbidities, medication, surgical variables and PROMs with mid-late term revision.

RESULTS

NJR-HES-PROMs data were available from 2008 to 2011 on 188 509 KR. CPRD GOLD-HES data covered 1995-2011 on 17 378 KR. Patients had minimum 5 years postprimary surgery to end 2016. Age and gender distribution were similar across datasets; mean age 70 years, 57% female. In NJR, there were 8607 (4.6%) revisions, median time-to-revision postprimary surgery 1.8 years (range 0-8.8), with 1055 (0.6%) mid-late term revisions; in CPRD GOLD, 877 (5.1%) revisions, median time-to-revision 4.2 years (range 0.02-18.3), with 352 (2.0%) mid-late term revisions.Reduced risk of revision after 5 years was associated with older age (HR: 0.95; 95% CI 0.95 to 0.96), obesity (0.70; 0.56 to 0.88), living in deprived areas (0.71; 0.58 to 0.87), non-white ethnicity (0.58; 0.43 to 0.78), better preoperative pain and functional limitation (0.42; 0.33 to 0.53), better 6-month postoperative pain and function (0.33; 0.26 to 0.41) or moderate anxiety/depression (0.73; 0.63 to 0.83) at primary surgery.Increased risk was associated with male gender (1.32; 1.04 to 1.67); when anticonvulsants (gabapentin and pregabalin) (1.58; 1.01 to 2.47) or opioids (1.36; 1.08 to 1.71) were required prior to primary surgery.No implant factors were identified.

CONCLUSION

The risk of mid-late term KR revision is very low. Increased risk of revision is associated with patient case-mix factors, and there is evidence of sociodemographic inequality.

UK poSt Arthroplasty Follow-up rEcommendations (UK SAFE): what does analysis of linked, routinely collected national data sets tell us about mid-late term revision risk after hip replacement? Retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To identify patients at risk of mid-late term revision of hip replacement to inform targeted follow-up.

DESIGN

Analysis of linked national data sets from primary and secondary care (Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD-GOLD); National Joint Registry (NJR); English Hospital Episode Statistics (HES); Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs)).

PARTICIPANTS

Primary elective total hip replacement (THR) aged≥18.

EVENT OF INTEREST

Revision surgery≥5 years (mid-late term) after primary THR.

STATISTICAL METHODS

Cox regression modelling to ascertain risk factors of mid-late term revision. HR and 95% CI assessed association of sociodemographic factors, comorbidities, medication, surgical variables and PROMs with mid-late term revision.

RESULTS

NJR-HES-PROMs data were available from 2008 to 2011 on 142 275 THR; mean age 70.0 years and 61.9% female. CPRD GOLD-HES data covered 1995-2011 on 17 047 THR; mean age 68.4 years, 61.8% female. Patients had minimum 5 years postprimary surgery to end 2016. In NJR-HES-PROMS data, there were 3582 (2.5%) revisions, median time-to-revision after primary surgery 1.9 years (range 0.01-8.7), with 598 (0.4%) mid-late term revisions; in CPRD GOLD, 982 (5.8%) revisions, median time-to-revision 5.3 years (range 0-20), with 520 (3.1%) mid-late term revisions.Reduced risk of mid-late term revision was associated with older age at primary surgery (HR: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.95 to 0.96); better 6-month postoperative pain/function scores (HR: 0.35; 95% CI: 0.27 to 0.46); use of ceramic-on-ceramic (HR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.56 to 0.95) or ceramic-on-polyethylene (HR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.58 to 1.00) bearing surfaces.Increased risk of mid-late term revision was associated with the use of antidepressants (HR: 1.32; 95% CI: 1.09 to 1.59), glucocorticoid injections (HR: 1.33; 95% CI: 1.06 to 1.67) and femoral head size≥44 mm (HR: 2.56; 95% CI: 1.09 to 6.02)No association of gender, obesity or Index of Multiple Deprivation was observed.

CONCLUSION

The risk of mid-late term THR is associated with age at primary surgery, 6-month postoperative pain and function and implant factors. Further work is needed to explore the associations with prescription medications observed in our data.

A comparative study of patients presenting for planned and unplanned revision hip or knee arthroplasty

AIMS

The aim of this study was to conduct a cross-sectional, observational cohort study of patients presenting for revision of a total hip, or total or unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, to understand current routes to revision surgery and explore differences in symptoms, healthcare use, reason for revision, and the revision surgery (surgical time, components, length of stay) between patients having regular follow-up and those without.

METHODS

Data were collected from participants and medical records for the 12 months prior to revision. Patients with previous revision, metal-on-metal articulations, or hip hemiarthroplasty were excluded. Participants were retrospectively classified as 'Planned' or 'Unplanned' revision. Multilevel regression and propensity score matching were used to compare the two groups.

RESULTS

Data were analyzed from 568 patients, recruited in 38 UK secondary care sites between October 2017 and October 2018 (43.5% male; mean (SD) age 71.86 years (9.93); 305 hips, 263 knees). No significant inclusion differences were identified between the two groups. For hip revision, time to revision > ten years (odds ratio (OR) 3.804, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.353 to 10.694), p = 0.011), periprosthetic fracture (OR 20.309, 95% CI (4.574 to 90.179), p < 0.001), and dislocation (OR 12.953, 95% CI (4.014 to 41.794), p < 0.001), were associated with unplanned revision. For knee, there were no associations with route to revision. Revision after ten years was more likely for those who were younger at primary surgery, regardless of route to revision. No significant differences in cost outcomes, length of surgery time, and access to a health professional in the year prior to revision were found between the two groups. When periprosthetic fractures, dislocations, and infections were excluded, healthcare use was significantly higher in the unplanned revision group.

CONCLUSION

Differences between characteristics for patients presenting for planned and unplanned revision are minimal. Although there was greater healthcare use in those having unplanned revision, it appears unlikely that routine orthopaedic review would have detected many of these issues. It may be safe to disinvest in standard follow-up provided there is rapid access to orthopaedic review. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(1):59-67.

Pilot study: Is a long-term follow-up service beneficial for patients undergoing revision hip replacement surgery?

Purpose

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is highly successful but some patients will require later revision surgery. This pilot study evaluates the effects of long‐term follow‐up for patients undergoing revision hip replacement.

Methods

Consecutive patients undergoing aseptic revision of THA were recruited from a large orthopaedic unit to a single centre, observational study. Primary outcomes were changes in patient‐reported scores from pre‐revision to 12 months post‐surgery. Secondary outcomes were costs during hospital stay up to 6 months post‐revision. Participants were retrospectively allocated to two groups—those with regular orthopaedic review prior to revision (Planned revision) or those without (Unplanned revision).

Results

52 patients were recruited, 7 were unrevised, one incomplete baseline questionnaires. There were 25 planned and 19 unplanned revisions with no significant differences between groups at baseline. At 12 months, 34 complete data sets were available for analysis, 17 in each group. Change scores were analysed with Mann–Whitney U test; none reached statistical significance. There was a significant difference for length of stay: Planned group 5 days (2–22), Unplanned 11 days (3–86) (Mann–Whitney U test, p = 0.023). No significant differences found for theatre time or component costs. Resource costs post‐revision surgery are presented.

Conclusion

This pilot study indicates that some change in methods would be required for future work. The results show that there may be some financial benefit from providing long‐term follow‐up of THA but a larger study is needed to explore these findings and to discuss the impact on recommended guidelines.

Systematic review of the clinical effectiveness for long-term follow-up of total hip arthroplasty

Objectives: Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is highly successful but national registries indicate that average age has lowered and that younger patients are at higher risk of revision. Long-term follow-up of THA was historically recommended to identify aseptically failing THA, minimising the risks associated with extensive changes, but follow-up services are now in decline. A systematic review was conducted to search for evidence of the clinical or cost-effectiveness of hip arthroplasty surveillance.

Methods: The study was registered with PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews and conducted according to PRISMA guidelines; databases included MEDLINE and Embase, and all studies were quality assessed. Original studies (2005 to 2017) reporting follow-up of adults with THA in situ >5 years were included. Researchers extracted quantitative and qualitative data from each study.

Results: For eligibility, 4,137 studies were screened: 114 studies were included in the final analysis, representing 22 countries worldwide. Data extracted included study endpoint, patient detail, loss to follow-up, revisions, scores and radiographic analysis. Six themes were derived from inductive content analysis of text: support for long-term follow-up, subgroups requiring follow-up, effect of materials/techniques on THA survival, effect of design, indicators for revision, review process. Main findings—follow-up was specifically recommended to monitor change (eg asymptomatic loosening), when outcomes of joint construct are unknown, and for specific patient subgroups. Outcome scores alone are not enough, and radiographic review should be included.

Conclusion: There were no studies directly evaluating the clinical effectiveness of the long-term follow-up of THA but expert opinions from a range of international authors advocated its use for defined subgroups to provide patient-centred care. In the absence of higher level evidence, these opinions, in conjunction with emerging outputs from the national joint registries, should be used to inform services for long-term follow-up of THA.

Point your SmartPhone at the code above. If you have a QR code reader the video abstract will appear. Or use:

https://youtu.be/lAKW3hQGyJQ

Towards UK poSt Arthroplasty Follow-up rEcommendations (UK SAFE): protocol for an evaluation of the requirements for arthroplasty follow-up, and the production of consensus-based recommendations

INTRODUCTION

Hip and knee arthroplasties have revolutionised the management of degenerative joint diseases and, due to an ageing population, are becoming increasingly common. Follow-up of joint prostheses is to identify problems in symptomatic or asymptomatic patients due to infection, osteolysis, bone loss or potential periprosthetic fracture, enabling timely intervention to prevent catastrophic failure at a later date. Early revision is usually more straight-forward surgically and less traumatic for the patient. However, routine long-term follow-up is costly and requires considerable clinical time. Therefore, some centres in the UK have curtailed this aspect of primary hip and knee arthroplasty services, doing so without an evidence base that such disinvestment is clinically or cost-effective.

METHODS

Given the timeline from joint replacement to revision, conducting a randomised controlled trial (RCT) to determine potential consequences of disinvestment in hip and knee arthroplasty follow-up is not feasible. Furthermore, the low revision rates of modern prostheses, less than 10% at 10 years, would necessitate thousands of patients to adequately power such a study. The huge variation in follow-up practice across the UK also limits the generalisability of an RCT. This study will therefore use a mixed-methods approach to examine the requirements for arthroplasty follow-up and produce evidence-based and consensus-based recommendations as to how, when and on whom follow-up should be conducted. Four interconnected work packages will be completed: (1) a systematic literature review; (2a) analysis of routinely collected National Health Service data from five 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 which includes a stratification algorithm to determine appropriate follow-up care for an individual patient.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Favourable ethical opinion has been obtained for WP2a (RO-HES) (220520) and WP2B (220316) from the National Research Ethics Committee. Following advice from the Confidentiality Advisory Group (17/CAG/0122), data controllers for the data sets used in WP2a (RO-HES) - NHS Digital and The Phoenix Partnership - confirmed that Section 251 support was not required as no identifiable data was flowing into or out of these parties. Application for approval of WP2a (RO-HES) from the Independent Group Advising on the Release of Data (IGARD) at NHS Digital is in progress (DARS-NIC-147997). Section 251 support (17/CAG/0030) and NHS Digital approval (DARS-NIC-172121-G0Z1H-v0.11) have been obtained for WP2a (NJR-HES-PROMS). ISAC (11_050MnA2R2) approval has been obtained for WP2a (CPRD-HES).

Protocol for follow up of hip arthroplasty in the long term: effect on revision (WHISTLER study)

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is highly successful for reducing pain and improving function, providing health-related quality of life benefit. Demand for THA is increasing with associated increase in revision hip surgery. Hip arthroplasty surveillance (long-term follow up) can identify asymptomatically failing THA to prepare for revision surgery, reducing potential for complications or complexity of surgery. However, it is unknown whether the surveillance of THA can be shown to improve the patient outcomes or reduce costs around revision surgery. With the current need to reduce unnecessary health consultations and to show the economic advantages of any service, the purpose of this study is to consider the relative effectiveness of hip arthroplasty surveillance on revision hip arthroplasty. This is a single-centre, observational study in which consecutive patients undergoing aseptic revision of THA over 12 months in a large orthopaedic unit will be considered for participation. Primary outcome measures will be change in each of three valid patient-reported scores from pre-operatively to 12 months post-surgery. Secondary outcomes will be the costs of treatment calculated using data obtained from the participants' hospital records and a self-report questionnaire. An exploratory approach will be used to investigate the effect of surveillance on the outcomes of interest. A linear mixed method model will be used to study the change in scores between baseline and 12 months. The economic evaluation will be a cost-utility analysis, which compares the value of alternative interventions by attaching costs to the quality-adjusted life years produced by each intervention.

Is a questionnaire and radiograph-based follow-up model for patients with primary hip and knee arthroplasty a viable alternative to traditional regular outpatient follow-up clinic?

AIMS

Increasing demand for total hip and knee arthroplasty (THA/TKA) and associated follow-up has placed huge demands on orthopaedic services. Feasible follow-up mechanisms are therefore essential.

METHODS

We conducted an audit of clinical follow-up decision-making for THA/TKA based on questionnaire/radiograph review compared with local practice of Arthroplasty Care Practitioner (ACP)-led outpatient follow-up. In all 599 patients attending an ACP-led THA/TKA follow-up clinic had a pelvic/knee radiograph, completed a pain/function questionnaire and were reviewed by an ACP. An experienced orthopaedic surgeon reviewed the same radiographs and questionnaires, without patient contact or knowledge of the ACP's decision. Each pathway classified patients into: urgent review, annual monitoring, routine follow-up or discharge.

RESULTS

In total, 401 hip and 198 knee patients were included. There was substantial agreement between the ACP and surgeon for both hip (kappa = 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 0.76) and knee (kappa = 0.81, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.88). Positive agreement was very high for discharge and routine follow-up; however the ACP was more likely to select annual monitoring and the surgeon urgent review.

DISCUSSION

Review of the questionnaire/radiograph together identified all patients in need of increased surveillance, with good agreement for on-going patient management. However, review of the radiograph or questionnaire alone missed some patients with potential problems. A radiograph in conjunction with a questionnaire as a review may represent a cost effective THA/TKA follow-up mechanism.

TAKE HOME MESSAGE

A questionnaire and radiograph-based remote review may represent a cost-effective total joint arthroplasty follow-up mechanism; thereby reducing the considerable burden that follow-up currently places on the NHS.