There is growing interest in the peri-operative management of patients with indications for hip and knee arthroplasty in the setting of modifiable risk factors such as morbid obesity, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and smoking. A recent survey of the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons (AAHKS) found that 95% of respondents address modifiable risk factors prior to surgery. The aim of this study was to poll Australian arthroplasty surgeons regarding their approach to patients with modifiable risk factors. The survey tool used in the AAHKS study was adapted for use in the Australian context and distributed to the membership of the Arthroplasty Society of Australia via Survey Monkey. Seventy-seven survey responses were received, representing a response rate of 64%. The majority of respondents were experienced, high volume arthroplasty surgeons. Overall, 91% of respondents restricted access to arthroplasty for patients with modifiable risk factors. Seventy-two percent of surgeons restricted access for excessive body mass index, 85% for poor diabetic control, and 46% for smoking. Most respondents made decisions based on personal experience or literature review rather than hospital or departmental pressures. Despite differences in healthcare systems, our findings were similar to those of the AAHKS survey, although their responses were more restrictive in all domains. Differences were noted in responses concerning financial considerations for potentially underprivileged populations. The survey is currently being administered by arthroplasty societies in six other countries, allowing comparison of orthopaedic practice across different healthcare systems around the world. In conclusion, over 90% of Australian arthroplasty surgeons who responded to the survey address modifiable risk factors prior to surgery

In his classic monograph entitled Low Friction Arthroplasty of the Hip, which was published in 1979, John Charnley dedicated a chapter to thromboembolic complications. The overall incidence of pulmonary embolism (PE) was approximately 8% and the incidence of death from PE approximately 1%. Surveys of orthopaedic surgeons who undertake total joint replacement conducted by The American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons (AAHKS), 30 years later, showed that there was still no consensus as to the best form of prophylaxis with a wide variation of methods being used. In the past 3 years, for the first time there is uniformity in the recommendations of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) and the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP). Both groups have reached an agreement that the rate of DVT formation is not the ideal endpoint to use when assessing the efficacy of thromboprophylaxis after joint replacement, as had been done in previous drug trials. Most of these DVTs are asymptomatic and of questionable clinical significance. At least one recent study brings into question the association between the rate of DVT formation and that of subsequent symptomatic events. Both groups also focus on minimizing iatrogenic bleeding complications, which can lead to compromised clinical results, including limited movement and pain in the case of knee replacement and increased risk of infection in both knee and hip replacement. To further complete the uniformity of approach in the United States, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), which administers the Surgical Care Improvement Program (SCIP) that monitors hospital compliance with VTE prophylaxis of hospitalised patients, has also changed their policy. Beginning January 2014, either aspirin or a compression device has been considered as acceptable measures for THR, TKR and hip fracture. The remarkable success reported from many centers with the use of aspirin and/or the use of a mobile compression device in patients without major risk factors, such as a prior history of symptomatic VTE, clearly indicate that aggressive pharmacoprophylaxis is not necessary for the vast majority of patients who undergo joint replacement

There is continuing debate among orthopedists regarding the appropriate treatment of femoral neck fractures, open reduction internal fixation (ORIF), Total hip arthroplasty (THA) or hemiarthroplasty. In 2003 310,000 patients were hospitalized for hip fracture in the United States and about one-third were treated with total hip arthroplasty. Worldwide, the total number of hip fractures is expected to surpass 6 million by the year 2050. In a survey distributed by the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons, and of the 381 members who responded, 85% preferred hemiarthroplasty, 2% preferred ORIF and 13% preferred THA. The decision to perform internal fixation, hemiarthroplasty, or THA is based on comminution of the fracture activity level and independence, bone quality, presence of rheumatoid or degenerative arthritis, and mental status. Evidence based practice indicates that in a young patient with good bone stock and a fracture with relatively low comminution an ORIF is the treatment of choice. If the patient has a comminuted fracture with poor bone quality, minimal DJD, no RA, and low activity demand a hemiarthroplasty is a reasonable choice. If the patient has a comminuted fracture with poor bone quality, DJD and high activity demand a total hip replacement is a reasonable choice

Total hip and knee arthroplasty is known to have a significant blood loss averaging 3–4 g/dL. Historically, transfusion rates have been as high as 70%. Despite years of work to optimise blood management, some published data suggests that transfusion rates (especially with allogeneic blood) are rising. There is wide variability between surgeons as well, suggesting that varying protocols can influence transfusion rates. Multiple studies now associate blood transfusions with negative outcomes including increased surgical site infection, costs, and length of stay. Preoperative measures can be employed. Identify patients that are at increased risk of blood transfusion. Smaller stature female patients, have pre-operative anemia (Hgb less than 13.0 gm/dl), or are undergoing revision or bilateral surgery are at high risk. We identify these patients and check a hemoglobin preoperatively, using a non-invasive finger monitor for screening. For anemic patients, iron administration (oral or IV) can be given, along with Procrit/Epogen in select cases. Insurance coverage for that medication has been challenging. Intraoperative measures that have been linked to reduced postoperative transfusions include regional anesthesia and intraoperative hypotension (mean arterial pressure <60mm/hg). Lowering the surgical time by practicing efficient, organised, and quality surgery, along with leaving a dry field at the completion of surgery can reduce blood loss. Tranexemic acid (TXA) is an antifibrinolytic agent that has been shown to be effective, reducing average blood loss by 300 cc per case. There are multiple different administration protocols: IV using either a weight-based dosing 10–20 mg/kg or standardised dosing for all patients. Our current regimen is 1 gm IV preoperatively, 1 gm IV in PACU. Topical TXA can be used, usually 2–3 gm mixed in 50–100 cc of saline, sprayed in wound and allow to soak for 3–5 minutes. Oral administration is attractive for ease of use and reduced cost, standard oral dosing is 1950 mg PO 2 hours prior to surgery. The American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons, in collaboration with the American Association of Orthopedic Surgeons, American Society of Regional Anesthesiologists, and the Hip & Knee Society have developed a Clinical Practice Guideline with 8 recommendations for TXA as follows: All individual formulations are effective at reducing blood loss – strong; No method of administration is clearly superior at reducing blood loss and the risk of transfusion; The dose of IV or topical TXA does not significantly affect the drug's ability to reduce blood loss and risk of transfusion; Multiple doses of IV or oral TXA compared to a single dose does not significantly alter the risk of blood transfusion; Pre-incision IV TXA administration potentially reduces blood loss and risk of transfusion compared to post-incision administration; Administration of all TXA formulations in patients without history of VTE does not increase the risk of VTE; Administration of all TXA formulations in patients with a history of VTE, MI, CVA, TIA, or vascular stent does not appear to increase the risk of VTE; Administration of all TXA formulations does not appear to increase the risk of arterial thrombotic events; Postoperative measures to reduce transfusion rates include changing transfusion triggers. Instead of treating a “number”, use lower thresholds and employ safe algorithms established. In conclusion, a comprehensive blood management program can reduce transfusion rates to less than 3% for THA and 1% for TKA and facilitate outpatient total joint arthroplasty

Purpose. Conflict of interest reporting at annual orthopaedic surgical meetings aims to ensure transparency of surgeon-industry relationships. Increasing rigor in the reporting guidelines provides a unique opportunity to understand the impact of industry relationships in the conduct of orthopaedic research. We examined self-reported conflicts by surgeons presenting original research in arthroplasty and trauma meetings. Method. We reviewed the proceedings of the 2009 Annual American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons (AAHKS) and Orthopaedic Trauma Association (OTA). Information including the number of studies, self-reported conflicts, nature of conflicts, and direction of study results were extracted. Conflicts were compared between arthroplasty and trauma meetings. Results. A total of 85 AAHKS abstracts (45 presentations and 40 posters) and 201 OTA abstracts (88 presentations and 113 posters) were included. Abstracts presented at the AAHKS revealed significantly more conflicts than those presented at the OTA (84/85 presentations, 98.8%, versus 156/201 presentations, 77.6%, respectively, p value < 0.0001). On average, papers at the AAHKS and OTA meetings had similar numbers of conflicts per paper (9.5 versus 9.8, respectively). 213 (52.6%) of authors at the AAHKS revealed at least one conflict compared to 364 (40.6%) of authors at the OTA (p value < 0.0001). The most common conflicts included research, institutional, fellowship, and grant support (48.3%) and paid consultant, salary or staff (20.2%). Conclusion. Our findings suggest that surgeon-industry relationships are critical to the conduct of research. The high proportion of papers with self-reported conflicts of interest supports increasing transparency and rigor in reporting guidelines at orthopaedic meetings

Over the past 40 years information from large institutional total joint registries have aided in patient clinical care and follow-up efforts, have helped drive improvements in clinical practice, and have been a powerful tool for generating research studies on large well documented populations of patients. Still, these efforts are limited in that they are expensive, usually reflect a single institutional experience, and results can be biased by the larger volumes or experience at the typically large academic centers which have such registries in place. National registry efforts in other countries including Scandinavia, Australia, and the UK have resulted in improved outcomes and a decreased number of revision procedures by a combination of early identification and withdrawal of poorly performing implants, altered surgical techniques, implant choices and behaviors by surgeons, changes in practices by hospitals, and modification in requirements and incentives by payors and regulatory agencies. The American Joint Replacement Registry (AJRR) is a collaborative multi-stakeholder, independent, not-for-profit 501 c3 organisation established in 2009 for data collection and quality improvement initiatives relating to total hip and knee arthroplasty. AJRR is a national registry effort with the goal of enrolling more than 90% of the over 5,000 hospitals performing nearly 1 million hip and knee arthroplasties each year in the US. AJRR is supported by contributions from the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS), the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons (AAHKS), the Hip Society, the Knee Society, Health Insurers, Medical Device Manufacturers, and individual orthopaedic surgeons via designated contributions through the Orthopedic Research and Education Foundation (OREF). The overarching goal of AJRR is to improve arthroplasty care for patients through the collection and sharing of data on all primary and revision total joint replacement procedures in the U.S. The mission of the registry is to enhance patient safety, and improve the value of arthroplasty care. This will be accomplished by providing national benchmarks for implant, surgeon and hospital performance which serves to modify behaviors thereby decreasing the revision burden, improving outcomes and reducing costs. From the time of incorporation in 2009 up to October 2013 the AJRR has secured the participation of 218 hospitals in 47 different states in the formal enrollment process, and have level one data submission from more than 100 institutions on over 63,000 hip and knee procedures. In addition to publicly available annual reports, confidential specific individual reports for hospitals, surgeons and manufacturers will be available by subscription with an option for future confidential online direct data queries by an individual or entity regarding their own individual performance compared to national benchmark values. In summary, registry studies have provided a rich source of information for improving arthroplasty care over the past four decades, with the emergence and increasing interaction of national registries a major factor in current efforts to increase both the quality and value of the health care of entire populations. The development, support and continued expansion of a national registry in the US must remain a central focus if we wish to improve as much as possible the arthroplasty care provided to all patients in our country