Search

Background and purpose -- The main treatments for severe medial compartment knee arthritis are unicompartmental (UKR) and total knee replacement (TKR). UKRs have higher revision rates, particularly for aseptic loosening, therefore the cementless version was introduced. We compared the outcomes of matched cementless UKRs and TKRs. Patients and methods -- The National Joint Registry was linked to the English Hospital Episode Statistics and Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) databases. 10,552 cementless UKRs and 10,552 TKRs were propensity matched and regression analysis used to compare revision/ reoperation risks. 6-month PROMs were compared. UKR results were stratified by surgeon caseload into low- (< 10 UKRs/year), medium- (10 to < 30 UKRs/year), and highvolume (≥ 30 UKRs/year). Results -- 8-year cementless UKR revision survival for the 3 respective caseloads were 90% (95% CI 87--93), 93% (CI 91--95), and 96% (CI 94--97). 8-year reoperation survivals were 76% (CI 71--80), 81% (CI 78--85), and 84% (CI 82--86) respectively. For TKR the 8-year implant survivals for revision and reoperation were 96% (CI 95--97) and 81% (CI 80--83). The HRs for the 3 caseload groups compared with TKR for revision were 2.0 (CI 1.3--2.9), 2.0 (CI 1.6--2.7), and 1.0 (CI 0.8--1.3) and for reoperation were 1.2 (CI 1.0--1.4), 0.9 (CI 0.8--1.0), and 0.6 (CI 0.5--0.7). 6-month Oxford Knee Score (OKS) (39 vs. 37) and EQ-5D (0.80 vs. 0.77) were higher (p < 0.001) for the cementless UKR. Interpretation -- Cementless UKRs have higher revision and reoperation rates than TKR for low-volume UKR surgeons, similar reoperation but higher revision rates for midvolume surgeons, and lower reoperation and similar revision rates for high-volume surgeons. Cementless UKR also had better PROMs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Palliative care day services provide a safe environment for people with palliative care needs, enabling them to access a range of services while acting as a respite services for family caregivers. Viewed as marginal services, they are often under resourced and under researched. The aim of this study was to understand how palliative day care services contribute to client care from the perspective of management and hospice multidisciplinary teams. Methods: A descriptive qualitative study, using six focus groups conducted with staff at three United Kingdom hospices in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Thirty-five participants were recruited, including management and staff. Discussions were transcribed and analysed thematically. Results: Four key themes emerged: (1) variations of care, beyond heterogeneity of patients; (2) unclear referrals and inconsistent patient population; (3) recognising strengths and challenges and (4) an uncertain future. A major focus of group discussions was the model of care and the benefits of the service, however the importance of demonstrating services' effectiveness and value for money was highlighted. Conclusions: Management and hospice staff believed day-services to be a helpful introduction to palliative care, providing both social and medical support. Economic pressures and patient demand were influencing them to move from a social model to a hybrid model. Further research is needed to understand the effectiveness of the service. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]