Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41112123›Full record

ArticleClinics in orthopedic surgery2025

Implementation and Evaluation of a Remote, Questionnaire-Based Model for Monitoring Patients Following Hip or Knee Replacement Surgery.

Stephen D Gill, Hugh Gillies, Sally Beattie, Certificate of General Nursing, Kirsten Porter, Alex Gentle, Andrew Wilkinson, Janak Jaysuriya, Richard Page

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinics in orthopedic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Stephen D GillOrthopaedic Department, Barwon Health, Geelong, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8722-0572
Hugh GilliesBarwon Centre for Orthopaedic Research and Education (B-CORE), St John of God Hospital and Barwon Health, Geelong, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7189-1184
Sally BeattieOrthopaedic Department, Barwon Health, Geelong, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-6445-9018
Certificate of General Nursing
Kirsten PorterBarwon Centre for Orthopaedic Research and Education (B-CORE), St John of God Hospital and Barwon Health, Geelong, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0313-8024
Alex GentleSchool of Medicine, Deakin University, Waurn Ponds, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0661-4196
Andrew WilkinsonOrthopaedic Department, Barwon Health, Geelong, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-8203-3831
Janak JaysuriyaOrthopaedic Department, Barwon Health, Geelong, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0005-5066-2760
Richard PageOrthopaedic Department, Barwon Health, Geelong, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2225-7144

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The benefits of long-term follow-up of patients following hip and knee joint replacement surgery are currently debated. This study evaluated a questionnaire-based model for remotely monitoring patients. Primary outcomes included response rates, acceptability to patients, and whether remote review identified patients requiring reoperation. Methods: Data were collected over a 7-year period from a large regional teaching hospital in Australia. Hard-copy questionnaires were sent to patients at 1, 5, and 8 years after joint replacement and biennially thereafter. The questionnaire assessed whether patients had pain or concerns regarding their joint replacement and whether orthopedic review was requested. Response rate was determined as the proportion of patients who returned the questionnaire and was considered acceptable if it was not significantly lower than the proportion of patients who attended a 1-year in-person appointment in the 3 years prior to introducing remote-review. Patient preferences for remote versus in-person review were collected from a subgroup of patients (n = 488) using an investigator-designed questionnaire. All reoperations during the study period were examined to determine if they were first identified via the remote-review questionnaire. Results: The response rate at 1 year was 69.3% (2,266 responses from 3,268 questionnaires sent), which was significantly lower than historical in-person outpatient attendance rates (82.7%, Conclusions: While remote review following joint replacement surgery was consistent with most patients' preferences for follow-up care, response rates were lower than historical attendance rates for in-person outpatient appointments. Routine remote review was an inefficient mechanism for identifying complications requiring reoperation, most of which were first identified via emergency departments and general practice.

Indexed as

Arthroplasty, Replacement, HipArthroplasty, Replacement, KneeAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedReoperationSurveys and QuestionnairesArthroplastyHipKneeRemote consultation

Identifiers

PMID41112123
PMCPMC12531834

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.