Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Loss to follow-up matters

D W Murray1, A R Britton, C J Bulstrode

  • 1The Nuffield Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Oxford, Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, Headington, England.

The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British Volume
|March 1, 1997
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Knee arthroplasty compared with joint distraction for osteoarthritis: a phase III randomized controlled trial.

Bone & joint open·2025
Same author

The outcomes of acute periprosthetic joint infection following unicompartmental knee replacement managed with early debridement, Antibiotics, and implant retention.

The Knee·2024
Same author

No exponential rise in revision knee replacement surgery over the past 15 years: an analysis from the National Joint Registry.

Osteoarthritis and cartilage·2022
Same author

Five-year results of a randomised controlled trial comparing cemented and cementless Oxford unicompartmental knee replacement using radiostereometric analysis.

The Knee·2021
Same author

Age stratified, matched comparison of unicompartmental and total knee replacement.

The Knee·2020
Same author

Lifetime revision risk for medial unicompartmental knee replacement is lower than expected.

Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA·2020
Same journal

Comorbidities in Perthes' disease: a case control study using the General Practice Research database.

The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume·2012
Same journal

The treatment of complex tibial shaft fractures by the Ilizarov method.

The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume·2012
Same journal

Posterior spinal arthrodesis for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis using pedicle screw instrumentation: does a bilateral or unilateral screw technique affect surgical outcome?

The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume·2012
Same journal

Anterior deltoid deficiency in reverse total shoulder replacement: a biomechanical study with cadavers.

The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume·2012
Same journal

Long-term results of dorsal intercarpal ligament capsulodesis for the treatment of chronic scapholunate instability.

The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume·2012
Same journal

Medial patellofemoral ligament reconstruction for patellar instability in patients with hypermobility: a case control study.

The Journal of bone and joint surgery. British volume·2012
See all related articles

Patients lost to follow-up after total hip replacement surgery experience worse outcomes. Survival analysis ignoring this loss may yield falsely optimistic results, highlighting the need to minimize patient attrition.

Area of Science:

  • Orthopedic Surgery
  • Biostatistics
  • Clinical Trial Methodology

Background:

  • Survival analysis in joint replacement studies assumes lost patients have outcomes similar to assessed patients.
  • This assumption is critical for the validity of long-term joint replacement outcome data.
  • Patient attrition can significantly bias the interpretation of surgical success rates.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To evaluate the outcomes of patients lost to follow-up after total hip replacement.
  • To determine if patients lost to follow-up differ significantly from those retained.
  • To assess the impact of patient loss on the accuracy of survival analysis in joint replacement.

Main Methods:

  • Retrospective analysis of 2268 total hip replacement patients over a 16-year period.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Comparison of clinical and radiological outcomes between patients lost to follow-up and a matched control group.
  • Calculation of cumulative loss to follow-up rates and introduction of a loss-to-follow-up quotient.

    • Main Results:

    • 142 patients (6%) were lost to follow-up over 16 years, with a cumulative loss reaching 20% at 15 years.
    • Patients lost to follow-up exhibited significantly worse pain, reduced range of motion, poorer self-reported progress, and adverse radiological findings compared to controls (p < 0.001 and p < 0.01).
    • These findings indicate that patients lost to follow-up have poorer outcomes.

    Conclusions:

    • Survival analyses that do not account for patients lost to follow-up are likely to produce falsely optimistic results.
    • Minimizing loss to follow-up through vigorous efforts is essential for reliable joint replacement outcome studies.
    • The rate of loss to follow-up and a loss-to-follow-up quotient are crucial metrics for assessing study reliability.