Uniform criteria for total hip replacement surgery in patients with hip osteoarthritis: a decision tool to guide treatment decisions

Contains fulltext : 232547.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Uniform criteria for performing hip replacement surgery in hip osteoarthritis patients are currently lacking. As a result, variation in surgery and inappropriateness of care may occur. The aim of this study was to develop a consensus-based decision tool to support the decision-making process for hip replacement surgery. METHODS: Patients with a diagnosis of unilateral or bilateral osteoarthritis were included. Consensus rounds with orthopedic surgeons were organized to blindly reassess medical files and to decide whether surgery is indicated or not, based on all available pre-treatment information. We compared the outcomes obtained from the blind reassessment by the consensus group with the actual treatment. Furthermore, prediction models were fitted on the reassessment outcome to identify which set of clinical parameters would be most predictive and uniformly shared in the decision to operate.Two prediction models were fitted, one model without radiologic outcomes and one model where radiologic outcomes were included. RESULTS: In total, 364 medical files of osteoarthritis patients were included and reassessed in the analyses. Key predictors in the prediction model without radiology were age, flexion, internal rotation and the Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-quality of life. The discriminative power was high (Area Under Receiver Operating Curve (AUC) = 0.86). Key predictors in the prediction model with radiology were age, internal rotation and Kellgren and Lawrence severity score (AUC = 0.94). CONCLUSION: The study yielded a decision tool with uniform criteria for hip replacement surgery in osteoarthritis patients. The tool will guide the clinical decision-making process of physicians on whether to perform hip surgery and should be used together with information about patient preferences and social context

Eponymous hip joint approaches

Item does not contain fulltextAfter the low friction arthroplasty by John Charnley was no longer confined to specialized hospitals but commonplace in the general orthopedic practice, the issue remained how to most optimally reach the hip. The names of the authors of these approaches remain in a lot of cases connected to the approach. By evaluating the original articles in which the approaches are described we ascertain the original description and technique. By various sources we obtained the (short) biography of the people whose name is connected to the approach. Our research covers the biographies of colleagues Smith-Petersen, Watson-Jones, Hardinge, Charnley, Moore and Ludloff. The eponymous approaches are shown and described after the short biography on each individual. This study shows that without the work of our colleagues we cannot proceed in our profession. An understanding and knowledge of the people who dedicated themselves to developing the orthopedic surgery to the high standard it has today is the least honour we should give them

Midterm survival analysis of a cemented dual-mobility cup combined with bone impaction grafting in 102 revision hip arthroplasties.

Item does not contain fulltextINTRODUCTION: Revision hip arthroplasty is associated with higher dislocation rates than primary hip arthroplasty. A dual-mobility cup (DMC) can reduce this risk. Another problem is destruction of the acetabulum, induced by aseptic loosening of the prosthesis. Bone impaction grafting (BIG) can be used to reconstruct these defects, but is usually performed with cemented all polyethylene cups. The purpose of this study is to evaluate midterm cup survival and dislocation rate for the combination of BIG and DMC. METHODS: Between 2007 and 2013, 96 patients received 102 DMCs combined with BIG of the acetabulum during revision surgery. These data were first compared with a control group, consisting of 59 cases from the same hospital receiving a cemented all polyethylene cup combined with BIG. In addition, the control group was expanded with 41 cases operated on in 2007 in 'an orthopaedic centre of excellence', resulting in a 'combined control group' of 100 patients. Log-rank tests and chi-square tests were used to compare survival and dislocation rates, respectively. RESULTS: Cumulative survival of the DMC was 95.8% (range 3 months-7 years). This was comparable to the survival in the control groups (96.5% and 94.7%). The dislocation rate of 2.9% (3/102) in the dual-mobility group was lower (p = 0.02) compared to the dislocation rate of 11.8% (7/59) in the control group, but not (p = 0.12) compared to 8% in the combined control group (8/100). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that combining a DMC with BIG does not compromise outcome in terms of midterm survival of the cup.1 maart 201