Irish Journal of Medical Science

, Volume 169, Issue 2, pp 125–126 | Cite as

Need-based waiting lists for hip and knee arthroplasty

  • R. Kingston
  • M. Carey
  • E. Masterson
Original Paper Hospital Practice



Need-based waiting lists have been shown to offer advantages over traditional time-based waiting lists. This study investigated the effect of their introduction in our orthopaedic practice.


Each patient on the waiting list for total hip replacement (n=240) and total knee replacement (n=98) was invited to attend a dedicated assessment clinic. At the clinic each patient had a joint score (Harris Hip Score or American Knee Society Score) calculated. Patients with the lowest joint scores were moved to the top of the waiting lists. Scores were repeated postoperatively.


Validation of the hip replacement and knee replacement waiting lists reduced them by 20% and 11% respectively. The efficiency and transparency of the service were increased.


Need-based waiting lists are easily introduced and offer significant advantages over time-based waiting lists. We advocate their introduction in other centres.


Total Knee Arthroplasty Total Knee Replacement Junior Doctor Nottingham Health Profile Joint Score 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Chang RW, Pellisier JM, Hazen GB. A cost-effectiveness analysis of total hip arthroplasty for osteoarthritis of the hip.JAMA 1996; 275(11): 858–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ritter MA, Albohm MJ, Keating EM, Faris PM, Meding JB. Comparative outcomes of total joint arthroplasty.J Arthroplasty 1995; 10(6): 737–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Harris WH. Traumatic arthritis of the hip after dislocation and acetabular fracture: treatment by mold arthroplasty.J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 1969; 51-A: 737–55.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Insall JN, Dorr LD, Scott RD, Scott WN. Rationale of the Knee Society clinical rating system.Clin Orthop 1989; (248): 13–4.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brander VA, Malhotra S, Jet J, Heinemann AW, Stulberg SD. Outcome of hip and knee arthroplasty in persons aged 80 years and older.Clin Orthop 1997; (345): 67–78.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mancuso CA, Salvati EA, Johanson NA, Peterson MG, Charlson ME. Patients’ expectations and satisfaction with total hip arthroplasty.J Arthroplasty 1997; 12(4): 387–96.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Laupacis A, Bourne R, Rorabeck C et al. The effect of elective total hip replacement on health-related quality of life.J Bone Joint Surg [Am] 1993; 75-A(11): 1619–26.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Garellick G, Malchau H, Herberts P. Specific or general health outcome measures in the evaluation of total hip replacement: a comparison between the Harris Hip Score and the Nottingham health profile.J Bone Joint Surg [Br] 1998; 80-B(4): 600–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Callahan CM, Drake BG, Heck DA, Dittus RS. Patient outcomes following tricompartmental total knee replacement: a meta-analysis.JAMA 1994; 271(17): 1349–57.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gill GS, Casey Chan K, Mills DM. 5-to 18-year followup study of cemented total knee arthroplasty for patients 55 years and younger.J Arthroplasty 1997; 12(1): 49–54.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Roy CW, Hunter J. What happens to patients awaiting arthritis surgery?Disabil Rehabil 1996; 18(2): 101–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hadorn DC, Holmes AC. The New Zealand priority criteria project. Part 1: Overview.Br Med J 1997; 314: 131–4.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    West RR, McKibbin B. Shortening waiting lists in orthopaedic surgery outpatient clinics.Br Med J (Clin Res Ed) 1982; 284(6317): 728–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. Kingston
    • 1
  • M. Carey
    • 1
  • E. Masterson
    • 1
  1. 1.Regional Orthopaedic HospitalCroomIreland

Personalised recommendations