R S Cassidy1, S O hEireamhoin1, D E Beverland1. 1. Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, Outcomes Unit, Primary Joint Unit, Musgrave Park Hospital, Belfast, UK.
Abstract
AIMS: The aim of this retrospective audit was to determine the route of referral or presentation of patients requiring revision following primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 4802 patients were implanted with an Orthopaedic Data Evaluation Panel (ODEP) 10A* cementless implant (Corail/Pinnacle) between 2005 and 2015; 80 patients with a mean age of 67.8 years (sd 10.8) underwent a subsequent revision. The primary outcome measure was route of referral for revision. RESULTS: Of the 80 revisions, 31 (38.8%) took place within the first year and 69 (86.3%) took place within six years. Only two of the 80 patients were picked up at a routine review clinic, one for infection and the other for liner dissociation. A total of 36 revised patients (45.0%) were reviewed following self-referral. Of the remaining 44 revised patients (55.0%), 15 (18.8%) were General Practitioner referrals, 13 (16.3%) were other hospital referrals, six (7.5%) were inpatients, six (7.5%) were Emergency Department referrals, and two (2.5%) were readmitted from their homes. No revisions were carried out on asymptomatic patients. CONCLUSION: Our experience suggests that if there is a robust system in place for self-referral, patients with an ODEP 10A* hip implant can, if asymptomatic, be safely discharged at the time of their first postoperative review. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:536-539.
AIMS: The aim of this retrospective audit was to determine the route of referral or presentation of patients requiring revision following primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 4802 patients were implanted with an Orthopaedic Data Evaluation Panel (ODEP) 10A* cementless implant (Corail/Pinnacle) between 2005 and 2015; 80 patients with a mean age of 67.8 years (sd 10.8) underwent a subsequent revision. The primary outcome measure was route of referral for revision. RESULTS: Of the 80 revisions, 31 (38.8%) took place within the first year and 69 (86.3%) took place within six years. Only two of the 80 patients were picked up at a routine review clinic, one for infection and the other for liner dissociation. A total of 36 revised patients (45.0%) were reviewed following self-referral. Of the remaining 44 revised patients (55.0%), 15 (18.8%) were General Practitioner referrals, 13 (16.3%) were other hospital referrals, six (7.5%) were inpatients, six (7.5%) were Emergency Department referrals, and two (2.5%) were readmitted from their homes. No revisions were carried out on asymptomatic patients. CONCLUSION: Our experience suggests that if there is a robust system in place for self-referral, patients with an ODEP 10A* hip implant can, if asymptomatic, be safely discharged at the time of their first postoperative review. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:536-539.
Entities:
Keywords:
Hip arthroplasty; Long-term follow-up; Review
Authors: Sean Bergiers; Harry Hothi; Johann Henckel; Antti Eskelinen; John Skinner; Alister Hart Journal: Bone Joint Res Date: 2020-08-25 Impact factor: 5.853
Authors: Rajpal S Nandra; Usman Ahmed; Fiona Berryman; Lesley Brash; David J Dunlop; Gulraj S Matharu Journal: Hip Int Date: 2021-01-14 Impact factor: 1.756
Authors: Sarah R Kingsbury; Lindsay K Smith; Farag Shuweihdi; Robert West; Carolyn Czoski Murray; Philip G Conaghan; Martin H Stone Journal: Bone Joint J Date: 2022-01 Impact factor: 5.082