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. Methods. Data were collected from participants and medical records for the 12 months prior to revision. Patients with previous revision, metal-on-metal articulations, or hip hemiarthroplasty were excluded. Participants were retrospectively classified as ‘Planned’ or ‘Unplanned’ revision. Multilevel regression and propensity score matching were used to compare the two groups. Results. Data were analyzed from 568 patients, recruited in 38 UK secondary care sites between October 2017 and October 2018 (43.5% male; mean (SD) age 71.86 years (9.93); 305 hips, 263 knees). No significant inclusion differences were identified between the two groups. For hip revision, time to revision > ten years (odds ratio (OR) 3.804, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.353 to 10.694), p = 0.011), periprosthetic fracture (OR 20.309, 95% CI (4.574 to 90.179), p < 0.001), and dislocation (OR 12.953, 95% CI (4.014 to 41.794), p < 0.001), were associated with unplanned revision. For knee, there were no associations with route to revision. Revision after ten years was more likely for those who were younger at primary surgery, regardless of route to revision. No significant differences in cost outcomes, length of surgery time, and access to a health professional in the year prior to revision were found between the two groups. When periprosthetic fractures, dislocations, and infections were excluded, healthcare use was significantly higher in the unplanned revision group. Conclusion. Differences between characteristics for patients presenting for planned and unplanned revision are minimal. Although there was greater healthcare use in those having unplanned revision, it appears unlikely that routine orthopaedic review would have detected many of these issues. It may be safe to disinvest in standard follow-up provided there is rapid access to orthopaedic review. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(1):59–67

Aims. To establish the utility of adding the laboratory-based synovial alpha-defensin immunoassay to the traditional diagnostic work-up of a prosthetic joint infection (PJI). Methods. A group of four physicians evaluated 158 consecutive patients who were worked up for PJI, of which 94 underwent revision arthroplasty. Each physician reviewed the diagnostic data and decided on the presence of PJI according to the 2014 Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria (yes, no, or undetermined). Their initial randomized review of the available data before or after surgery was blinded to each alpha-defensin result and a subsequent randomized review was conducted with each result. Multilevel logistic regression analysis assessed the effect of having the alpha-defensin result on the ability to diagnose PJI. Alpha-defensin was correlated to the number of synovial white blood cells (WBCs) and percentage of polymorphonuclear cells (%PMN). Results. Intraobserver reliability and interobserver agreement did not change when the alpha-defensin result was available. Positive alpha-defensin results had greater synovial WBCs (mean 31,854 cells/μL, SD 32,594) and %PMN (mean 93.0%, SD 5.5%) than negative alpha-defensin results (mean 974 cells/μL, SD 3,988; p < 0.001 and mean 39.4% SD 28.6%; p < 0.001). Adding the alpha-defensin result did not alter the diagnosis of a PJI using preoperative (odds ratio (OR) 0.52, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 1.88; p = 0.315) or operative (OR 0.52, CI 0.18 to 1.55; p = 0.242) data when clinicians already decided that PJI was present or absent with traditionally available testing. However, when undetermined with traditional preoperative testing, alpha-defensin helped diagnose (OR 0.44, CI 0.30 to 0.64; p < 0.001) or rule out (OR 0.41, CI 0.17 to 0.98; p = 0.044) PJI. Of the 27 undecided cases with traditional testing, 24 (89%) benefited from the addition of alpha-defensin testing. Conclusion. The laboratory-based synovial alpha-defensin immunoassay did not help diagnose or rule out a PJI when added to routine serologies and synovial fluid analyses except in cases where the diagnosis of PJI was unclear. We recommend against the routine use of alpha-defensin and suggest using it only when traditional testing is indeterminate. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(5):593–599

Aims

To determine the trajectories of patient reported pain and functional disability over five years following total hip arthroplasty (THA) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA).

Aims

The diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) can be difficult. All current diagnostic tests have problems with accuracy and interpretation of results. Many new tests have been proposed, but there is no consensus on the place of many of these in the diagnostic pathway. Previous attempts to develop a definition of PJI have not been universally accepted and there remains no reference standard definition.

The aim of this study was to define return to theatre (RTT) rates for elective hip and knee replacement (HR and KR), to describe the predictors and to show the variations in risk-adjusted rates by surgical team and hospital using national English hospital administrative data.

We examined information on 260 206 HRs and 315 249 KRs undertaken between April 2007 and March 2012. The 90-day RTT rates were 2.1% for HR and 1.8% for KR. Male gender, obesity, diabetes and several other comorbidities were associated with higher odds for both index procedures. For HR, hip resurfacing had half the odds of cement fixation (OR = 0.58, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.47 to 0.71). For KR, unicondylar KR had half the odds of total replacement (OR = 0.49, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.56), and younger ages had higher odds (OR = 2.23, 95% CI 1.65 to 3.01) for ages < 40 years compared with ages 60 to 69 years). There were more funnel plot outliers at three standard deviations than would be expected if variation occurred on a random basis.

Hierarchical modelling showed that three-quarters of the variation between surgeons for HR and over half the variation between surgeons for KR are not explained by the hospital they operated at or by available patient factors. We conclude that 90-day RTT rate may be a useful quality indicator for orthopaedics.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014; 96-B:1663–8.