Search

Background and purpose: Studies evaluating pain and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) related to type of revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) are sparse. Our aim was to compare pain, physical function, quality of life, and patient satisfaction among different types of aseptic rTHA at 1-year follow-up. Patients and methods: We performed a retrospective study from an institutional registry with 426 primary THAs scheduled for rTHA in a fast-track setting between 2012 and 2021. Revisions were grouped by 4 types of surgery: head and/or liner exchange, cup revision, stem revision, and cup and stem revision. Pain during mobilization and at rest (NRS 0–10), physical function (HOOS-PS and HHS) and health-related quality of life (EQ-5D) were registered preoperatively, at 3 months, and 1 year postoperatively. Patient satisfaction was surveyed at the 1-year follow-up by 2 questions related to hip function and willingness to undergo the same surgery. Results: With a response rate of 85%, all outcomes improved in the 4 groups but there were neither statistical nor clinical differences between types of rTHA at 1-year follow-up. NRS pain during mobilization improved overall by 2.7 (95% confidence interval 2.3–3.1) until 1-year follow-up, both being statistically significant and clinically relevant. The improvements were mainly seen at the 3-month follow-up, with minor progress observed at 1 year. About 80% reported improved hip function and willingness to undergo the surgery again at the 1-year follow-up. Conclusion: Significant improvements in NRS pain and PROMS were found in all groups after rTHA, with no group differences at 1 year. This is relevant preoperative information for both clinicians and patients eligible for rTHA.

Background and purpose: Outcomes following revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) may depend on the indication for revision surgery. We compared pain, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and patient satisfaction among different indications for an aseptic TKA revision. Patients and methods: This was a retrospective study of prospective data from an institutional registry of 178 primary TKAs revised between 2012 and 2020. Patients were grouped by the main reason for their revision: loosening, malposition, instability, or stiffness. Pain during mobilization and at rest (NRS 0–10), physical function (KOOS-PS and KSS), and quality of life (EQ-5D) were surveyed preoperatively and at 2 months and 1 year postoperatively. Patient satisfaction was evaluated through questions related to knee function and their willingness to undergo the same surgery again at 1-year follow-up. Results: Pain and PROMs improved in all groups and did not differ statistically significantly between the 4 groups at 1-year follow-up, but equivalence for pain was not confirmed between groups. Overall, pain during mobilization improved by 2.4 (95% CI 1.9–3.0) at 1-year follow-up, which was both clinically and statistically significant. Improvements were seen within 2 months of surgery, with no further improvements seen 1 year postoperatively. Approximately 2/3 of patients reported that their knee function had improved and would undergo the same surgery again, at 1-year follow-up. Conclusion: Statistically significant and clinically relevant improvements in pain and PROMs were seen in all 4 revision groups 1 year after revision TKA. These results may assist clinicians and patients during preoperative counselling.

Introduction The current evidence on the efficacy of antibiotic-loaded bone cement (ALBC) in reducing the risk of periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) after primary joint reconstruction is insufficient. In several European countries, the use of ALBC is routine practice unlike in the USA where ALBC use is not approved in low-risk patients. Therefore, we designed a double-blinded pragmatic multicentre register-based randomised controlled non-inferiority trial to investigate the effects of ALBC compared with plain bone cement in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA).Methods and analysis A minimum of 9,172 patients undergoing full-cemented primary TKA will be recruited and equally randomised into the ALBC group and the plain bone cement group. This trial will be conducted in Norwegian hospitals that routinely perform cemented primary TKA. The primary outcome will be risk of revision surgery due to PJI at 1-year of follow-up. Secondary outcomes will be: risk of revision due to any reason including aseptic loosening at 1, 6, 10 and 20 years of follow-up; patient-related outcome measures like function, pain, satisfaction and health-related quality of life at 1, 6 and 10 years of follow-up; risk of changes in the microbial pattern and resistance profiles of organisms cultured in subsequent revisions at 1, 6, 10 and 20 years of follow-up; cost-effectiveness of routine ALBC versus plain bone cement use in primary TKA. We will use 1:1 randomisation with random permuted blocks and stratify by participating hospitals to randomise patients to receive ALBC or plain bone cement. Inclusion, randomisation and follow-up will be through the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register.Ethics and dissemination The trial was approved by the Western Norway Regional Committees on Medical and Health Research Ethics (reference number: 2019/751/REK vest) on 21 June 2019. The findings of this trial will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.Trial registration number NCT04135170.