Patients with knee osteoarthritis (OA) often present with symptoms that warrant bilateral TKAs. There are potential benefits to operating on both knees on the same day, but the safety of simultaneous bilateral TKAs has been questioned. To evaluate whether there were any differences in 30-day mortality between patients having simultaneous bilateral TKAs and those having staged bilateral TKAs, we analyzed data from the Swedish Knee Arthroplasty Register and the Swedish Cause of Death Register. We included 48,931 patients with OA having 60,062 primary TKAs during 1985 to 2004; 1139 had surgery on both knees on the same day (simultaneous bilateral) and 3432 had surgery on both knees on two different occasions with less than 1 year between operations (staged bilateral). The 30-day mortality after simultaneous bilateral TKAs was 7.53 (confidence interval, 2.62-21.69) times higher than after the second of staged TKA and 3.77 (confidence interval, 2.04-6.98) times higher than after a primary unilateral TKA. Assuming the total risk for a staged procedure is twice that of a unilateral procedure, the risk of mortality within 30 days is 1.94 (confidence interval, 1.05-3.59) times higher with simultaneous than staged TKA. It is safer to operate on one knee at a time. Level of Evidence: Level II, therapeutic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Few economic or quality-of-life studies have investigated the long-term consequences of fragility fractures. This prospective observational data collection study assessed the cost and quality of life related to hip, vertebral, and wrist fracture 13-18 months after the fracture, based on 684 patients surviving 18 months after fracture. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data regarding resource use and quality of life related to fractures was collected using questionnaires at 7 research centers in Sweden. Information was collected using patient records, register sources, and by asking the patient. Quality of life was estimated using the EQ-5D questionnaire. Direct and indirect costs were estimated from a societal standpoint. RESULTS: The mean fracture-related cost 13-18 months after a hip, vertebral, or wrist fracture were estimated to be euro2,422, euro3,628, and euro316, respectively. Between 12 and 18 months after hip, vertebral, and wrist fracture, utility increased by 0.03, 0.05, and 0.02, respectively. Compared to prefracture levels, the mean loss in quality of life between 13 and 18 months after fracture was estimated to be 0.05, 0.11, and 0.005 for hip, vertebral, and wrist fracture. INTERPRETATION: The sample of vertebral fracture patients was fairly small and included a high proportion of fractures leading to hospitalization, but the results indicate higher long-term costs and greater loss in quality of life related to vertebral fracture than previously believed.
BACKGROUND: Hospital-specific variation in outcome is generally considered to be an important source of information for clinical improvement. We have measured the magnitude of this variation. METHODS: We determined the revision risk in 37,642 cemented primary total knee arthroplasties inserted as a result of osteoarthritis from 1993 through 2002 at 93 hospitals in Sweden. We used 2 essentially different methods to estimate risk of revision: a fixed-effects model (Cox's proportional hazards model) and a random-effects model (shared gamma frailty model). RESULTS: The 2 models ranked hospitals differently. As expected, the fixed-effects model provided more dispersed estimates of hospital-specific revision rates. In contrast to the random-effects model, chance events can easily cause overly optimistic or pessimistic outcomes in the fixed-effects model. Although the revision risk varied significantly between hospitals, the overall revision risk was still low. INTERPRETATION: Assessment of variation in outcome is an important instrument in the continuing effort to improve clinical care. However, regarding revision rate after knee arthroplasty, we do not believe that such analyses necessarily provide valid information on the current quality of care. We question their value as information source for seeking personal healthcare.
