To assess the occurrence of and predictive factors for orthopaedic surgery in an inception cohort of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients recruited and followed prospectively for 5 yr in nine regions in England.

Standard clinical, laboratory and radiological assessments and all interventions were recorded at baseline and yearly in RA patients (less than 2 yrs symptoms) prior to the use of disease-modifying drugs.

One thousand and sixty-four patients completed 5 yr of follow-up. Two hundred and sixty-four orthopaedic procedures for RA were performed in 181 (17%) patients at a median of 36.5 months from baseline. Seventy-five (7%) had replacements of major joints. Risk factors at baseline for large joint replacement surgery were a low haemoglobin concentration [odds ratio scores (OR) 3.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.1-5.8] and high scores for erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) (OR 3.2, CI 1.8-5.3), disease activity (DAS) (OR 2.1, CI 1.2-3.5) and Larsen X-rays (OR 2.6, CI 1.4-4.8). For hand or foot joint surgery (4%), risk factors included female gender (OR 3.2, CI 1.3-7.6), joint score (OR 2.3, CI 1.2-4.3), erosions (OR 2.3, CI 1.1-4.8), DAS (OR 2.4, 1.3-4.5) and Health Assessment Questionnaire score (OR 1.9, CI 1.0-3.6). No significant associations were seen for tendon, soft tissue or other minor procedures (6%). The HLA-DRB1 RA shared epitope was associated with any type of orthopaedic surgery (OR 1.7, CI 1.1-2.7).

Eleven per cent of RA patients treated with conventional drug therapy for 5 yr underwent large- or small-joint surgery, an outcome which could be compared against that for new disease-modifying drugs. Risk factors varied according to type of surgery, but included standard clinical and laboratory measures. In order to reduce the eventual need for surgery, a therapeutic target in the first year of RA is the suppression of disease activity, as measured by haemoglobin and ESR. These are useful details for clinicians, health professionals and patients.

Polls results

On a scale of 1 to 10, rate how much this article will change your clinical practice?

NO change
BIG change
100% Article relates to my practice (10/10)
0% Article does not relate to my practice (0/10)
0% Undecided (0/10)

Will this article lead to more cost-effective healthcare?

80% Yes (8/10)
20% No (2/10)
0% Undecided (0/10)

Was this article biased? (commercial or personal)

0% Yes (0/10)
100% No (10/10)
0% Undecided (0/10)

What level of evidence do you think this article is?

0% Level 1 (0/10)
20% Level 2 (2/10)
60% Level 3 (6/10)
20% Level 4 (2/10)
0% Level 5 (0/10)