Send to

Choose Destination
Bone Joint J. 2019 May;101-B(5):536-539. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.101B5.BJJ-2018-0853.R2.

Guidelines for the follow-up of total hip arthroplasty: do they need to be revised?.

Author information

Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, Outcomes Unit, Primary Joint Unit, Musgrave Park Hospital, Belfast, UK.



The aim of this retrospective audit was to determine the route of referral or presentation of patients requiring revision following primary total hip arthroplasty (THA).


A total of 4802 patients were implanted with an Orthopaedic Data Evaluation Panel (ODEP) 10A* cementless implant (Corail/Pinnacle) between 2005 and 2015; 80 patients with a mean age of 67.8 years (sd 10.8) underwent a subsequent revision. The primary outcome measure was route of referral for revision.


Of the 80 revisions, 31 (38.8%) took place within the first year and 69 (86.3%) took place within six years. Only two of the 80 patients were picked up at a routine review clinic, one for infection and the other for liner dissociation. A total of 36 revised patients (45.0%) were reviewed following self-referral. Of the remaining 44 revised patients (55.0%), 15 (18.8%) were General Practitioner referrals, 13 (16.3%) were other hospital referrals, six (7.5%) were inpatients, six (7.5%) were Emergency Department referrals, and two (2.5%) were readmitted from their homes. No revisions were carried out on asymptomatic patients.


Our experience suggests that if there is a robust system in place for self-referral, patients with an ODEP 10A* hip implant can, if asymptomatic, be safely discharged at the time of their first postoperative review. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:536-539.


Hip arthroplasty; Long-term follow-up; Review

[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Bone and Joint Publishing
Loading ...
Support Center