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

The purpose of this modified Delphi study was to obtain consensus on wound closure (including best practices for each tissue layer of closure) and dressing management in total hip arthroplasty (THA), using an evidence-based approach. The Delphi panel included 20 orthopedic surgeons from Europe and North America. Eighteen statements were identified (14 specific to THA and 4 relating to both THA and total knee arthroplasty) using a targeted literature review. Consensus was developed on the statements with up to three rounds of anonymous voting per topic. Panelists ranked their agreement with each statement on a five-point Likert scale. An a priori threshold of 75% was required for consensus. In Round 1, 15 of 18 statements achieved consensus via a structured electronic questionnaire. In Round 2, the 3 statements that did not achieve consensus were revised during a virtual face to face meeting. An additional 2 statements were edited for clarity. In Round 3, the 5 revised statements achieved consensus via a structured electronic questionnaire. Wound closure related interventions that were recommended for use in THA included: 1) barbed sutures over non-barbed sutures (shorter closing times and overall cost savings); 2) subcuticular sutures over skin staples (lower risk of infections and higher patient preference); 3) mesh-adhesives over silver-impregnated dressings (lower rate of wound complications); 4) negative pressure wound therapy over other dressings (lower wound complications and reoperations and fewer dressing changes); 5) triclosan coated sutures (lower risk of surgical site infection). Using a modified Delphi approach, a panel of 20 orthopedic surgeons achieved consensus on 18 statements pertaining to multi-layer wound closure and dressing management in THA. This study forms the basis for identifying critical evidence gaps within wound management to help reduce variability in outcomes during THA

Given the prolonged waits for hip arthroplasty seen across the U.K. it is important that we optimise priority systems to account for potential disparities in patient circumstances and impact. We set out to achieve this through a two-stage approach. This included a Delphi-study of patient and surgeon preferences to determine what should be considered when determining patient priority, followed by a Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) to decide relative weighting of included attributes. The study was conducted according to the published protocol ([. https://boneandjoint.org.uk/article/10.1302/2633-1462.310.BJO-2022-0071. ](. https://boneandjoint.org.uk/article/10.1302/2633-1462.310.BJO-2022-0071. )). The Delphi study was performed online over 3 rounds with anonymous ranking and feedback. Included factors were voted as either Consensus in, Consensus out, or No Consensus• following an established scoring criterion. A final consensus meeting determined the prioritisation factors (and their levels) to be included in the DCE. The DCE was then conducted using an online platform, with surgeons performing 18 choice sets regarding which merited greater priority between two hypothetical patients. Results were collated and analysed using multinomial logit regression analysis (MNL). For the Delphi study there were 43 responses in the first round, with a subsequent 91% participation rate. Final consensus inclusion was achieved for Pain; Mobility/Function; Activities of Daily Living; Inability to Work/Care; Length of Time Waited; Radiological Severity and Mental Wellbeing. 70 individuals subsequently contributed to the DCE, with radiological severity being the most significant factor (Coefficient 2.27 \[SD 0.31\], p<0.001), followed by pain (Coefficient 1.08 \[SD 0.13\], p<0.001) and time waited (Coefficient for 1-month additional wait 0.12 \[SD 0.02\], p<0.001). The calculated trade-off in waiting time for a 1-level change in pain (e.g., moderate to severe pain) was 9.14 months. These results present a new method of determining comparative priority for those on primary hip arthroplasty waiting lists. Evaluation of potential implementation in clinical practice is now required

The Revision Hip Complexity Classification (RHCC) was developed by modified Delphi system in 2022 to provide a comprehensive, reproducible framework for the multidisciplinary discussion of complex revision hip surgery. The aim of this study was to assess the validity, intra-relater and inter-relater reliability of the RHCC. Radiographs and clinical vignettes of 20 consecutive patients who had undergone revision of Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA) at our unit during the previous 12-month period were provided to observers. Five observers, comprising 3 revision hip consultants, 1 hip fellow and 1 ST3-8 registrar were familiarised with the RHCC. Each revision THA case was classified on two separate occasions by each observer, with a mean time between assessments of 42.6 days (24–57). Inter-observer reliability was assessed using the Fleiss™ Kappa statistic and percentage agreement. Intra-observer reliability was assessed using the Cohen Kappa statistic. Validity was assessed using percentage agreement and Cohen Kappa comparing observers to the RHCC web-based application result. All observers were blinded to patient notes, operation notes and post-operative radiographs throughout the process. Inter-observer reliability showed fair agreement in both rounds 1 and 2 of the survey (0.296 and 0.353 respectively), with a percentage agreement of 69% and 75%. Inter-observer reliability was highest in H3-type revisions with kappa values of 0.577 and 0.441. Mean intra-observer reliability showed moderate agreement with a kappa value of 0.446 (0.369 to 0.773). Validity percentage agreement was 44% and 39% respectively, with mean kappa values of 0.125 and 0.046 representing only slight agreement. This study demonstrates that classification using the RHCC without utilisation of the web-based application is unsatisfactory, showing low validity and reliability. Reliability was higher for more complex H3-type cases. The use of the RHCC web app is recommended to ensure the accurate and reliable classification of revision THA cases

The 2020 London International Hamstring Consensus meeting was convened to improve our understanding and treatment of hamstring injuries. The multidisciplinary consensus panel included 14 International specialists on the management of hamstring injuries. The Delphi consensus process consisted of two rounds of surveys which were completed by 19 surgeons from a total of 106 participants. Consensus on individual statements was regarded as over 70% agreement between panel members. The consensus group agreed that the indications for operative intervention included the following: gapping at the zone of injury (86.9%); high functional demands of the patient (86.7%); symptomatic displaced bony avulsions (74.7%); and proximal free tendon injuries with functional compromise refractory to non-operative treatment (71.4%). Panel members agreed that surgical intervention had the capacity to restore anatomy and function, while reducing the risk of injury recurrence (86.7%). The consensus group did not support the use of corticosteroids or endoscopic surgery without further evidence. These guidelines will help to further standardise the treatment of hamstring injuries and facilitate decision-making in the surgical treatment of these injuries

Aims. To develop a core outcome set of measurements from postoperative radiographs that can be used to assess technical skill in performing dynamic hip screw (DHS) and hemiarthroplasty, and to validate these against Van der Vleuten’s criteria for effective assessment. Methods. A Delphi exercise was undertaken at a regional major trauma centre to identify candidate measurement items. The feasibility of taking these measurements was tested by two of the authors (HKJ, GTRP). Validity and reliability were examined using the radiographs of operations performed by orthopaedic resident participants (n = 28) of a multicentre randomized controlled educational trial (ISRCTN20431944). Trainees were divided into novice and intermediate groups, defined as having performed < ten or ≥ ten cases each for DHS and hemiarthroplasty at baseline. The procedure-based assessment (PBA) global rating score was assumed as the gold standard assessment for the purposes of concurrent validity. Intra- and inter-rater reliability testing were performed on a random subset of 25 cases. Results. In total, 327 DHS and 248 hemiarthroplasty procedures were performed by 28 postgraduate year (PGY) 3 to 5 orthopaedic trainees during the 2014 to 2015 surgical training year at nine NHS hospitals in the West Midlands, UK. Overall, 109 PBAs were completed for DHS and 80 for hemiarthroplasty. Expert consensus identified four ‘final product analysis’ (FPA) radiological parameters of technical success for DHS: tip-apex distance (TAD); lag screw position in the femoral head; flushness of the plate against the lateral femoral cortex; and eight-cortex hold of the plate screws. Three parameters were identified for hemiarthroplasty: leg length discrepancy; femoral stem alignment; and femoral offset. Face validity, content validity, and feasibility were excellent. For all measurements, performance was better in the intermediate compared with the novice group, and this was statistically significant for TAD (p < 0.001) and femoral stem alignment (p = 0.023). Concurrent validity was poor when measured against global PBA score. This may be explained by the fact that they are measuring difference facets of competence. Intra-and inter-rater reliability were excellent for TAD, moderate for lag screw position (DHS), and moderate for leg length discrepancy (hemiarthroplasty). Use of a large multicentre dataset suggests good generalizability of the results to other settings. Assessment using FPA was time- and cost-effective compared with PBA. Conclusion. Final product analysis using post-implantation radiographs to measure technical skill in hip fracture surgery is feasible, valid, reliable, and cost-effective. It can complement traditional workplace-based assessment for measuring performance in the real-world operating room . It may have particular utility in competency-based training frameworks and for assessing skill transfer from the simulated to live operating theatre. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-9:594–604

Aims

The burden of revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) continues to grow. The surgery is complex and associated with significant costs. Regional rTHA networks have been proposed to improve outcomes and to reduce re-revisions, and therefore costs. The aim of this study was to accurately quantify the cost and reimbursement for a rTHA service, and to assess the financial impact of case complexity at a tertiary referral centre within the NHS.

Background. For total hip arthroplasty (THA), cognitive training prior to performing real surgery may be an effective adjunct alongside simulation to shorten the learning curve. This study sought to create a cognitive training tool to perform direct anterior approach THA, validated by expert surgeons; and test its use as a training tool compared to conventional material. Methods. We employed a modified Delphi method with four expert surgeons from three international centres of excellence. Surgeons were independently observed performing THA before undergoing semi-structured cognitive task analysis (CTA) before completing successive rounds of electronic surveys until consensus. The agreed CTA was incorporated into a mobile and web-based platform. Forty surgical trainees (CT1-ST4) were randomised to CTA-training or a digital op-tech with surgical videos, before performing a simulated DAA THA in a validated fully-immersive virtual reality simulator. Results. Experts reached 100% consensus after five rounds. They defined THA in 46 steps and 52 decision points in 8 distinct procedural phases. Each phase comprised of a set of actions, cognitive demands, and critical errors and strategies. This CTA was mapped onto an open-access web-based learning tool [1]. Surgeons who prepared with CTA performed a simulated THA more efficiently (Time: 26 vs. 36 minutes and Procedural steps: 64 vs. 78), with fewer errors in instrument selection (22 vs 34 instances) and help required (6 vs. 19 instances), and with more accuracy (acetabular cup inclination error: 7° vs. 12°, anteversion error: 11° vs 19°) than those who prepared with conventional material. Discussion. This is the first validated CTA tool for arthroplasty. It provides structure for competency-based learning of this complex procedure. It is more effective at preparing orthopaedic trainees for a new procedure than conventional materials, for learning sequence, instrumentation and motor skills. Implications. Cognitive training combines education on decision making, knowledge and technical skill. It is a validated educational tool to upskill surgeons to perform hip arthroplasty and could replace current training and preparation methods for junior surgeons

Aims

Two-stage exchange revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) performed in case of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) has been considered for many years as being the gold standard for the treatment of chronic infection. However, over the past decade, there have been concerns about its safety and its effectiveness. The purposes of our study were to investigate our practice, collecting the overall spacer complications, and then to analyze their risk factors.