Patients Lost to Follow-up in Shoulder Arthroplasty: Descriptive Characteristics and Reasons.
Follow-up
Outcomes
Shoulder arthroplasty
Journal
Clinics in orthopedic surgery
ISSN: 2005-4408
Titre abrégé: Clin Orthop Surg
Pays: Korea (South)
ID NLM: 101505087
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2022
Mar 2022
Historique:
received:
26
02
2021
revised:
08
05
2021
accepted:
19
05
2021
entrez:
7
3
2022
pubmed:
8
3
2022
medline:
9
3
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The purpose of this study was to determine the number of patients lost to follow-up yearly in shoulder arthroplasty and investigate the characteristics of the patients lost to follow-up that may differ from those not lost to follow-up. All shoulder arthroplasties performed from January 2008 to December 2014 were retrospectively reviewed. The number of patients lost to follow-up was determined yearly. Independent variables included age, sex, body mass index (BMI), diagnosis, type of prostheses, living condition, smoking, alcohol intake, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, in-hospital length, surgery length, living area, preoperative Constant score, last Constant score available, and complications. Number of deaths was recorded. This study included 251 patients. There was an accumulation of 86 patients (34.3%) lost to follow-up after a maximum of 8 years. During the first year, 9.9% of the patients were lost to follow-up, 18.3% in the second year, 25.1% in the third year, 28.7% in the fourth year, 31.5% in the fifth year, 33.9% in the sixth year, and 34.3% in the seventh year. Patients with severe obesity had 2.44 times greater risk of being lost to follow-up (hazard ratio [HR], 2.44; The longer the follow-up in shoulder arthroplasty, the greater the number of patients lost to follow-up, reaching 34.3% by the seventh year. Patients lost to follow-up were not random in shoulder arthroplasty: older patients, severely obese patients, and those with higher ASA scores were at higher risk of being lost to follow-up, but reasons for being lost to follow-up changed through time and depending on when they were assessed.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The purpose of this study was to determine the number of patients lost to follow-up yearly in shoulder arthroplasty and investigate the characteristics of the patients lost to follow-up that may differ from those not lost to follow-up.
METHODS
METHODS
All shoulder arthroplasties performed from January 2008 to December 2014 were retrospectively reviewed. The number of patients lost to follow-up was determined yearly. Independent variables included age, sex, body mass index (BMI), diagnosis, type of prostheses, living condition, smoking, alcohol intake, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, in-hospital length, surgery length, living area, preoperative Constant score, last Constant score available, and complications. Number of deaths was recorded.
RESULTS
RESULTS
This study included 251 patients. There was an accumulation of 86 patients (34.3%) lost to follow-up after a maximum of 8 years. During the first year, 9.9% of the patients were lost to follow-up, 18.3% in the second year, 25.1% in the third year, 28.7% in the fourth year, 31.5% in the fifth year, 33.9% in the sixth year, and 34.3% in the seventh year. Patients with severe obesity had 2.44 times greater risk of being lost to follow-up (hazard ratio [HR], 2.44;
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The longer the follow-up in shoulder arthroplasty, the greater the number of patients lost to follow-up, reaching 34.3% by the seventh year. Patients lost to follow-up were not random in shoulder arthroplasty: older patients, severely obese patients, and those with higher ASA scores were at higher risk of being lost to follow-up, but reasons for being lost to follow-up changed through time and depending on when they were assessed.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35251548
doi: 10.4055/cios21034
pmc: PMC8858896
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
112-118Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 by The Korean Orthopaedic Association.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
CONFLICT OF INTEREST: No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
Références
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2002 Mar;84(3):388-96
pubmed: 11886908
Acta Orthop. 2011 Feb;82(1):56-63
pubmed: 21189113
Can J Surg. 2002 Jun;45(3):191-5
pubmed: 12067171
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001 Jun;83(6):916-26
pubmed: 11407801
J Arthroplasty. 2010 Jan;25(1):133-7
pubmed: 19106032
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 2007 Nov;89(11):1452-6
pubmed: 17998180
J Hand Surg Am. 2012 Jan;37(1):42-6
pubmed: 22015075
Hip Int. 2014 Sep-Oct;24(5):465-72
pubmed: 24970318
J Endourol. 2017 Feb;31(2):135-140
pubmed: 28049356
J Bone Joint Surg Br. 1997 Mar;79(2):254-7
pubmed: 9119852
Respir Med. 2008 Jun;102(6):819-24
pubmed: 18337077
Arch Bone Jt Surg. 2014 Sep;2(3):192-8
pubmed: 25386581
J Orthop Trauma. 2015 Nov;29(11):510-5
pubmed: 25866940
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2000 Jun;82(6):838-42
pubmed: 10859103
J Orthop Trauma. 2013 Mar;27(3):177-81
pubmed: 23449099
Evid Based Spine Care J. 2011 Feb;2(1):7-10
pubmed: 22956930
Am J Epidemiol. 2006 Mar 15;163(6):493-501
pubmed: 16443796
Control Clin Trials. 2003 Dec;24(6):719-25
pubmed: 14662277
Int Orthop. 2016 Nov;40(11):2213-2219
pubmed: 27142421
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1987 Jan;(214):160-4
pubmed: 3791738
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017 Jul 5;99(13):1086-1092
pubmed: 28678121
Eur J Epidemiol. 2004;19(8):751-60
pubmed: 15469032
J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 1997 Jan;52B(1):S37-48
pubmed: 9008680
J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Apr;64(4):407-15
pubmed: 21247734