Aims. We studied the outcomes of hip and knee arthroplasties in a high-volume arthroplasty centre to determine if patients with morbid obesity (BMI ≥ 40 kg/m. 2. ) had unacceptably worse outcomes as compared to those with BMI < 40 kg/m. 2. . Methods. In a two-year period, 4,711 patients had either total hip arthroplasty (THA; n = 2,370), total knee arthroplasty (TKA; n = 2,109), or unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA; n = 232). Of these patients, 392 (8.3%) had morbid obesity. We compared duration of operation, anaesthetic time, length of stay (LOS), LOS > three days, out of hours attendance, emergency department attendance, readmission to hospital, return to theatre, and venous thromboembolism up to 90 days. Readmission for wound infection was recorded to one year. Oxford scores were recorded preoperatively and at one year postoperatively. Results. On average, the morbidly obese had longer operating times (63 vs 58 minutes), longer anaesthetic times (31 vs 28 minutes), increased LOS (3.7 vs 3.5 days), and significantly more readmissions for wound infection (1.0% vs 0.3%). There were no statistically significant differences in either suspected or confirmed venous thromboembolism. Improvement in Oxford scores were equivalent. Conclusion. Although morbidly obese patients had less favourable outcomes, we do not feel that the magnitude of difference is clinically significant when applied to an individual, particularly when improvement in Oxford scores were unrelated to BMI. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(7):515–521

Aims

The outcomes of patients with unexpected positive cultures (UPCs) during revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) remain unknown. The objectives of this study were to establish the prevalence and infection-free implant survival in UPCs during presumed aseptic single-stage revision THA and TKA at mid-term follow-up.

Aims

Elective orthopaedic surgery was cancelled early in the COVID-19 pandemic and is currently running at significantly reduced capacity in most institutions. This has resulted in a significant backlog to treatment, with some hospitals projecting that waiting times for arthroplasty is three times the pre-COVID-19 duration. There is concern that the patient group requiring arthroplasty are often older and have more medical comorbidities—the same group of patients advised they are at higher risk of mortality from catching COVID-19. The aim of this study is to investigate the morbidity and mortality in elective patients operated on during the COVID-19 pandemic and compare this to a pre-pandemic cohort. Primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were perioperative complications, including nosocomial COVID-19 infection. These operations were performed in a district general hospital, with COVID-19 acute admissions in the same building.

Aims

In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic meant that proceeding with elective surgery was restricted to minimize exposure on wards. In order to maintain throughput of elective cases, our hospital (St Michaels Hospital, Toronto, Canada) was forced to convert as many cases as possible to same-day procedures rather than overnight admission. In this retrospective analysis, we review the cases performed as same-day arthroplasty surgeries compared to the same period in the previous 12 months.

Aims

The Exeter V40 cemented femoral stem was first introduced in 2000. The largest single-centre analysis of this implant to date was published in 2018 by Westerman et al. Excellent results were reported at a minimum of ten years for the first 540 cases performed at the designer centre in the Exeter NHS Trust, with stem survivorship of 96.8%. The aim of this current study is to report long-term outcomes and survivorship for the Exeter V40 stem in a non-designer centre.

Objectives

We wanted to investigate regional variations in the organisms reported to be causing peri-prosthetic infections and to report on prophylaxis regimens currently in use across England.

Satisfaction with care is important to both patients and to those who pay for it. The Net Promoter Score (NPS), widely used in the service industries, has been introduced into the NHS as the ‘friends and family test’; an overarching measure of patient satisfaction. It assesses the likelihood of the patient recommending the healthcare received to another, and is seen as a discriminator of healthcare performance. We prospectively assessed 6186 individuals undergoing primary lower limb joint replacement at a single university hospital to determine the Net Promoter Score for joint replacements and to evaluate which factors contributed to the response.

Achieving pain relief (odds ratio (OR) 2.13, confidence interval (CI) 1.83 to 2.49), the meeting of pre-operative expectation (OR 2.57, CI 2.24 to 2.97), and the hospital experience (OR 2.33, CI 2.03 to 2.68) are the domains that explain whether a patient would recommend joint replacement services. These three factors, combined with the type of surgery undertaken (OR 2.31, CI 1.68 to 3.17), drove a predictive model that was able to explain 95% of the variation in the patient’s recommendation response. Though intuitively similar, this ‘recommendation’ metric was found to be materially different to satisfaction responses. The difference between THR (NPS 71) and TKR (NPS 49) suggests that no overarching score for a department should be used without an adjustment for case mix. However, the Net Promoter Score does measure a further important dimension to our existing metrics: the patient experience of healthcare delivery.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:622–8.