Aims. Hip and knee arthroplasty is commonly performed for end-stage arthritis. There is limited information to guide golfers on the impact this procedure will have postoperatively. This study aimed to determine the impact of lower limb arthroplasty on amateur golfer performance and return to play. Methods. A retrospective observational study was designed to collect information from golfers following arthroplasty. Data were collected from 18 April 2019 to 30 April 2019 and combined a patient survey with in-app handicap data. Results. A total of 2,198 responses were analyzed (1,097 hip and 1,101 knee). Of the respondents, 1,763 (80%) were male and the mean age was 70 years (26 to 92). Hip arthroplasty was associated with a mean increase in handicap of 1.03 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.25). No difference was seen between isolated leading or trailing leg (p = 0.428). Bilateral hip arthroplasty increased handicap (p < 0.001). Overall, 1,025 (94%) maintained or increased the amount of golf played, 258 (23.5%) returned to iron shots at six weeks, 883 (80%) returned to club competitions at six months, 18 (1.6%) had persistent pain, and 19 (1.7%) were unable to return to play. Knee arthroplasty was associated with a mean increase in handicap of 1.18 (95% CI 0.99 to 1.38). Trailing leg arthroplasty alone was associated with higher postoperative handicap (p = 0.002) as was bilateral surgery (p = 0.009). Overall, 1,009 (92%) maintained or increased the amount of golf played, 270 (25%) returned to iron shots at six weeks, 842 (76%) returned to club competition at six months, 66 (6%) had persistent pain, and 18 (1.6%) were unable to return to play. Conclusion. Hip and knee arthroplasty enables patients to maintain or increase the amount of golf played. The majority return to competitions within one year. Return to iron shots occurs from six weeks. A small increase in handicap following surgery is expected and is larger in patients undergoing bilateral surgery or those with knee arthroplasty to their trailing leg. Patients may still experience pain when playing golf. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(6):510–514

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. The aim of this study is to assess the impact of a pilot enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programme on length of stay (LOS) and post-discharge resource usage via service evaluation and cost analysis. Methods. Between May and December 2019, 100 patients requiring hip or knee arthroplasty were enrolled with the intention that each would have a preadmission discharge plan, a preoperative education class with nominated helper, a day of surgery admission and mobilization, a day one discharge, and access to a 24/7 dedicated helpline. Each was matched with a patient under the pre-existing pathway from the previous year. Results. Mean LOS for ERAS patients was 1.59 days (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.14 to 2.04), significantly less than that of the matched cohort (3.01 days; 95% CI 2.56 to 3.46). There were no significant differences in readmission rates for ERAS patients at both 30 and 90 days (six vs four readmissions at 30 days, and nine vs four at 90 days). Despite matching, there were significantly more American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade 3 patients in the ERAS cohort. There was a mean cost saving of £757.26 (95% CI £-1,200.96 to £-313.56) per patient. This is despite small increases in postoperative resource usage in the ERAS patients. Conclusion. ERAS represents a safe and effective means of reducing LOS in primary joint arthroplasty patients. Implementation of ERAS principles has potential financial savings and could increase patient throughput without compromising care. In elective care, a preadmission discharge plan is key. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(11):966–973

Aims

A substantial fraction of patients undergoing knee arthroplasty (KA) or hip arthroplasty (HA) do not achieve an improvement as high as the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), i.e. do not achieve a meaningful improvement. Using three patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), our aim was: 1) to assess machine learning (ML), the simple pre-surgery PROM score, and logistic-regression (LR)-derived performance in their prediction of whether patients undergoing HA or KA achieve an improvement as high or higher than a calculated MCID; and 2) to test whether ML is able to outperform LR or pre-surgery PROM scores in predictive performance.

Aims

The aim of this study was to conduct a cross-sectional, observational cohort study of patients presenting for revision of a total hip, or total or unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, to understand current routes to revision surgery and explore differences in symptoms, healthcare use, reason for revision, and the revision surgery (surgical time, components, length of stay) between patients having regular follow-up and those without.

Aims

The aims were to assess whether preoperative joint-specific function (JSF) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) were associated with level of clinical frailty in patients waiting for a primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) or knee arthroplasty (KA).

Aims

The aim of this study was to estimate the 90-day periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) rates following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and total hip arthroplasty (THA) for osteoarthritis (OA).

Aims

The overall aim of this study was to determine the impact of deprivation with regard to quality of life, demographics, joint-specific function, attendances for unscheduled care, opioid and antidepressant use, having surgery elsewhere, and waiting times for surgery on patients awaiting total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA).

Aims

Tranexamic acid (TXA) is now commonly used in major surgical operations including orthopaedics. The TRAC-24 randomized control trial (RCT) aimed to assess if an additional 24 hours of TXA postoperatively in primary total hip (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) reduced blood loss. Contrary to other orthopaedic studies to date, this trial included high-risk patients. This paper presents the results of a cost analysis undertaken alongside this RCT.

Aims. To review the evidence and reach consensus on recommendations for follow-up after total hip and knee arthroplasty. Methods. A programme of work was conducted, including: a systematic review of the clinical and cost-effectiveness literature; analysis of routine national datasets to identify pre-, peri-, and postoperative predictors of mid-to-late term revision; prospective data analyses from 560 patients to understand how patients present for revision surgery; qualitative interviews with NHS managers and orthopaedic surgeons; and health economic modelling. Finally, a consensus meeting considered all the work and agreed the final recommendations and research areas. Results. The UK poSt Arthroplasty Follow-up rEcommendations (UK SAFE) recommendations apply to post-primary hip and knee arthroplasty follow-up. The ten-year time point is based on a lack of robust evidence beyond ten years. The term 'complex cases' refers to individual patient and surgical factors that may increase the risk for arthroplasty failure. For Orthopaedic Data Evaluation Panel (ODEP) 10A* minimum implants, it is safe to disinvest in routine follow-up from one to ten years post-non-complex hip and knee arthroplasty provided there is rapid access to orthopaedic review. For ODEP 10A* minimum implants in complex cases, or non-ODEP 10A* minimum implants, periodic follow-up post-hip and knee arthroplasty may be required from one to ten years. At ten years post-hip and knee arthroplasty, clinical and radiological evaluation is recommended. After ten years post-hip and knee arthroplasty, frequency of further follow-up should be based on the ten-year assessment; ongoing rapid access to orthopaedic review is still required. Conclusion. Complex cases, implants not meeting the ODEP 10A* criteria, and follow-up after revision surgery are not covered by this recommendation. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(2):72–78

The National Health Service produces over 500,000 tonnes of waste and 25 mega tonnes of CO2 annually. Operating room waste is segregated into different streams which are recycled, disposed of in landfill sites, or undergo costly and energy-intensive incineration processes. By assessing the quantity and recyclability of waste from primary hip and knee arthroplasty cases, we aim to identify strategies to reduce the carbon footprint of arthroplasty surgery. Data was collected prospectively at a tertiary orthopaedic hospital, in the theatres of six arthroplasty surgeons between April – July 2022. Fifteen primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) and 16 primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) cases were included; revision and complex primary cases were excluded. Waste was categorised into non-hazardous waste, hazardous waste, recycling, sharps, and linens. Each waste category was weighed. Items disposed as non-hazardous waste were catalogued for a sample of 10 TKA and 10 THA cases. Recyclability of items was determined from packaging. Average total waste generated for THA and TKA were 14.46kg and 17.16kg respectively, with TKA generating significantly greater waste (p < 0.05). On average only 5.4% of waste was recycled in TKA and just 2.9% in THA cases. The mean recycled waste was significantly greater in TKA cases compared to THA, 0.93kg and 0.42kg respectively (p < 0.05). Hazardous waste represented the largest proportion of the waste streams for both TKA (69.2%) and THA (73.4%). On average TKA generated a significantly greater amount (11.87kg) compared to THA (10.61kg), p < 0.05. Non-hazardous waste made up 15.1% and 11.3% of total waste for TKA and THA respectively. In the non-hazardous waste, only two items (scrub brush packaging and sterile towel packaging) were identified as recyclable based on packaging. We estimate that annually total hip and knee arthroplasty generates over 2.7 million kg of waste in the UK. Through increased use of recyclable plastics for packaging, combined with clear labelling of items as recyclable, medical suppliers can significantly reduce the carbon footprint of arthroplasty. Our data highlight only a very small percentage of waste is recycled in total hip and knee arthroplasty cases

Orthopaedic surgery is a practical surgical specialization field, the exit exam for registrars remains written and oral. Despite logbook evaluation and surgical work-based assessments, the question remains: can registrars perform elective surgery upon qualification? In South Africa, obstacles to elective surgical training include the trauma workload, financial constraints, fellowships and the Covid pandemic. In hip and knee arthroplasty, new approaches like the direct anterior approach (DAA) and robotic-assisted knee surgery also contributed to the dilution of cases available for registrar training. There are concerns that orthopaedic registrars do not perform enough cases to achieve surgical proficiency. Review of the last 4 years of registrar logbooks in hip and knee arthroplasty surgery performed in a single tertiary academic hospital in South Africa. We included all primary total hip replacements (THR), total knee replacements (TKR) and hemiarthroplasties (HA) done for neck of femur (NOF) fractures between 1 April 2019 and 30 March 2023. Differentiation between registrar assisting, registrar performing with consultant supervision and registrar performing independent surgery was done. 990 hip arthroplasties (472 Primary THR, 216 NOF THR, 302 NOF HA) and 316 Primary TKR were performed during the study period. In primary elective THR the posterior approach was dominant and used in 76% of cases. In NOF THA the DAA was dominant used in 98% of cases. Primary TKR robotic-assisted technologies was used in 27% (n=94) cases. Registrars as the primary surgeon were the highest in NOF THA at 70% of cases and the lowest performing TKR at 25%. During 3-month rotations, an average registrar performed 12 (2 TKR and 10 THR) and assisted in 35 (10 TKR and 25 THR) cases. Despite the large number of arthroplasties operations being performed over the last 4-year period, the surgical cases done by registrars are below, the proposed minimal cases to provide surgical proficiency during their training period

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) occurs in 0.2-2% of primary hip and knee arthroplasty and is a leading cause of revision surgery, impaired function, and increased morbidity and mortality. Topical, intrawound vancomycin administration allows for high local drug concentrations at the surgical site and has demonstrated good results in prevention of surgical site infection after spinal surgery. It is a promising treatment to prevent infection following hip and knee arthroplasty. Prior studies have been limited by small sample sizes and the low incidence of PJI. This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to determine the effectiveness of topical vancomycin for the primary prevention of PJI in hip and knee arthroplasty. A search of Embase, MEDLINE, and PubMed databases as of June 2020 was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. Studies comparing topical vancomycin to standard perioperative intravenous antibiotics in primary THA and TKA with a minimum of three months follow-up were identified. The results from applicable studies were meta-analysed to determine the impact of topical vancomycin on PJI rates as well as wound-related and overall complications. Results were expressed as odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals. Nine comparative observational studies were eligible for inclusion. 3371 patients treated with 0.5-2g of topical vancomycin were compared to 2884 patients treated with standard care. Only one of nine studies found a significantly lower rate of PJI after primary THA or TKA (OR 0.09-1.97, p=0.04 for one study, p>0.05 for eight of nine studies), though meta-analysis showed a significant benefit, with vancomycin lowering PJI rates from 1.6% in controls to 0.7% in the experimental group (OR 0.47, p=0.02, Figure 1). Individually, only one of five studies showed a significant benefit to topical vancomycin in THA, while none of seven studies investigating PJI after TKA showed a benefit to topical vancomycin. In meta-analysis of our subgroups, there was a significant reduction in PJI with vancomycin in THA (OR 0.34, p=0.04), but there was no significant difference in PJI after TKA (OR 0.60, p = 0.13). In six studies which reported complication rates other than PJI, there were no significant differences in overall complication rates with vancomycin administration for any study individually (OR 0.48-0.94, p>0.05 for all studies), but meta-analysis found a significant difference in complications, with a 6.7% overall complication rate in controls compared to 4.8% after topical vancomycin, largely driven by a lower PJI incidence (OR 0.76, p=0.04). Topical vancomycin is protective against PJI after hip and knee arthroplasty. No increase in wound-related or overall complication rates was found with topical vancomycin. This meta-analysis is the largest to date and includes multiple recent comparative studies while excluding other confounding interventions (such as povidone-iodine irrigation). However, included studies were predominantly retrospective and no randomized-controlled trials have been published. The limited evidence summarized here indicates topical vancomycin may be a promising modality to decrease PJI, but there is insufficient evidence to conclusively show a decrease in PJI or to demonstrate safety. A prospective, randomized-controlled trial is ongoing to better answer this question. For any figures or tables, please contact the authors directly

Aims. The efficacy and safety of intrawound vancomycin for preventing surgical site infection in primary hip and knee arthroplasty is uncertain. Methods. A systematic review of the literature was conducted, indexed from inception to March 2020 in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Google Scholar databases. All studies evaluating the efficacy and/or safety of intrawound vancomycin in patients who underwent primary hip and knee arthroplasty were included. Incidence of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), superficial infection, aseptic wound complications, acute kidney injury, anaphylactic reaction, and ototoxicity were meta-analyzed. Results were reported as odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The quality of included studies was assessed using the risk of bias in non-randomized studies of interventions (ROBINS-I) assessment tool. Results. Nine studies involving 4,607 patients were included. Intrawound vancomycin was associated with lower incidence of PJI (30 patients (1.20%) vs 58 control patients (2.75%); OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.69) and simultaneous acute kidney injury (four patients (0.28%) vs four control patients (0.35%), OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.19 to 2.55). However, it did not reduce risk of superficial infection (four patients (0.67%) vs six control patients (1.60%), OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.17 to 2.12) and was associated with higher incidence of aseptic wound complications (23 patients (2.15%) vs eight in control patients (0.96%), OR 2.39, 95% CI 1.09 to 5.23). Four studies reported no anaphylactic reactions and three studies reported no ototoxicity in any patient group. Conclusion. The current literature suggests that intrawound vancomycin used in primary hip and knee arthroplasty may reduce incidence of PJI, but it may also increase risk of aseptic wound complications. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2020;9(11):778–788

The rising prevalence of osteoarthritis, associated with an ageing population, is expected to deliver increasing demand across Scotland for primary hip and knee arthroplasty in the future. Understanding the scale of potential change to operative workflow is essential to ensure adequate provision of services, and prevent prolonged waiting times that can cause patient harm. We therefore set out to provide projections of future primary hip and knee arthroplasty out to 2038 utilising historical trend data (2008–2018) from the Scottish Arthroplasty Project. All analyses were performed using the Holt's exponential smoothing projection method with the forecast package in R statistics. Results were adjusted for projected future population estimates provided by National Records of Scotland. Independent age & sex group predictions were also performed. All results are presented per 100,000 population at-risk per year (/100k/year). The predicted rise of primary hip arthroplasty for all ages is from 120/100k/year in 2018 to 152/100k/year in 2038, a 27% increase. The predicted rise of primary knee arthroplasty for all ages is from 164/100k/year in 2018 to 220/100k/year in 2038, a 34% increase. Based on a static 3 day length of stay average this would see 4280 additional patient bed days for hips, and 7392 for knees, required nationally per year by 2038. The associated supplementary cost to the NHS is anticipated to be around £21 million per annum. Knowledge of increasing resource utilisation and cost associated with predicted future demand for primary hip and knee arthroplasty provides key information for service organisation and delivery

Follow-up of arthroplasty varies widely across the UK. The aim of this NIHR-funded study was to employ a mixed-methods approach to examine the requirements for arthroplasty follow-up and produce evidence-based and consensus-based recommendations. It has been supported by BHS, BASK, BOA, ODEP and NJR. Four interconnected work packages have recently been completed: (1) a systematic literature review; (2a) analysis of routinely collected National Health Service data from four national data sets to understand when and which patients present for revision surgery; (2b) prospective data regarding how patients currently present for revision surgery; (3) economic modelling to simulate long-term costs and quality-adjusted life years associated with different follow-up care models and (4) a Delphi-consensus process, involving all stakeholders, to develop a policy document to guide appropriate follow-up care after primary hip and knee arthroplasty. We will present the following Recommendations:. For ODEP10A∗ minimum implants, it is safe to disinvest in routine follow-up from 1 to 10 years post non-complex hip and knee replacement provided there is rapid access to orthopaedic review. For ODEP10A∗ minimum implants in complex cases, or non-ODEP10A∗ minimum implants, periodic follow-up post hip and knee replacement may be required from 1 to 10 years. At 10 years post hip and knee replacement, we recommend clinical, which may be virtual, and radiographic evaluation. After 10 years post hip and knee replacement, frequency of further follow-up should be based on the 10-year assessment; ongoing rapid access to orthopaedic review is still required. Overarching statements. These recommendations apply to post primary hip and knee replacement follow-up. The 10-year time point in these recommendations is based on a lack of robust evidence beyond ten years. The term complex cases refer to individual patient and surgical factors that may increase the risk for replacement failure

Aims. To develop and validate patient-centred algorithms that estimate individual risk of death over the first year after elective joint arthroplasty surgery for osteoarthritis. Methods. A total of 763,213 hip and knee joint arthroplasty episodes recorded in the National Joint Registry for England and Wales (NJR) and 105,407 episodes from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register were used to model individual mortality risk over the first year after surgery using flexible parametric survival regression. Results. The one-year mortality rates in the NJR were 10.8 and 8.9 per 1,000 patient-years after hip and knee arthroplasty, respectively. The Norwegian mortality rates were 9.1 and 6.0 per 1,000 patient-years, respectively. The strongest predictors of death in the final models were age, sex, body mass index, and American Society of Anesthesiologists grade. Exposure variables related to the intervention, with the exception of knee arthroplasty type, did not add discrimination over patient factors alone. Discrimination was good in both cohorts, with c-indices above 0.76 for the hip and above 0.70 for the knee. Time-dependent Brier scores indicated appropriate estimation of the mortality rate (≤ 0.01, all models). Conclusion. Simple demographic and clinical information may be used to calculate an individualized estimation for one-year mortality risk after hip or knee arthroplasty (. https://jointcalc.shef.ac.uk. ). These models may be used to provide patients with an estimate of the risk of mortality after joint arthroplasty. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2020;9(11):808–820

Aims. The aim of this meta-analysis was to determine the pooled incidence of postoperative urinary retention (POUR) following total hip and knee arthroplasty (total joint replacement (TJR)) and to evaluate the risk factors and complications associated with POUR. Methods. Two authors conducted searches in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus on TJR and urinary retention. Eligible studies that reported the rate of POUR and associated risk factors for patients undergoing TJR were included in the analysis. Patient demographic details, medical comorbidities, and postoperative outcomes and complications were separately analyzed. The effect estimates for continuous and categorical data were reported as standardized mean differences (SMDs) and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs, respectively. Results. A total of 31 studies were included in the systematic review. Of these, 29 studies entered our meta-analysis, which included 3,273 patients diagnosed with POUR and 11,583 patients without POUR following TJR. The pooled incidence of POUR was 28.06%. Demographic risk factors included male sex (OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.26 to 2.59), increasing age (SMD 0.16, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.27), and American Society of Anesthesiologists grade 3 to 4 (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.77). Patients with a history of benign prostatic hyperplasia (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.41 to 2.83) and retention (OR 3.10, 95% CI 1.58 to 6.06) were more likely to develop POUR. Surgery-related risk factors included spinal anaesthesia (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.74) and postoperative epidural analgesia (OR 2.82, 95% CI 1.65 to 4.82). Total hip arthroplasty was associated with higher odds of POUR compared to total knee arthroplasty (OR 1.10, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.20). Postoperatively, POUR was associated with a longer length of stay (SMD 0.21, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.39). Conclusion. Our meta-analysis demonstrated key risk variables for POUR following TJR, which may assist in identifying at-risk patients and direct patient-centered pathways to minimize this postoperative complication. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(7):601–611

This study aims to determine satisfaction rates after hip and knee arthroplasty in patients who did not initially respond to PROMs, characteristics of non-responders, and contact preferences to maximise response rates. We performed a prospective cohort study of 709 patients undergoing THA and 737 patients undergoing TKA in a single centre in 2018. EQ-5D health related quality of life score and Oxford Hip/knee scores (OHS/OKS) were completed preoperatively and at 1year postoperatively via post when satisfaction was also assessed. Univariate, multivariate and receiver operator curve analysis were performed. 151/709 (21.2%) hip patients were non-responders, 83 (55.0%) of whom were contactable. 108/737 (14.6%) knee patients were non-responders, 91 (84.3%) of whom were contactable. There was no difference in satisfaction after arthroplasty between initial non-responders and responders for hips (74/81 vs 476/516, p=0.847) or knees (81/93 vs 470/561, p=0.480). Initial and persistent non-response was associated with younger age, higher BMIs and significantly worse preoperative PROMS for both hip and knee patients (p=0.05). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that younger age, higher BMI and poorer pre-operative OHS were independently associated with persistent non-response to hip PROMs (p<0.05). For the entire cohort (n=1352) patients <67 years were less likely to respond to postal PROMs with OR 0.63 (0.558 to 0.711). Using a threshold of >66.4 years predicted a preference for contact by post with 65.4% sensitivity and 68.1% specificity (AUC 0.723 (0.647-0.799 95%CI, p<0.001)). Most initial non-responders were ultimately contactable with effort. Satisfaction rates were not inferior in patients who did not initially respond to PROMs

Use of anticoagulants for thromboembolic prophylaxis is strongly supported by evidence. However, the use of these medications beyond the prophylactic period is poorly understood. We identified anticoagulant naïve patients that underwent hip or knee replacement between 2012 and 2019 from an arthroplasty registry and probabilistically linked 3,018 surgeries with nationwide pharmaceutical claims data. Rates of anticoagulation use were examined during the early (<= 60 days post-discharge), mid-term (61–180 days post-discharge) and long-term (181–360 days post-discharge) periods. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify patient- and surgery-related factors associated with long-term anticoagulant use. Anticoagulants were supplied to 20% of arthroplasties within 60 days of discharge, 7% between 61–180 days, and 10% between 181–360 days. Older age, obesity, increased comorbidity burden, a longer length of stay, occurrence of a complication necessitating anticoagulation and dispensation of an anticoagulant within 60 days of discharge were all risk factors for long-term anticoagulant use. Given the risks associated with unnecessary use of these medications, certain patients who are prescribed anticoagulants beyond prophylactic period may benefit from specialist medication review in the months following surgery