Search

Background Ankle arthroplasty, commonly known as ankle replacement, is a surgical procedure for treating end-stage ankle osteoarthritis. Whilst evidence shows good clinical results after surgery, little is known of the long-term survival of ankle replacements and the need for ankle revision. Using more recent implant data and long-term data, there is now opportunity to examine at a population-level the survival rate for ankle implants, to examine between-country differences in ankle revision surgery, and to compare temporal trends in revision rates between countries. Methods Four national joint registries from Australia, New Zealand, Norway and Sweden provided the necessary data on revision outcome following primary ankle replacement, for various periods of observation – the earliest starting in 1993 up to the end of 2019. Data were either acquired from published, online annual reports or were provided from direct contact with the joint registries. The key information extracted were Kaplan-Meier estimates to plot survival probability curves following primary ankle replacement. Results The survival rates varied between countries. At 2 years, across all registries, survival rates all exceeded 0.9 (range 0.91 to 0.97). The variation widened at 5 years (range 0.80 to 0.91), at 10 years (range 0.66 to 0.84) and further at 15-years follow-up (0.56 to 0.78). At each time point, implant survival was greater in Australia and New Zealand with lower rates in Sweden and Norway. Conclusions We observed variation in primary ankle replacement survival rates across these national registries, although even after 5 years, these population derived data show an 80% revision free survival. These data raise a number of hypotheses concerning the reasons for between-country differences in revision-free survival which will require access to primary data for analysis.

Summary This narrative review describes efforts to improve the care and prevention of fragility fractures in New Zealand from 2012 to 2022. This includes development of clinical standards and registries to benchmark provision of care, and public awareness campaigns to promote a life-course approach to bone health. Purpose This review describes the development and implementation of a systematic approach to care and prevention for New Zealanders with fragility fractures, and those at high risk of first fracture. Progression of existing initiatives and introduction of new initiatives are proposed for the period 2022 to 2030. Methods In 2012, Osteoporosis New Zealand developed and published a strategy with objectives relating to people who sustain hip and other fragility fractures, those at high risk of first fragility fracture or falls and all older people. The strategy also advocated formation of a national fragility fracture alliance to expedite change. Results In 2017, a previously informal national alliance was formalised under the Live Stronger for Longer programme, which includes stakeholder organisations from relevant sectors, including government, healthcare professionals, charities and the health system. Outputs of this alliance include development of Australian and New Zealand clinical guidelines, clinical standards and quality indicators and a bi-national registry that underpins efforts to improve hip fracture care. All 22 hospitals in New Zealand that operate on hip fracture patients currently submit data to the registry. An analogous approach is ongoing to improve secondary fracture prevention for people who sustain fragility fractures at other sites through nationwide access to Fracture Liaison Services. Conclusion Widespread participation in national registries is enabling benchmarking against clinical standards as a means to improve the care of hip and other fragility fractures in New Zealand. An ongoing quality improvement programme is focused on eliminating unwarranted variation in delivery of secondary fracture prevention.

The study aimed to determine how much change in neurogenic claudication spinal surgeons expect in patients following lumbar decompression for lumbar spine stenosis (LSS), and radicular leg pain following microdiscectomy. Secondary aims were to identify surgeons' preferences regarding surgical techniques for lumbar decompression, and their rating of the quality of current evidence for lumbar decompression. All Australian spine surgeons were invited, of whom 71 completed the survey (31% response rate). Only registered spinal surgeons were included. The online survey, administered using REDCap, included 4 sections: demographics and background; expected change in symptoms on a +/- 100% scale (-100% worst, 0% no change and 100% best possible); surgical preference; and rating of current evidence for lumbar decompression compared with other treatments. There were 71 complete responses, 76% were neurosurgeons (N = 54), predominantly male (96%; N = 68). On average, surgeons expected an 86% (median: 87%, inter-quartile range (IQR): 80%, 91%) improvement in neurogenic claudication following lumbar decompression for LSS and 89% (median: 91%, IQR: 85%, 95%) improvement in radicular pain following microdiscectomy. A multiple linear regression found no surgeon characteristics were associated with expected change following surgery. The preferred surgical technique for LSS was full laminectomy (58%; N = 41). Thirty-five percent of surgeons accurately rated the evidence supporting the superiority of lumbar decompression compared with non-surgical care for LSS as low quality. Spine surgeons expect large symptom improvements following lumbar decompression and microdiscectomy. Understanding of the current evidence was higher for lumbar decompression with fusion, than for decompression alone for LSS.

Additional file 1

We report the week-to-week variation of the Oxford Knee and Oxford Hip Score (OKS, OHS) in individuals with severe osteoarthritis. People waitlisted for knee (n. = 51) or hip arthroplasty (n. = 52) were assessed twice, 1-week apart. There were no major week-to-week systematic biases in the scores. Limits of agreement (LOA) for both scores were wide (OKS, -. 9.5 to 6.6; OHS, -. 7.7 to 7). For most individual questions, the answers varied by ≤. 1 point in over 90% of participants. The week-to-week 95% LOA for the Oxford scores are unacceptably large, but variations within the individual questions are minimal. Consequently, reference to variation in the individual questions may be more useful for monitoring a patient's preoperative clinical change than changes in the total Oxford score. We conclude that the total scores are not suitable for monitoring the progression of OA in individual patients. © 2013.

Objective: To evaluate the psychometric properties of the 12-item Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS-12) and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS-12) for use in evaluating outcomes after joint replacement for osteoarthritis. Design: Patient-reported outcomes data collected by the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry were used for this analysis. HOOS-12 and KOOS-12 domain (pain, function, quality of life) and summary impact data were available. The Oxford Hip Score (OHS), Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and EQ-5D-5L were used as comparators. Instruments were administered pre-operatively and at 6 months post-operatively. Internal consistency reliability, floor and ceiling effects, convergent validity, known groups validity, and responsiveness were evaluated using standard psychometric techniques. Results: Baseline HOOS-12 and KOOS-12 data were available for 3,023 patients undergoing primary total hip replacement and 4,010 patients undergoing primary total knee replacement. At baseline, high internal consistency was demonstrated for all domains and summary scores (Cronbach's alpha: HOOS-12 = 0.81–0.93; KOOS-12 = 0.82–0.92). Post-operative ceiling effects (>15% of patients scoring the best possible score) were identified for the HOOS-12 pain (46%), function (39%) and quality of life domains (26%) and summary score (17%), and for the KOOS-12 pain (21%) and function domains (18%). The HOOS-12 and KOOS-12 could differentiate between two known groups (lowest/highest OHS or OKS quartiles post-operatively; p < 0.001) and were highly responsive to change (effect sizes for HOOS-12: 2.20–2.83; KOOS-12: 1.82–2.35). Conclusion: The HOOS-12 and KOOS-12 have good psychometric properties for capturing joint replacement outcomes including excellent responsiveness, although ceiling effects may limit monitoring of post-operative improvement Refereed/Peer-reviewed