Aims. We aim to evaluate the usefulness of postoperative blood tests by investigating the incidence of abnormal results following total joint replacement (TJR), as well as identifying preoperative risk factors for abnormal blood test results postoperatively, especially pertaining to anaemia and acute kidney injury (AKI). Methods. This is a retrospective cohort study of patients who had elective TJR between January and December 2019 at a tertiary centre. Data gathered included age at time of surgery, sex, BMI, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, preoperative and postoperative laboratory test results, haemoglobin (Hgb), white blood count (WBC), haematocrit (Hct), platelets (Plts), sodium (Na. +. ), potassium (K. +. ), creatinine (Cr), estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), and Ferritin (ug/l). Abnormal blood tests, AKI, electrolyte imbalance, anaemia, transfusion, reoperation, and readmission within one year were reported. Results. The study included 2,721 patients with a mean age of 69 years, of whom 1,266 (46.6%) were male. Abnormal postoperative bloods were identified in 444 (16.3%) patients. We identified age (≥ 65 years), female sex, and ASA grade ≥ III as risk factors for developing abnormal postoperative blood tests. Preoperative haemoglobin (≤ 127 g/dl) and packed cell volume (≤ 0.395 l/l) were noted to be significant risk factors for postoperative anaemia, and potassium (≤ 3.7 mmol/l) was noted to be a significant risk factor for AKI. Conclusion. The costs outweigh the benefits of ordering routine postoperative blood tests in TJR patients. Clinicians should risk-stratify their patients and have a lower threshold for ordering blood tests in patients with abnormal preoperative haemoglobin (≤ 127 g/l), blood loss > 300 ml, chronic kidney disease, ASA grade ≥ III, and clinical concern. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(11):899–905

Aims. As the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic passes, the challenge shifts to safe resumption of routine medical services, including elective orthopaedic surgery. Protocols including pre-operative self-isolation, COVID-19 testing, and surgery at a non-COVID-19 site have been developed to minimize risk of transmission. Despite this, it is likely that many patients will want to delay surgery for fear of contracting COVID-19. The aim of this study is to identify the number of patients who still want to proceed with planned elective orthopaedic surgery in this current environment. Methods. This is a prospective, single surgeon study of 102 patients who were on the waiting list for an elective hip or knee procedure during the COVID-19 pandemic. Baseline characteristics including age, ASA grade, COVID-19 risk, procedure type, surgical priority, and admission type were recorded. The primary outcome was patient consent to continue with planned surgical care after resumption of elective orthopaedic services. Subgroup analysis was also performed to determine if any specific patient factors influenced the decision to proceed with surgery. Results. Overall, 58 patients (56.8%) wanted to continue with planned surgical care at the earliest possibility. Patients classified as ASA I and ASA II were more likely to agree to surgery (60.5% and 60.0%, respectively) compared to ASA III and ASA IV patients (44.4% and 0.0%, respectively) (p = 0.01). In addition, patients undergoing soft tissue knee surgery were more likely to consent to surgery (90.0%) compared to patients undergoing primary hip arthroplasty (68.6%), primary knee arthroplasty (48.7%), revision hip or knee arthroplasty (0.0%), or hip and knee injections (43.8%) (p = 0.03). Conclusion. Restarting elective orthopaedic services during the COVID-19 pandemic remains a significant challenge. Given the uncertain environment, it is unsurprising that only 56% of patients were prepared to continue with their planned surgical care upon resumption of elective services. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-6:267–271

Aims. The COVID-19 pandemic drastically affected elective orthopaedic services globally as routine orthopaedic activity was largely halted to combat this global threat. Our institution (University College London Hospital, UK) previously showed that during the first peak, a large proportion of patients were hesitant to be listed for their elective lower limb procedure. The aim of this study is to assess if there is a patient perception change towards having elective surgery now that we have passed the peak of the second wave of the pandemic. Methods. This is a prospective study of 100 patients who were on the waiting list of a single surgeon for an elective hip or knee procedure. Baseline characteristics including age, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, COVID-19 risk, procedure type, and admission type were recorded. The primary outcome was patient consent to continue with their scheduled surgical procedure. Subgroup analysis was also conducted to define if any specific patient factors influenced decision to continue with surgery. Results. Overall, 88 patients (88%) were happy to continue with their scheduled procedure at the earliest opportunity. Patients with an ASA grade I were most likely to agree to surgery, followed by patients with ASA grades II, then those with grade III (93.3%, 88.7%, and 78.6% willingness, respectively). Patients waitlisted for an injection were least likely to consent to surgery, with just 73.7% agreeing. In all, there was a large increase in the proportion of patient willingness to continue with surgery compared to our initial study during the first wave of the pandemic. Conclusion. As COVID-19 lockdown restrictions are lifted after the second peak of the pandemic, we are seeing greater willingness to continue with scheduled orthopaedic surgery, reinforcing a change in patient perception towards having elective surgery. However, we must continue with strict COVID-19 precautions in order to minimize viral transmission as we increase our elective orthopaedic services going forward. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(10):865–870

Aims. This study aimed to describe preoperative waiting times for surgery in hip fracture patients in Norway, and analyze factors affecting waiting time and potential negative consequences of prolonged waiting time. Methods. Overall, 37,708 hip fractures in the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register from January 2014 to December 2018 were linked with data in the Norwegian Patient Registry. Hospitals treating hip fractures were characterized according to their hip fracture care. Waiting time (hours from admission to start of surgery), surgery within regular working hours, and surgery on the day of or on the day after admission, i.e. ‘expedited surgery’ were estimated. Results. Mean waiting time was 22.6 hours (SD 20.7); 36,652 patients (97.2%) waited less than three days (< 72 hours), and 27,527 of the patients (73%) were operated within regular working hours (08:00 to 16:00). Expedited surgery was given to 31,675 of patients (84%), and of these, 19,985 (53%) were treated during regular working hours. Patients classified as American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classes 4 and 5 were more likely to have surgery within regular working hours (odds ratio (OR) 1.59; p < 0.001), and less likely to receive expedited surgery than ASA 1 patients (OR 0.29; p < 0.001). Low-volume hospitals treated a larger proportion of patients during regular working hours than high volume hospitals (OR 1.26; p < 0.001). High-volume hospitals had less expedited surgery and significantly longer waiting times than low and intermediate-low volume hospitals. Higher ASA classes and Charlson Comorbidity Index increased waiting time. Patients not receiving expedited surgery had higher 30-day and one-year mortality rates (OR 1.19; p < 0.001) and OR 1.13; p < 0.001), respectively. Conclusion. There is inequality in waiting time for hip fracture treatment in Norway. Variations in waiting time from admission to hip fracture surgery depended on both patient and hospital factors. Not receiving expedited surgery was associated with increased 30-day and one-year mortality rates. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(9):710–720

Aims. Now that we are in the deceleration phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, the focus has shifted to how to safely reinstate elective operating. Regional and speciality specific data is important to guide this decision-making process. This study aimed to review 30-day mortality for all patients undergoing orthopaedic surgery during the peak of the pandemic within our region. Methods. This multicentre study reviewed data on all patients undergoing trauma and orthopaedic surgery in a region from 18 March 2020 to 27 April 2020. Information was collated from regional databases. Patients were COVID-19-positive if they had positive laboratory testing and/or imaging consistent with the infection. 30-day mortality was assessed for all patients. Secondly, 30-day mortality in fracture neck of femur patients was compared to the same time period in 2019. Results. Overall, 496 operations were carried out in 484 patients. The overall 30-day mortality was 1.9%. Seven out of nine deceased patients underwent surgery for a fractured neck of femur. In all, 27 patients contracted COVID-19 in the peri-operative period; of these, four patients died within 30 days (14.8%). In addition, 21 of the 27 patients in this group had a fractured neck of femur, 22 were over the age of 70 years (81.5%). Patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade > 3 and/or age > 75 years were at significantly higher risk of death if they contracted COVID-19 within the study period. Conclusion. Overall 30-day postoperative mortality in trauma and orthopaedic surgery patients remains low at 1.9%. There was no 30-day mortality in patients ASA 1 or 2. Patients with significant comorbidities, increasing age, and ASA 3 or above remain at the highest risk. For patients with COVID-19 infection, postoperative 30-day mortality was 14.8%. The reintroduction of elective services should consider individual patient risk profile (including for ASA grade). Effective postoperative strategies should also be employed to try and reduce postoperative exposure to the virus. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-7:392–397

Aims. Transfusion after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) has become rare, and identification of causative factors allows preventive measures. The aim of this study was to determine patient-specific factors that increase the risk of needing a blood transfusion. Methods. All patients who underwent elective THA were analyzed retrospectively in this single-centre study from 2020 to 2021. A total of 2,892 patients were included. Transfusion-related parameters were evaluated. A multiple logistic regression was performed to determine whether age, BMI, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, sex, or preoperative haemoglobin (Hb) could predict the need for transfusion within the examined patient population. Results. The overall transfusion rate was 1.2%. Compared to the group of patients without blood transfusion, the transfused group was on average older (aged 73.8 years (SD 9.7) vs 68.6 years (SD 10.1); p = 0.020) and was mostly female (p = 0.003), but showed no significant differences in terms of BMI (28.3 kg/m. 2. (SD 5.9) vs 28.7 kg/m. 2. (SD 5.2); p = 0.720) or ASA grade (2.2 (SD 0.5) vs 2.1 (SD 0.4); p = 0.378). The regression model identified a cutoff Hb level of < 7.6 mmol/l (< 12.2 g/dl), aged > 73 years, and a BMI of 35.4 kg/m² or higher as the three most reliable predictors associated with postoperative transfusion in THA. Conclusion. The possibility of transfusion is predictable based on preoperatively available parameters. The proposed thresholds for preoperative Hb level, age, and BMI can help identify patients and take preventive measures if necessary. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(7):560–564

Aims. It is common practice for patients to have postoperative blood tests after total joint replacement (TJR). However, there have been significant improvements in perioperative care with arthroplasty surgery, and a drive to reduce the length of stay (LOS) and move towards day-case TJR. We should reconsider whether this intervention is necessary for all patients. Methods. This retrospective study included all patients who underwent a primary unilateral TJR at a single tertiary arthroplasty centre during a one-year period. Electronic medical records of 1,402 patients were reviewed for patient demographics, LOS, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade. Blood tests were examined to investigate the incidence of postoperative anaemia, electrolyte abnormalities, and incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI). Results. For total knee arthroplasties, preoperative (R = −0.22) and postoperative haemoglobin (R = 0.2) levels were both negatively correlated with LOS (p < 0.001). For all patients who had undergone a TJR, 19 patients (0.014%) required a blood transfusion postoperatively due to symptomatic anaemia. Risk factors identified were age, preoperative anaemia, and long-term aspirin use. Significant abnormal sodium levels were found in123 patients (8.7%). However, only 36 patients (2.6%) required intervening treatment. Risk factors identified were age, preoperative abnormal sodium level, and long-term use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, angiotensin receptor blockers, and corticosteroids. Similarly, abnormal potassium levels were evident in 53 patients (3.8%), and only 18 patients (1.3%) required intervening treatment. Risk factors identified were preoperative abnormal potassium level, and long-term use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and diuretics. The incidence of AKI was 4.4% (61 patients). Risk factors identified were age, increased ASA grade, preoperative abnormal sodium, and creatinine level. Conclusion. Routine blood tests after primary TJR is unnecessary for most patients. Blood tests should only be performed on those with identifiable risk factors such as preoperative anaemia and electrolyte abnormalities, haematological conditions, long-term aspirin use, and electrolyte-altering medications. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(5):357–362

Aims. The aims of this study were to evaluate the incidence of reoperation (all cause and specifically for periprosthetic femoral fracture (PFF)) and mortality, and associated risk factors, following a hemiarthroplasty incorporating a cemented collarless polished taper slip stem (PTS) for management of an intracapsular hip fracture. Methods. This retrospective study included hip fracture patients aged 50 years and older treated with Exeter (PTS) bipolar hemiarthroplasty between 2019 and 2022. Patient demographics, place of domicile, fracture type, delirium status, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, length of stay, and mortality were collected. Reoperation and mortality were recorded up to a median follow-up of 29.5 months (interquartile range 12 to 51.4). Cox regression was performed to evaluate independent risk factors associated with reoperation and mortality. Results. The cohort consisted of 1,619 patients with a mean age of 82.2 years (50 to 104), of whom 1,100 (67.9%) were female. In total, 29 patients (1.8%) underwent a reoperation; 12 patients (0.7%) sustained a PFF during the observation period (United Classification System (UCS)-A n = 2; UCS-B n = 5; UCS-C n = 5), of whom ten underwent surgical management. Perioperative delirium was independently associated with the occurrence of PFF (hazard ratio (HR) 5.92; p = 0.013) and surgery for UCS-B PFF (HR 21.7; p = 0.022). Neither all-cause reoperation nor PFF-related surgery was independently associated with mortality (HR 0.66; p = 0.217 and HR 0.38; p = 0.170, respectively). Perioperative delirium, male sex, older age, higher ASA grade, and pre-fracture residential status were independently associated with increased mortality risk following hemiarthroplasty (p < 0.001). Conclusion. The cumulative incidence of PFF at four years was 1.1% in elderly patients following cemented PTS hemiarthroplasty for a hip fracture. Perioperative delirium was independently associated with a PFF. However, reoperation for PPF was not independently associated with patient mortality after adjusting for patient-specific factors. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(4):269–276

Aims. The aim of this modified Delphi process was to create a structured Revision Hip Complexity Classification (RHCC) which can be used as a tool to help direct multidisciplinary team (MDT) discussions of complex cases in local or regional revision networks. Methods. The RHCC was developed with the help of a steering group and an invitation through the British Hip Society (BHS) to members to apply, forming an expert panel of 35. We ran a mixed-method modified Delphi process (three rounds of questionnaires and one virtual meeting). Round 1 consisted of identifying the factors that govern the decision-making and complexities, with weighting given to factors considered most important by experts. Participants were asked to identify classification systems where relevant. Rounds 2 and 3 focused on grouping each factor into H1, H2, or H3, creating a hierarchy of complexity. This was followed by a virtual meeting in an attempt to achieve consensus on the factors which had not achieved consensus in preceding rounds. Results. The expert group achieved strong consensus in 32 out of 36 factors following the Delphi process. The RHCC used the existing Paprosky (acetabulum and femur), Unified Classification System, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification systems. Patients with ASA grade III/IV are recognized with a qualifier of an asterisk added to the final classification. The classification has good intraobserver and interobserver reliability with Kappa values of 0.88 to 0.92 and 0.77 to 0.85, respectively. Conclusion. The RHCC has been developed through a modified Delphi technique. RHCC will provide a framework to allow discussion of complex cases as part of a local or regional hip revision MDT. We believe that adoption of the RHCC will provide a comprehensive and reproducible method to describe each patient’s case with regard to surgical complexity, in addition to medical comorbidities that may influence their management. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(5):423–431

Aims. There is little published on the outcomes after restarting elective orthopaedic procedures following cessation of surgery due to the COVID-19 pandemic. During the pandemic, the reported perioperative mortality in patients who acquired SARS-CoV-2 infection while undergoing elective orthopaedic surgery was 18% to 20%. The aim of this study is to report the surgical outcomes, complications, and risk of developing COVID-19 in 2,316 consecutive patients who underwent elective orthopaedic surgery in the latter part of 2020 and comparing it to the same, pre-pandemic, period in 2019. Methods. A retrospective service evaluation of patients who underwent elective surgical procedures between 16 June 2020 and 12 December 2020 was undertaken. The number and type of cases, demographic details, American society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, BMI, 30-day readmission rates, mortality, and complications at one- and six-week intervals were obtained and compared with patients who underwent surgery during the same six-month period in 2019. Results. A total of 2,316 patients underwent surgery in 2020 compared to 2,552 in the same period in 2019. There were no statistical differences in sex distribution, BMI, or ASA grade. The 30-day readmission rate and six-week validated complication rates were significantly lower for the 2020 patients compared to those in 2019 (p < 0.05). No deaths were reported at 30 days in the 2020 group as opposed to three in the 2019 group (p < 0.05). In 2020 one patient developed COVID-19 symptoms five days following foot and ankle surgery. This was possibly due to a family contact immediately following discharge from hospital, and the patient subsequently made a full recovery. Conclusion. Elective surgery was safely resumed following the cessation of operating during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Strict adherence to protocols resulted in 2,316 elective surgical procedures being performed with lower complications, readmissions, and mortality compared to 2019. Furthermore, only one patient developed COVID-19 with no evidence that this was a direct result of undergoing surgery. Level of evidence: III. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(1):42–53

Aims. Elective orthopaedic services have had to adapt to significant system-wide pressures since the emergence of COVID-19 in December 2019. Length of stay is often recognized as a key marker of quality of care in patients undergoing arthroplasty. Expeditious discharge is key in establishing early rehabilitation and in reducing infection risk, both procedure-related and from COVID-19. The primary aim was to determine the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic length of stay following hip and knee arthroplasty at a high-volume, elective orthopaedic centre. Methods. A retrospective cohort study was performed. Patients undergoing primary or revision hip or knee arthroplasty over a six-month period, from 1 July to 31 December 2020, were compared to the same period in 2019 before the COVID-19 pandemic. Demographic data, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, wait to surgery, COVID-19 status, and length of hospital stay were recorded. Results. A total of 1,311 patients underwent hip or knee arthroplasty in the six-month period following recommencement of elective services in 2020 compared to 1,527 patients the year before. Waiting time to surgery increased in post-COVID-19 group (137 days vs 78; p < 0.001). Length of stay also significantly increased (0.49 days; p < 0.001) despite no difference in age or ASA grade. There were no cases of postoperative COVID-19 infection. Conclusion. Time to surgery and length of hospital stay were significantly higher following recommencement of elective orthopaedic services in the latter part of 2020 in comparison to a similar patient cohort from the year before. Longer waiting times may have contributed to the clinical and radiological deterioration of arthritis and general musculoskeletal conditioning, which may in turn have affected immediate postoperative rehabilitation and mobilization, as well as increasing hospital stay. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(8):655–660

Aims. Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) occurs in approximately 1% to 2% of total knee arthroplasties (TKA) presenting multiple challenges, such as difficulty in diagnosis, technical complexity, and financial costs. Two-stage exchange is the gold standard for treating PJI but emerging evidence suggests 'two-in-one' single-stage revision as an alternative, delivering comparable outcomes, reduced morbidity, and cost-effectiveness. This study investigates five-year results of modified single-stage revision for treatment of PJI following TKA with bone loss. Methods. Patients were identified from prospective data on all TKA patients with PJI following the primary procedure. Inclusion criteria were: revision for PJI with bone loss requiring reconstruction, and a minimum five years’ follow-up. Patients were followed up for recurrent infection and assessment of function. Tools used to assess function were Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and American Knee Society Score (AKSS). Results. A total of 24 patients were included with a mean age of 72.7 years (SD 7.6), mean BMI of 33.3 kg/m. 2. (SD 5.7), and median ASA grade of 2 (interquartile range 2 to 4). Mean time from primary to revision was 3.0 years (10 months to 8.3 years). At revision, six patients had discharging sinus and three patients had negative cultures from tissue samples or aspirates. Two patients developed recurrence of infection: one was treated successfully with antibiotic suppression and one underwent debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention. Mean AKSS scores at two years showed significant improvement from baseline (27.1 (SD 10.2 ) vs 80.3 (SD 14.8); p < 0.001). There was no significant change in mean AKSS scores between two and five years (80.3 (SD 14.8 ) vs 74.1 (SD 19.8); p = 0.109). Five-year OKS scores were not significantly different compared to two-year scores (36.17 (SD 3.7) vs 33.0 (SD 8.5); p = 0.081). Conclusion. ‘Two-in-one’ single-stage revision is effective for treating PJI following TKA with bone loss, providing patients with sustained improvements in outcomes and infection clearance up to five years post-procedure. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(2):107–113

Aims. A proximal femur fracture (PFF) is a common orthopaedic presentation, with an incidence of over 25,000 cases reported in the Australian and New Zealand Hip Fracture Registry (ANZHFR) in 2018. Hip fractures are known to have high mortality. The purpose of this study was to determine the utility of the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) in predicting 30-day and one-year mortality after a PFF in older patients. Methods. A retrospective review of all fragility hip fractures who met the inclusion/exclusion criteria of the ANZHFR between 2017 and 2018 was undertaken at a single large volume tertiary hospital. There were 509 patients included in the study with one-year follow-up obtained in 502 cases. The CFS was applied retrospectively to patients according to their documented pre-morbid function and patients were stratified into five groups according to their frailty score. The groups were compared using t-test, analysis of variance (ANOVA), and the chi-squared test. The discriminative ability of the CFS to predict mortality was then compared with American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) classification and the patient’s chronological age. Results. A total of 38 patients were deceased at 30 days and 135 patients at one year. The 30-day mortality rate increased from 1.3% (CFS 1 to 3; 1/80) to 14.6% (CFS ≥ 7; 22/151), and the one-year mortality increased from 3.8% (CFS 1 to 3; 3/80) to 41.7% (CFS ≥ 7; 63/151). The CFS was demonstrated superior discriminative ability in predicting mortality after PFF (area under the curve (AUC) 0.699; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.651 to 0.747) when compared with the ASA (AUC 0.634; 95% CI 0.576 to 0.691) and chronological age groups (AUC 0.585; 95% CI 0.523 to 0.648). Conclusion. The CFS demonstrated utility in predicting mortality after PFF fracture. The CFS can be easily performed by non-geriatricians and may help to reduce age related bias influencing surgical decision making. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-8:443–449

Aims. The safe resumption of elective orthopaedic surgery following the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic remains a significant challenge. A number of institutions have developed a COVID-free pathway for elective surgery patients in order to minimize the risk of viral transmission. The aim of this study is to identify the perioperative viral transmission rate in elective orthopaedic patients following the restart of elective surgery. Methods. This is a prospective study of 121 patients who underwent elective orthopaedic procedures through a COVID-free pathway. All patients underwent a 14-day period of self-isolation, had a negative COVID-19 test within 72 hours of surgery, and underwent surgery at a COVID-free site. Baseline patient characteristics were recorded including age, American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) grade, body mass index (BMI), procedure, and admission type. Patients were contacted 14 days following discharge to determine if they had had a positive COVID-19 test (COVID-confirmed) or developed symptoms consistent with COVID-19 (COVID-19-presumed). Results. The study included 74 females (61.2%) and 47 males (38.8%) with a mean age of 52.3 years ± 17.6 years (18 to 83 years). The ASA grade was grade I in 26 patients (21.5%), grade II in 70 patients (57.9%), grade III in 24 patients (19.8%), and grade IV in one patient (0.8%). A total of 18 patients (14.9%) had underlying cardiovascular disease, 17 (14.0%) had pulmonary disease, and eight (6.6%) had diabetes mellitus. No patients (0%) had a positive COVID-19 test in the postoperative period. One patient (0.8%) developed anosmia postoperatively without respiratory symptoms or a fever. The patient did not undergo a COVID-19 test and self-isolated for seven days. Her symptoms resolved within a few days. Conclusion. The development of a COVID-free pathway for elective orthopaedic patients results in very low viral transmission rates. While both surgeons and patients should remain vigilant, elective surgery can be safely restarted using dedicated pathways and procedures. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-9:562–567

Aims

In-hospital length of stay (LOS) and discharge dispositions following arthroplasty could act as surrogate measures for improvement in patient pathways, and have major cost saving implications for healthcare providers. With the ever-growing adoption of robotic technology in arthroplasty, it is imperative to evaluate its impact on LOS. The objectives of this study were to compare LOS and discharge dispositions following robotic arm-assisted total knee arthroplasty (RO TKA) and unicompartmental arthroplasty (RO UKA) versus conventional technique (CO TKA and UKA).

Aims

Delirium is associated with adverse outcomes following hip fracture, but the prevalence and significance of delirium for the prognosis and ongoing rehabilitation needs of patients admitted from home is less well studied. Here, we analyzed relationships between delirium in patients admitted from home with 1) mortality; 2) total length of hospital stay; 3) need for post-acute inpatient rehabilitation; and 4) hospital readmission within 180 days.

Aims

To map literature on prognostic factors related to outcomes of revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA), to identify extensively studied factors and to guide future research into what domains need further exploration.

Aims

The primary aim of this study was to compare surgical methods (sliding hip screw (SHS) vs intramedullary nailing (IMN)) for trochanteric hip fracture in relation to death within 120 days after surgery and return to independent living. The secondary aim was to assess whether the associations between surgical method and death or ability to return to independent living varied depending on fracture subtype or other patient characteristics.

Aims

To develop prediction models using machine-learning (ML) algorithms for 90-day and one-year mortality prediction in femoral neck fracture (FNF) patients aged 50 years or older based on the Hip fracture Evaluation with Alternatives of Total Hip arthroplasty versus Hemiarthroplasty (HEALTH) and Fixation using Alternative Implants for the Treatment of Hip fractures (FAITH) trials.

Aims

This study aimed to investigate the estimated change in primary and revision arthroplasty rate in the Netherlands and Denmark for hips, knees, and shoulders during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 (COVID-period). Additional points of focus included the comparison of patient characteristics and hospital type (2019 vs COVID-period), and the estimated loss of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and impact on waiting lists.