Aims. Periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) and fracture-related infections (FRIs) are associated with a significant risk of adverse events. However, there is a paucity of data on cardiac complications following revision surgery for PJI and FRI and how they impact overall mortality. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the risk of perioperative myocardial injury (PMI) and mortality in this patient cohort. Methods. We prospectively included consecutive patients at high cardiovascular risk (defined as age ≥ 45 years with pre-existing coronary, peripheral, or cerebrovascular artery disease, or any patient aged ≥ 65 years, plus a postoperative hospital stay of > 24 hours) undergoing septic or aseptic major orthopaedic surgery between July 2014 and October 2016. All patients received a systematic screening to reliably detect PMI, using serial measurements of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T. All-cause mortality was assessed at one year. Multivariable logistic regression models were applied to compare incidence of PMI and mortality between patients undergoing septic revision surgery for PJI or FRI, and patients receiving aseptic major bone and joint surgery. Results. In total, 911 consecutive patients were included. The overall perioperative myocardial injury (PMI) rate was 15.4% (n = 140). Septic revision surgery for PJI was associated with a significantly higher PMI rate (43.8% (14/32) vs 14.5% (57/393); p = 0.001) and one-year mortality rate (18.6% (6/32) vs 7.4% (29/393); p = 0.038) compared to aseptic revision or primary arthroplasty. The association with PMI persisted in multivariable analysis with an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 4.7 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.1 to 10.7; p < 0.001), but was not statistically significant for one-year mortality (aOR 1.9 (95% CI 0.7 to 5.4; p = 0.240). PMI rate (15.2% (5/33) vs 14.1% (64/453)) and one-year mortality (15.2% (5/33) vs 9.1% (41/453)) after FRI revision surgery were comparable to aseptic long-bone fracture surgery. Conclusion. Patients undergoing revision surgery for PJI were at a risk of PMI and death compared to those undergoing aseptic arthroplasty surgery. Screening for PMI and treatment in specialized multidisciplinary units should be considered in major bone and joint infections. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(6):696–702

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 primary aim was to assess the rate of postoperative COVID-19 following hip and knee arthroplasty performed in March 2020 in the UK. The secondary aims were to assess whether there were clinical factors associated with COVID-19 status, the mortality rate of patients with COVID-19, and the rate of potential COVID-19 in patients not presenting to healthcare services. Methods. A multicentre retrospective study was conducted of patients undergoing hip or knee arthroplasty during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic (1 March 2020 to 31 March 2020) with a minimum of 60 days follow-up. Patient demographics, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, procedure type, primary or revision, length of stay (LOS), COVID-19 test status, and postoperative mortality were recorded. A subgroup of patients (n = 211) who had not presented to healthcare services after discharge were contacted and questioned as to whether they had symptoms of COVID-19. Results. Five (0.5%) of 1,073 patients who underwent hip or knee arthroplasty tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 postoperatively. When adjusting for confounding factors, increasing LOS (p = 0.022) was the only significant factor associated with developing COVID-19 following surgery and a stay greater than three days was a reliable predictor with an area under the curve of 81% (p = 0.018). There were three (0.3%) deaths in the study cohort and the overall mortality rate attributable to COVID-19 was 0.09% (n = 1/1,073), with one (20%) of the five patients with COVID-19 dying postoperatively. Of the 211 patients contacted, two had symptoms within two to 14 days postoperatively with a positive predictive value of 31% and it was therefore estimated that one patient may have had undiagnosed COVID-19. Conclusion. The rate of postoperative COVID-19 was 0.5% and may have been as high as 1% when accounting for those patients not presenting to healthcare services, which was similar to the estimated population prevalence during the study period. The overall mortality rate secondary to COVID-19 was low (0.09%), however the mortality rate for those patients developing COVID-19 was 20%. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(4):681–688

Aims. To investigate whether elective joint arthroplasty performed at the weekend is associated with a different 30-day mortality versus that performed between Monday and Friday. Patients and Methods. We examined the 30-day cumulative mortality rate (Kaplan-Meier) for all elective hip and knee arthroplasties performed in England and Wales between 1st April 2003 and 31st December 2014, comprising 118 096 episodes undertaken at the weekend and 1 233 882 episodes performed on a weekday. We used Cox proportional-hazards regression models to assess for time-dependent variation and adjusted for identified risk factors for mortality. Results. The cumulative 30-day mortality for hip arthroplasty was 0.15% (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.12 to 0.19) for patients operated on at the weekend versus 0.20% (95% CI 0.19 to 0.21) for patients undergoing surgery during the normal working week. For knee arthroplasty, the cumulative 30-day mortality was 0.14% (95% CI 0.11 to 0.17) for weekend-operated patients versus 0.18% (95% CI 0.17 to 0.19) for weekday-operated patients. These differences were independent of any differences in patient age, gender, American Society of Anaesthesiologists grade, surgeon seniority, surgical and anaesthetic practices, and thromboprophylaxis choice in weekend versus weekday-operated patients. Conclusion. The 30-day mortality rate after elective joint arthroplasty is low. Surgery performed at the weekend is associated with lower post-operative mortality versus operations performed on a weekday. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:1618–28

Aims. Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) demonstrates the most feared complication after total joint replacement (TJR). The current work analyzes the demographic, comorbidity, and complication profiles of all patients who had in-hospital treatment due to PJI. Furthermore, it aims to evaluate the in-hospital mortality of patients with PJI and analyze possible risk factors in terms of secondary diagnosis, diagnostic procedures, and complications. Methods. In a retrospective, cross-sectional study design, we gathered all patients with PJI (International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10 code: T84.5) and resulting in-hospital treatment in Germany between 1 January 2019 and 31 December 2022. Data were provided by the Institute for the Hospital Remuneration System in Germany. Demographic data, in-hospital deaths, need for intensive care therapy, secondary diagnosis, complications, and use of diagnostic instruments were assessed. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for in-hospital mortality were calculated. Results. A total of 52,286 patients were included, of whom 1,804 (3.5%) died. Hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and obesity, the most frequent comorbidities, were not associated with higher in-hospital mortality. Cardiac diseases as atrial fibrillation, cardiac pacemaker, or three-vessel coronary heart disease showed the highest risk for in-hospital mortality. Postoperative anaemia occurred in two-thirds of patients and showed an increased in-hospital mortality (OR 1.72; p < 0.001). Severe complications, such as organ failure, systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS), or septic shock syndrome showed by far the highest association with in-hospital mortality (OR 39.20; 95% CI 33.07 to 46.46; p < 0.001). Conclusion. These findings highlight the menace coming from PJI. It can culminate in multi-organ failure, SIRS, or septic shock syndrome, along with very high rates of in-hospital mortality, thereby highlighting the vulnerability of these patients. Particular attention should be paid to patients with cardiac comorbidities such as atrial fibrillation or three-vessel coronary heart disease. Risk factors should be optimized preoperatively, anticoagulant therapy stopped and restarted on time, and sufficient patient blood management should be emphasized. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(4):367–373

Aims. The primary aim was to assess whether preoperative health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was associated with postoperative mortality following total hip arthroplasty (THA) and knee arthroplasty (KA). Secondary aims were to assess whether patient demographics/comorbidities and/or joint-specific function were associated with postoperative mortality. Methods. Patients undergoing THA (n = 717) and KA (n = 742) during a one-year period were identified retrospectively from an arthroplasty register. Patient demographics, comorbidities, Oxford score, and EuroQol five-dimension (EQ-5D) were recorded preoperatively. Patients were followed up for a minimum of seven years and their mortality status was obtained. Cox regression analysis was used to adjust for confounding. Results. During the study period, 111 patients (15.5%) undergoing THA and 135 patients (18.2%) undergoing KA had died at a mean follow-up of 7.5 years (7 to 8). When adjusting for confounding, the preoperative EQ-5D was associated with postoperative mortality, and for each 0.1 difference in the utility there was an associated change in mortality risk of 6.7% (p = 0.048) after THA, and 6.8% (p = 0.047) after KA. Comorbidities of connective tissue disease (p ≤ 0.026) and diabetes (p ≤ 0.028) were associated with mortality after THA, whereas MI (p ≤ 0.041), diabetes (p ≤ 0.009), and pain in other joints (p ≤ 0.050) were associated with mortality following KA. The preoperative Oxford score was associated with mortality, and for each one-point change in the score there was an associated change in mortality risk of 2.7% (p = 0.025) after THA and 4.3% (p = 0.003) after KA. Conclusion. Worse preoperative HRQoL and joint specific function were associated with an increased risk of postoperative mortality. Both HRQoL and joint-specific function decline with longer waiting times to surgery for THA and KA and therefore may result in an increased postoperative mortality risk than would have been expected if surgery had been undertaken earlier. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(12):933–940

Aims. Nonagenarians (aged 90 to 99 years) have experienced the fastest percent decile population growth in the USA recently, with a consequent increase in the prevalence of nonagenarians living with joint arthroplasties. As such, the number of revision total hip arthroplasties (THAs) and total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) in nonagenarians is expected to increase. We aimed to determine the mortality rate, implant survivorship, and complications of nonagenarians undergoing aseptic revision THAs and revision TKAs. Methods. Our institutional total joint registry was used to identify 96 nonagenarians who underwent 97 aseptic revisions (78 hips and 19 knees) between 1997 and 2018. The most common indications were aseptic loosening and periprosthetic fracture for both revision THAs and revision TKAs. Mean age at revision was 92 years (90 to 98), mean BMI was 27 kg/m. 2. (16 to 47), and 67% (n = 65) were female. Mean time between primary and revision was 18 years (SD 9). Kaplan-Meier survival was used for patient mortality, and compared to age- and sex-matched control populations. Reoperation risk was assessed using cumulative incidence with death as a competing risk. Mean follow-up was five years. Results. Mortality rates were 9%, 18%, 26%, and 62% at 90 days, one year, two years, and five years, respectively, but similar to control populations. There were 43 surgical complications and five reoperations, resulting in a cumulative incidence of reoperation of 4% at five years. Medical complications were common, with a cumulative incidence of 65% at 90 days. Revisions for periprosthetic fractures were associated with higher mortality and higher 90-day risk of medical complications compared to revisions for aseptic loosening. Conclusion. Contemporary revision THAs and TKAs appeared to be relatively safe in selected nonagenarians managed with multidisciplinary teams. Cause of revision affected morbidity and mortality risks. While early medical and surgical complications were frequent, they seldom resulted in reoperation. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(6):649–656

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. Methods. Our institution reinstated elective operations using a “Blue stream” pathway, which involves isolation before and after surgery, COVID-19 testing pre-admission, and separation of ward and theatre pathways for “blue” patients. A register of all arthroplasties was taken, and their clinical course and investigations recorded. Results. During a seven-month period, 340 elective arthroplasties were performed. There was zero mortality. One patient had a positive swab for COVID-19 while an inpatient, but remained asymptomatic. There were two readmissions within a 12-week period for hip dislocation. Patients had a mean age of 68 years (28 to 90), mean BMI of 30 kg/m. 2. (19.0 to 45.6), and mean American Society of Anesthesiologists grade of 2 (1 to 3). Conclusion. Results show no increased morbidity or mortality in this cohort of patients compared to the same hospital’s morbidity and mortality pre-COVID-19. The screened pathway for elective patients is effective in ensuring that patients can be safely operated on electively in an acute hospital. This study should reassure clinicians and patients that arthroplasties can be carried out safely when the appropriate precautions are in place. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(11):940–944

Aims. The COVID-19 pandemic posed significant challenges to healthcare systems across the globe in 2020. There were concerns surrounding early reports of increased mortality among patients undergoing emergency or non-urgent surgery. We report the morbidity and mortality in patients who underwent arthroplasty procedures during the UK first stage of the pandemic. Methods. Institutional review board approval was obtained for a review of prospectively collected data on consecutive patients who underwent arthroplasty procedures between March and May 2020 at a specialist orthopaedic centre in the UK. Data included diagnoses, comorbidities, BMI, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, length of stay, and complications. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality and secondary outcomes were prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, medical and surgical complications, and readmission within 30 days of discharge. The data collated were compared with series from the preceding three months. Results. There were 167 elective procedures performed in the first three weeks of the study period, prior to the first national lockdown, and 57 emergency procedures thereafter. Three patients (1.3%) were readmitted within 30 days of discharge. There was one death (0.45%) due to SARS-CoV-2 infection after an emergency procedure. None of the patients developed complications of SARS-CoV-2 infection after elective arthroplasty. There was no observed spike in complications during in-hospital stay or in the early postoperative period. There was no statistically significant difference in survival between pre-COVID-19 and peri-COVID-19 groups (p = 0.624). We observed a higher number of emergency procedures performed during the pandemic within our institute. Conclusion. An international cohort has reported 30-day mortality as 28.8% following orthopaedic procedures during the pandemic. There are currently no reports on clinical outcomes of patients treated with lower limb reconstructive surgery during the same period. While an effective vaccine is developed and widely accepted, it is very likely that SARS-CoV2 infection remains endemic. We believe that this report will help guide future restoration planning here in the UK and abroad. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(5):323–329

We calculated the rates for perioperative mortality and fatal pulmonary embolism (PE) after primary total hip replacement in a single UK health region, using a regional arthroplasty register and the tracing service of the Office of National Statistics. During 1990, there were 2111 consecutive primary replacements in 2090 separate procedures. Within 42 days of operation a total of 19 patients had died (0.91%, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.42). Postmortem examination showed that four deaths (0.19%, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.49) were definitely due to PE. The overall perioperative mortality and fatal PE rates are low and in our study did not appear to be altered by the use of chemical thromboprophylaxis (perioperative mortality rate: one-tailed Fisher’s exact test, p = 0.39; fatal PE rate: one-tailed Fisher’s exact test, p = 0.56). The routine use of chemical thromboprophylaxis for primary THR is still controversial. The issue should be addressed by an appropriate randomised, prospective study using overall mortality and fatal PE rate as the main outcome measures, but the feasibility of such a study is questioned

We performed a meta-analysis of modern total joint replacement (TJR) to determine the post-operative mortality and the cause of death using different thromboprophylactic regimens as follows: 1) no routine chemothromboprophylaxis (NRC); 2) Potent anticoagulation (PA) (unfractionated or low-molecular-weight heparin, ximelagatran, fondaparinux or rivaroxaban); 3) Potent anticoagulation combined (PAC) with regional anaesthesia and/or pneumatic compression devices (PCDs); 4) Warfarin (W); 5) Warfarin combined (WAC) with regional anaesthesia and/or PCD; and 6) Multimodal (MM) prophylaxis, including regional anaesthesia, PCDs and aspirin in low-risk patients. Cause of death was classified as autopsy proven, clinically certain or unknown. Deaths were grouped into cardiopulmonary excluding pulmonary embolism (PE), PE, bleeding-related, gastrointestinal, central nervous system, and others (miscellaneous). Meta-analysis based on fixed effects or random effects models was used for pooling incidence data. In all, 70 studies were included (99 441 patients; 373 deaths). The mortality was lowest in the MM (0.2%) and WC (0.2%) groups. The most frequent cause of death was cardiopulmonary (47.9%), followed by PE (25.4%) and bleeding (8.9%). The proportion of deaths due to PE was not significantly affected by the thromboprophylaxis regimen (PA, 35.5%; PAC, 28%; MM, 23.2%; and NRC, 16.3%). Fatal bleeding was higher in groups relying on the use of anticoagulation (W, 33.8%; PA, 9.4%; PAC, 10.8%) but the differences were not statistically significant. Our study demonstrated that the routine use of PA does not reduce the overall mortality or the proportion of deaths due to PE

Aims

Total joint arthroplasty (TJA) is commonly performed in elderly patients. Frailty, an aggregate expression of vulnerability, becomes increasingly common with advanced age, and independently predicts adverse outcomes and the use of resources after a variety of non-cardiac surgical procedures. Our aim was to assess the impact of frailty on outcomes after TJA.

Aims. It is unclear whether mortality outcomes differ for patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA) surgery who are readmitted to the index hospital where their surgery was performed, or to another hospital. Methods. We analyzed linked hospital and death records for residents of New South Wales, Australia, aged ≥ 18 years who had an emergency readmission within 90 days following THA or TKA surgery between 2003 and 2022. Multivariable modelling was used to identify factors associated with non-index readmission and to evaluate associations of readmission destination (non-index vs index) with 90-day and one-year mortality. Results. Of 394,248 joint arthroplasty patients (THA = 149,456; TKA = 244,792), 9.5% (n = 37,431) were readmitted within 90 days, and 53.7% of these were admitted to a non-index hospital. Non-index readmission was more prevalent among patients who underwent surgery in private hospitals (60%). Patients who were readmitted for non-orthopaedic conditions (62.8%), were more likely to return to a non-index hospital compared to those readmitted for orthopaedic complications (39.5%). Factors associated with non-index readmission included older age, higher socioeconomic status, private health insurance, and residence in a rural or remote area. Non-index readmission was significantly associated with 90 day (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.69; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.39 to 2.05) and one-year mortality (aOR 1.31; 95% CI 1.16 to 1.47). Associations between non-index readmission and mortality were similar for patients readmitted with orthopaedic and non-orthopaedic complications (90-day mortality aOR 1.61; 95% CI 0.98 to 2.64, and aOR 1.67; 95% CI 1.35 to 2.06, respectively). Conclusion. Non-index readmission was associated with increased mortality, irrespective of whether the readmission was for orthopaedic complications or other conditions. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(1):60–68

Aims. Breast cancer survivors have known risk factors that might influence the results of total hip arthroplasty (THA) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA). This study evaluated clinical outcomes of patients with breast cancer history after primary THA and TKA. Methods. Our total joint registry identified patients with breast cancer history undergoing primary THA (n = 423) and TKA (n = 540). Patients were matched 1:1 based upon age, sex, BMI, procedure (hip or knee), and surgical year to non-breast cancer controls. Mortality, implant survival, and complications were assessed via Kaplan-Meier methods. Clinical outcomes were evaluated via Harris Hip Scores (HHSs) or Knee Society Scores (KSSs). Mean follow-up was six years (2 to 15). Results. Breast cancer patient survival at five years was 92% (95% confidence interval (CI) 89% to 95%) after THA and 94% (95% CI 92% to 97%) after TKA. Breast and non-breast cancer patients had similar five-year implant survival free of any reoperation or revision after THA (p ≥ 0.412) and TKA (p ≥ 0.271). Breast cancer patients demonstrated significantly lower survival free of any complications after THA (91% vs 96%, respectively; hazard ratio = 2 (95% CI 1.1 to 3.4); p = 0.017). Specifically, the rate of intraoperative fracture was 2.4% vs 1.4%, and venous thromboembolism (VTE) was 1.4% and 0.5% for breast cancer and controls, respectively, after THA. No significant difference was noted in any complications after TKA (p ≥ 0.323). Both breast and non-breast cancer patients experienced similar improvements in HHSs (p = 0.514) and KSSs (p = 0.132). Conclusion. Breast cancer survivors did not have a significantly increased risk of mortality or reoperation after primary THA and TKA. However, there was a two-fold increased risk of complications after THA, including intraoperative fracture and VTE. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(4):365–371

Aims. Total femoral arthroplasty (TFA) is a rare procedure used in cases of significant femoral bone loss, commonly from cancer, infection, and trauma. Low patient numbers have resulted in limited published work on long-term outcomes, and even less regarding TFA undertaken for non-oncological indications. The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term clinical outcomes of all TFAs in our unit. Methods. Data were collected retrospectively from a large tertiary referral revision arthroplasty unit’s database. Inclusion criteria included all patients who underwent TFA in our unit. Preoperative demographics, operative factors, and short- and long-term outcomes were collected for analysis. Outcome was defined using the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) outcome reporting tool. Results. Overall, 38 TFAs were identified. The mean age was 73 years (42 to 80). All patients underwent TFA for non-oncological indications, most commonly as a consequence of infection (53%) and periprosthetic fracture (26%). The mean follow-up time was ten years (0 to 26); 63% of TFAs were considered a success based upon the MSIS outcome reporting tool. The mean time between TFA and death was 8.5 years (0.2 to 19.2), with two patients dying within one year of surgery. Within the cohort, 66% suffered at least one complication, dislocation being most common (37%); 55% of the total cohort required at least one subsequent operation. In total, 70% of TFAs undertaken for infection were considered infection-free at time of final follow-up. The percentage of mobile patients improved from 52% to 65% between pre- and postoperation, with all patients being able to at least transfer from bed to chair at time of final review. Conclusion. This study is the largest in the UK assessing the use of TFA in patients with bone loss secondary to non-oncological conditions. It demonstrates that TFA has a significant complication profile, however it is favourable in terms of mortality and rehabilitation when compared to amputation and disarticulation. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(8):888–894

Aims. Access to joint replacement is being restricted for patients with comorbidities in a number of high-income countries. However, there is little evidence on the impact of comorbidities on outcomes. The purpose of this study was to determine the safety and effectiveness of hip and knee arthroplasty in patients with and without comorbidities. Methods. In total, 312,079 hip arthroplasty and 328,753 knee arthroplasty patients were included. A total of 11 common comorbidities were identified in administrative hospital records. Safety risks were measured by assessing length of hospital stay (LOS) and 30-day emergency readmissions and mortality. Effectiveness outcomes were changes in Oxford Hip or Knee Scores (OHS/OKS) (scale from 0 (worst) to 48 (best)) and in health-related quality of life (EQ-5D) (scale from 0 (death) to 1 (full health)) from immediately before, to six months after, surgery. Regression analysis was used to estimate adjusted mean differences (LOS, change in OHS/OKS/EQ-5D) and risk differences (readmissions and mortality). Results. Patients with comorbidities had a longer LOS and higher readmission and mortality rates than patients without. In hip arthroplasty patients with heart disease, for example, LOS was 1.20 days (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.15 to 1.25) longer and readmission rate was 1.52% (95% CI 1.34% to 1.71%) and mortality 0.19% (95% CI 0.15% to 0.23%) higher. Similar patterns were observed for knee arthroplasty patients. Patients without comorbidities reported large improvements in function (mean improvement OHS 21.3 (SD 9.91) and OKS 15.9 (SD 10.0)). Patients with comorbidities reported only slightly smaller improvements. In patients with heart disease, mean improvement in OHS was 0.39 (95% CI 0.27 to 0.51) and in OKS 0.56 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.67) less than in patients without comorbidities. There were no significant differences in EQ-5D improvement. Conclusion. Comorbidities were associated with small increases in adverse safety risks but they have little impact on pain or function in patients undergoing hip or knee arthroplasty. These results do not support restricting access to hip and knee arthroplasty for patients with common comorbidities. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(1):56–64

Aims. Revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) and revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) are complex procedures with higher rates of re-revision, complications, and mortality compared to primary TKA and THA. We report the effects of the establishment of a revision arthroplasty network (the East Midlands Specialist Orthopaedic Network; EMSON) on outcomes of rTKA and rTHA. Methods. The revision arthroplasty network was established in January 2015 and covered five hospitals in the Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire areas of the East Midlands of England. This comprises a collaborative weekly multidisciplinary meeting where upcoming rTKA and rTHA procedures are discussed, and a plan agreed. Using the Hospital Episode Statistics database, revision procedures carried out between April 2011 and March 2018 (allowing two-year follow-up) from the five network hospitals were compared to all other hospitals in England. Age, sex, and mean Hospital Frailty Risk scores were used as covariates. The primary outcome was re-revision surgery within one year of the index revision. Secondary outcomes were re-revision surgery within two years, any complication within one and two years, and median length of hospital stay. Results. A total of 57,621 rTHA and 33,828 rTKA procedures were performed across England, of which 1,485 (2.6%) and 1,028 (3.0%), respectively, were conducted within the network. Re-revision rates within one year for rTHA were 7.3% and 6.0%, and for rTKA were 11.6% and 7.4% pre- and postintervention, respectively, within the network. This compares to a pre-to-post change from 7.4% to 6.8% for rTHA and from 11.7% to 9.7% for rTKA for the rest of England. In comparative interrupted time-series analysis for rTKA there was a significant immediate improvement in one-year re-revision rates for the revision network compared to the rest of England (p = 0.024), but no significant change for rTHA (p = 0.504). For the secondary outcomes studied, there was a significant improvement in trend for one- and two-year complication rates for rTHA for the revision network compared to the rest of England. Conclusion. Re-revision rates for rTKA and complication rates for rTHA improved significantly at one and two years with the introduction of a revision arthroplasty network, when compared to the rest of England. Most of the outcomes studied improved to a greater extent in the network hospitals compared to the rest of England when comparing the pre- and postintervention periods. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(6):641–648

Aims. A higher failure rate has been reported in haematogenous periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) compared to non-haematogenous PJI. The reason for this difference is unknown. We investigated the outcome of haematogenous and non-haematogenous PJI to analyze the risk factors for failure in both groups of patients. Methods. Episodes of knee or hip PJI (defined by the European Bone and Joint Infection Society criteria) treated at our institution between January 2015 and October 2020 were included in a retrospective PJI cohort. Episodes with a follow-up of > one year were stratified by route of infection into haematogenous and non-haematogenous PJI. Probability of failure-free survival was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method, and compared between groups using log-rank test. Univariate and multivariate analysis was applied to assess risk factors for failure. Results. A total of 305 PJI episodes (174 hips, 131 knees) were allocated to the haematogenous (n = 146) or the non-haematogenous group (n = 159). Among monomicrobial infections, Staphylococcus aureus was the dominant pathogen in haematogenous PJI (76/140, 54%) and coagulase-negative staphylococci in non-haematogenous PJI (57/133, 43%). In both groups, multi-stage exchange (n = 55 (38%) in haematogenous and n = 73 (46%) in non-haematogenous PJI) and prosthesis retention (n = 70 (48%) in haematogenous and n = 48 (30%) in non-haematogenous PJI) were the most common surgical strategies. Median duration of antimicrobial treatment was 13.5 weeks (range, 0.5 to 218 weeks) and similar in both groups. After six years of follow-up, the probability of failure-free survival was significantly lower in haematogenous compared to non-haematogenous PJI (55% vs 74%; p = 0.021). Infection-related mortality was significantly higher in haematogenous than non-haematogenous PJI (7% vs 0% episodes; p = 0.001). Pathogenesis of failure was similar in both groups. Retention of the prosthesis was the only independent risk factor for failure in multivariate analysis in both groups. Conclusion. Treatment failure was significantly higher in haematogenous compared to non-haematogenous PJI. Retention of the prosthesis was the only independent risk factor for failure in both groups. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(12):1294–1302

Aims. Removal of infected components and culture-directed antibiotics are important for the successful treatment of chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). However, as many as 27% of chronic PJI patients yield negative culture results. Although culture negativity has been thought of as a contraindication to one-stage revision, data supporting this assertion are limited. The aim of our study was to report on the clinical outcomes for one-stage and two-stage exchange arthroplasty performed in patients with chronic culture-negative PJI. Methods. A total of 105 consecutive patients who underwent revision arthroplasty for chronic culture-negative PJI were retrospectively evaluated. One-stage revision arthroplasty was performed in 30 patients, while 75 patients underwent two-stage exchange, with a minimum of one year's follow-up. Reinfection, re-revision for septic and aseptic reasons, amputation, readmission, mortality, and length of stay were compared between the two treatment strategies. Results. The patient demographic characteristics did not differ significantly between the groups. At a mean follow-up of 4.2 years, the treatment failure for reinfection for one-stage and two-stage revision was five (16.7%) and 15 patients (20.0%) (p = 0.691), and for septic re-revision was four (13.3%) and 11 patients (14.7%) (p = 0.863), respectively. No significant differences were observed between one-stage and two-stage revision for 30- 60- and 90-day readmissions (10.0% vs 8.0%; p = 0.714; 16.7% vs 9.3%; p = 0.325; and 26.7% vs 10.7%; p = 0.074), one-year mortality (3.3% vs 4.0%; p > 0.999), and amputation (3.3% vs 1.3%; p = 0.496). Conclusion. In this non-randomized study, one-stage revision arthroplasty demonstrated similar outcomes including reinfection, re-revision, and readmission rates for the treatment of chronic culture-negative PJI after TKA and THA compared to two-stage revision. This suggests culture negativity may not be a contraindication to one-stage revision arthroplasty for chronic culture-negative PJI in selected patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(3):515–521

Aims. The success rates of two-stage revision arthroplasty for infection have evolved since their early description. The implementation of internationally accepted outcome criteria led to the readjustment of such rates. However, patients who do not undergo reimplantation are usually set aside from these calculations. The aim of this study was to investigate the outcomes of two-stage revision arthroplasty when considering those who do not undergo reimplantation, and to investigate the characteristics of this subgroup. Methods. A retrospective cohort study was conducted. Patients with chronic hip or knee periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) treated with two-stage revision between January 2010 and October 2018, with a minimum follow-up of one year, were included. Variables including demography, morbidity, microbiology, and outcome were collected. The primary endpoint was the eradication of infection. Patients who did not undergo reimplantation were analyzed in order to characterize this subgroup better. Results. A total of 162 chronic PJIs were included in the study. After a mean follow-up of 57.3 months (12.1 to 115.7), 18 patients (11.1%) did not undergo reimplantation, due either to medical issues (10), the patient’s choice (4), or death (4). When only considering those who underwent reimplantation, the success rate was 80.6%. However, when those who did not undergo reimplantation were included, the success rate dropped to 71.6%. Advanced age, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade ≥ III, McPherson’s C host, and Gram-negative related PJI were independent risk factors for retention of the spacer. The mortality was higher in the non-reimplanted group. Conclusion. The real success rate of two-stage revision may not be as high as previously reported. The exclusion of patients who do not undergo reimplantation resulted in a 9% overestimation of the success rate in this series. Many comorbidity-related risk factors for retention of the spacer were identified, as well as higher death rates in this group. Efforts should be made to optimize these patients medically in order to increase reimplantation and success rates, while decreasing mortality. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(12):1682–1688