Empirical support for radiographic review: a follow-up study of total hip arthroplasty

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.

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.