Literature DB >> 18762643

Patient compliance with clinical follow-up after total joint arthroplasty.

John C Clohisy1, Ganesh V Kamath, Gregory D Byrd, Karen Steger-May, Rick W Wright.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Periodic clinical and radiographic evaluation is commonly recommended by orthopaedic surgeons to monitor patients following total joint arthroplasty, yet the compliance with and efficacy of patient follow-up protocols have not been well defined. The purpose of this study was to evaluate patient compliance with early clinical follow-up after total hip arthroplasty or total knee arthroplasty.
METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of clinical follow-up compliance for 776 patients who had undergone a total joint arthroplasty in the lower extremity. This cohort included 505 total hip arthroplasties (372 primary and 133 revision procedures) and 271 total knee arthroplasties (195 primary and seventy-six revision procedures). The patients were given one-time verbal instructions by the treating surgeon at the three-month postoperative visit to return for the one-year follow-up evaluation. At the one-year follow-up evaluation, those who returned were once again verbally instructed to return a year later. Demographic factors, functional hip and knee scores, and follow-up compliance at one and two years after surgery were assessed.
RESULTS: Patient compliance with clinical follow-up after all arthroplasties was 61% at one year and 36% at two years. With use of a multivariate model for patients who had total hip arthroplasty, the analyses showed that a revision hip procedure (p = 0.006), younger patient age (p = 0.04), and a higher preoperative Harris hip score for gait (p = 0.04) were associated with follow-up compliance at two years. Of the factors analyzed for patients who had total knee arthroplasty, only nonwhite race (p = 0.03) was found to be a positive predictor of follow-up compliance at the two-year follow-up interval.
CONCLUSIONS: Patient compliance with clinical follow-up after total joint arthroplasty in response to a verbal request made by the surgeon once at three months and once at one year postoperatively was poor in this series. These data indicate that this method (one-time verbal instruction) is insufficient to ensure compliance for follow-up after total joint arthroplasty.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18762643     DOI: 10.2106/JBJS.G.00856

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Bone Joint Surg Am        ISSN: 0021-9355            Impact factor:   5.284


  11 in total

1.  Is routine mid-term total hip arthroplasty surveillance beneficial?

Authors:  James A Keeney; Bradley S Ellison; William J Maloney; John C Clohisy
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2012-06-06       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  How are those "lost to follow-up" patients really doing? A compliance comparison in arthroplasty patients.

Authors:  Jung Keun Choi; Jeffrey A Geller; David A Patrick; Wenbao Wang; William Macaulay
Journal:  World J Orthop       Date:  2015-01-18

3.  Radiographic assessment of uncemented total hip arthroplasty: reliability of the Engh Grading Scale.

Authors:  Susan W Muir; Aziz Al-Ahaideb; John Huckell; Mary Ann Johnson; D Bill C Johnston; Lauren A Beaupre
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 2.089

4.  Long-Term Results of Total Hip Arthroplasty with 28-Millimeter Cobalt-Chromium Femoral Heads on Highly Cross-Linked Polyethylene in Patients 50 Years and Less.

Authors:  Jeffrey B Stambough; Gail Pashos; Frank C Bohnenkamp; William J Maloney; John M Martell; John C Clohisy
Journal:  J Arthroplasty       Date:  2015-07-17       Impact factor: 4.757

5.  Are younger patients undergoing THA appropriately characterized as active?

Authors:  James A Keeney; Ryan M Nunley; Geneva R Baca; John C Clohisy
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2014-09-23       Impact factor: 4.176

6.  Lessons learned from managing a prospective, private practice joint replacement registry: a 25-year experience.

Authors:  Joshua T Carothers; Richard E White; Krishna R Tripuraneni; Mohammad W Hattab; Michael J Archibeck
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 4.176

7.  Are younger patients undergoing TKAs appropriately characterized as active?

Authors:  James A Keeney; Ryan M Nunley; Rick W Wright; Robert L Barrack; John C Clohisy
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2013-11-19       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  A Case Report of Revision Total Knee Arthroplasty After 17 Years: All Grown Up, What Happens When Implants Mature?

Authors:  Colin K Cantrell; Harshadkumar A Patel; Wesley R Stroud; Nicholas Dahlgren; Eva Lehtonen; Morad Qarmali; Kelly C Stéfani; Ashish Shah; Sameer M Naranje
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2018-06-13

9.  Heterogeneity in health status and the influence of patient characteristics across patients seeking musculoskeletal orthopaedic care - a cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Anthony V Perruccio; Rajiv Gandhi; Y Raja Rampersaud
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2013-03-07       Impact factor: 2.362

10.  Identifying complications requiring re-operation following primary hip or knee arthroplasty: a consecutive series of 98 patients.

Authors:  Bill Reynolds; Nick Maister; Stephen D Gill; Shaun Waring; Peter Schoch; Sally Beattie; Andrew Thomson; Richard S Page
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2018-03-27       Impact factor: 2.362

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.