Literature DB >> 15194578

Trends in hip and knee joint replacement: socioeconomic inequalities and projections of need.

T Dixon1, M Shaw, S Ebrahim, P Dieppe.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To examine trends in primary and revision joint (hip and knee) replacement in England between 1991 and 2000.
METHODS: Analysis of hospital episodes statistics between 1 April 1991 and 30 March 2001 for total hip replacement (THR) and total knee replacement (TKR). Descriptive statistics and regression modelling were used to summarise patients' demographic and clinical characteristics and to explore variations in joint surgery rates by age, sex, and deprivation.
RESULTS: Between 1991 and 2000, the incidence of primary THR increased by 18%, while the incidence of revision THR more than doubled. The incidence of primary TKR doubled, with revision TKR increasing by 300%. Over the 10 year period, the proportion of THR episodes that involved revision operations rose from 8% to 20%. Substantial variations in operation rates by socioeconomic status were seen, with the most deprived fifth of the population experiencing significantly lower rates. Projections estimate that primary THR numbers could rise by up to 22% by the year 2010, with primary TKR numbers rising by up to 63%.
CONCLUSIONS: Provision of joint replacement surgery in English NHS hospitals has increased substantially over the past decade. Revision operations in particular have increased markedly. The growth in primary operations has mostly occurred among those aged 60 years and over; rates among young people have changed very little. There is a significant deprivation based gradient in rates. If current trends continue there would be almost 47 000 primary hip and 54 000 primary knee operations annually by 2010.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15194578      PMCID: PMC1755069          DOI: 10.1136/ard.2003.012724

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Rheum Dis        ISSN: 0003-4967            Impact factor:   19.103


  22 in total

1.  Private funding of elective hospital treatment in England and Wales, 1997-8: national survey.

Authors:  B Williams; P Whatmough; J McGill; L Rushton
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-04-01

2.  The Finnish Arthroplasty Register: report of the hip register.

Authors:  T J Puolakka; K J Pajamäki; P J Halonen; P O Pulkkinen; P Paavolainen; J K Nevalainen
Journal:  Acta Orthop Scand       Date:  2001-10

3.  Past incidence and future demand for knee arthroplasty in Sweden: a report from the Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register regarding the effect of past and future population changes on the number of arthroplasties performed.

Authors:  O Robertsson; M J Dunbar; K Knutson; L Lidgren
Journal:  Acta Orthop Scand       Date:  2000-08

4.  The Norwegian Arthroplasty Register: 11 years and 73,000 arthroplasties.

Authors:  L I Havelin; L B Engesaeter; B Espehaug; O Furnes; S A Lie; S E Vollset
Journal:  Acta Orthop Scand       Date:  2000-08

5.  Change in pain and function while waiting for major joint arthroplasty.

Authors:  K D Kelly; D C Voaklander; D W Johnston; S C Newman; M E Suarez-Almazor
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 4.757

6.  Long-term registration has improved the quality of hip replacement: a review of the Swedish THR Register comparing 160,000 cases.

Authors:  P Herberts; H Malchau
Journal:  Acta Orthop Scand       Date:  2000-04

7.  Projecting the need for hip replacement over the next three decades: influence of changing demography and threshold for surgery.

Authors:  F Birrell; O Johnell; A Silman
Journal:  Ann Rheum Dis       Date:  1999-09       Impact factor: 19.103

8.  Rates and outcomes of primary and revision total hip replacement in the United States medicare population.

Authors:  Nizar N Mahomed; Jane A Barrett; Jeffrey N Katz; Charlotte B Phillips; Elena Losina; Robert A Lew; Edward Guadagnoli; William H Harris; Robert Poss; John A Baron
Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 5.284

9.  A cost-effectiveness analysis of total hip arthroplasty for osteoarthritis of the hip.

Authors:  R W Chang; J M Pellisier; G B Hazen
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1996-03-20       Impact factor: 56.272

10.  From the surgery to the surgeon: does deprivation influence consultation and operation rates?

Authors:  N Chaturvedi; Y Ben-Shlomo
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  1995-03       Impact factor: 5.386

View more
  71 in total

1.  Introducing a knee endoprosthesis model increases risk of early revision surgery.

Authors:  Mikko Peltola; Antti Malmivaara; Mika Paavola
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2011-12-09       Impact factor: 4.176

Review 2.  The orthopaedic approach to managing osteoarthritis of the knee.

Authors:  Sam Gidwani; Adrian Fairbank
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-11-20

3.  Results of press-fit stems in revision knee arthroplasties.

Authors:  Gavin C Wood; Douglas D R Naudie; Steven J MacDonald; Richard W McCalden; Robert B Bourne
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2008-11-26       Impact factor: 4.176

4.  [The use of tantalum cones for reconstruction of bone defects in revision total knee arthroplasty].

Authors:  M Gebauer; T Gehrke; O Jakobs
Journal:  Oper Orthop Traumatol       Date:  2015-02-05       Impact factor: 1.154

Review 5.  [Acetabular defect reconstruction in revision surgery of the hip. Autologous, homologous or metal?].

Authors:  S Gravius; G Pagenstert; O Weber; N Kraska; H Röhrig; D C Wirtz
Journal:  Orthopade       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 1.087

6.  Relationship between self-reported and performance-based tests in a hip and knee joint replacement population.

Authors:  Rajiv Gandhi; Dmitry Tsvetkov; J Roderick Davey; Khalid A Syed; Nizar N Mahomed
Journal:  Clin Rheumatol       Date:  2008-10-08       Impact factor: 2.980

7.  Group C streptococcal septic arthritis of a prosthetic hip joint following dental treatment.

Authors:  Sarah Al-Himdani; David Woodnutt
Journal:  BMJ Case Rep       Date:  2015-10-22

8.  Radiographic Risk Factors For Interprosthetic Femur Fractures.

Authors:  Jason S Lipof; Ari D Amitai; Kyle T Judd; John T Gorczyca
Journal:  Iowa Orthop J       Date:  2017

9.  Maximum recovery after knee replacement--the MARKER study rationale and protocol.

Authors:  Chung-Wei Christine Lin; Lyn March; Jack Crosbie; Ross Crawford; Stephen Graves; Justine Naylor; Alison Harmer; Stephen Jan; Kim Bennell; Ian Harris; David Parker; Helene Moffet; Marlene Fransen
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2009-06-17       Impact factor: 2.362

10.  How good is the orthopaedic literature?

Authors:  Harman Chaudhry; Raman Mundi; Ishu Singh; Thomas A Einhorn; Mohit Bhandari
Journal:  Indian J Orthop       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 1.251

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.