Clinical commissioning groups (CCG) have been replaced with ICBs that will bring together NHS and social care for the local population. ICBs are allocating contracts for long waiters for total hip replacements (THR) to hospitals that have achieved pre-covid volumes of THR, THR volumes undertaken by hospitals in 2022 should be at 2019 levels or more. Purpose of this study was to identify whether NHS hospitals in England are at a disadvantage in procuring ICB contracts for THR. THR volumes for NHS and independent sector (IND) hospitals from January 2012 to November 2022 were identified via National Joint Registry. Regional and national trend for THR volumes were identified for both NHS and IND hospitals using linear regression analysis. Trends of THR for NHS hospitals showed either stagnation or reduction in volume from 2014–2019. In 2022, nationally THR volume of NHS was 70% of 2019 (Figure 1). Trend of THR volume for IND hospitals nationally was a strong uptrend from 2012 to 2022 with a break only in 2020 due to COVID pandemic (Figure 2). Since the pandemic IND have overtaken NHS hospitals in volumes of THR undertaken. Similar picture of trends evolves when THR trends were assessed on a region by region basis. With NHS hospitals not back to pre-pandemic THR volumes, IND hospitals have a distinct advantage in securing more contracts via ICB. This in turn puts NHS hospitals at risk of taking on more complex and medically unwell patients potentially worsening NJR outcomes for NHS hospitals. The reasons for the lag in NHS hospitals’ THR volumes are multifactorial, not limited to continued bed pressures, increased emergency and unplanned admissions, staff shortages and sickness, pension taxations preventing doctors from undertaking more THR. However, lack of access to contracts from ICB will put NHS hospitals at huge financial and existential risk for elective care. For any figures or tables, please contact the authors directly

The MAKO Robotic arm is a haptic robotic system that can be used to optimise performance during total hip arthroplasty (THA). We present the outcome of the first 40 robotic cases performed in an NHS foundation trust along with the technique of performing robotic THA in our unit. Forty consecutive patients undergoing robotic THA (rTHA) were compared to a case matched group of patients undergoing manual THA (m-THA). 2:1 blinded case matching was performed for age, sex, implants used (Trident uncemented socket and cemented Exeter stem, Stryker Mahwah, NJ, US) and surgeon grade. Comparisons were made for radiological positioning of implants, including leg length assessment, and patient reported functional outcome (PROMS). Pre- and post-operative radiographs were independently analysed by 2 authors. All patients underwent THA for a primary diagnosis of osteoarthritis. No significant difference between groups was identified for post-operative leg length discrepancy (LLD) although pre-operatively a significantly higher LLD was highlighted on the MAKO group, likely due to patient selection. Significantly lower post-operative socket version was identified in the MAKO cohort although no difference in post-operative cup inclination was noted. However, there was significantly larger variance in post-op LLD (p=0.024), cup version (p=0.004) and inclination (p=0.05) between groups indicating r-THA was significantly less variable (Levene's test for homogeneity of variance). There was no significant difference in the number of cases outside of Lewinnek's ‘safe’ zone for inclination (p=0.469), however, there were significantly more cases outside Lewinnek's ‘safe’ zone for version (12.5% vs 40.3%, p=0.002) in the m-THA group. We report the commencement of performance of MAKO robotic THA in an NHS institution. No problems with surgery were reported during our learning curve. Robotic THA cases had less variability in terms of implant positioning suggesting that the MAKO robot allows more accurate, less variable implant positioning with fewer outliers. Longer term follow-up of more cases is needed to identify whether this improved implant positioning has an effect on outcomes, but the initial results seem promising

We report the impact of implementing a new short-stay hip and knee arthroplasty pathway in a National Health Service (NHS) hospital. This was enacted due to existing concerns with a long length of stay (LOS) and reduced elective operating capacity each winter due to emergency bed pressures. The overnight introduction of this pathway was aimed to reduce LOS, alleviate bed pressures, minimise readmission rates and generate financial savings, all combining to facilitate full elective activity during the winter. We conducted a prospective study at a regional tertiary arthroplasty centre. The new pathway was introduced across the service overnight. It includes rigorous preoperative optimisation, specific anaesthetic protocols and uniform changes in surgical practice to allow a focus on early mobilization and discharge on the day of surgery where possible. Data collection spanned 17 months, including the initial six months post implementation of the short-stay pathway. LOS data was collected for the full period and data was compared pre- and post-implementation of the new pathway. Patient satisfaction and 30-day readmission data were also collected. There was an immediate and significant decrease in median LOS from 4 days pre-implementation to 1 day post-implementation. Patient satisfaction was high, and the 30-day readmission rate was unchanged (5.95%), with no readmissions directly related to decreased inpatient stay. Financial analyses revealed substantial cost savings due to reduced LOS and the elimination of routine post-operative blood tests, estimated at over £1.6m per year. Elective activity over winter was significantly higher (79%) than in the same time period in the previous year. An acute introduction of a carefully planned and coordinated short-stay hip and knee pathway is safe, cost-effective and popular with patients, but also contributes to increased efficiency in the delivery of elective healthcare in the context of increasing demand and financial constraints in the NHS

This trial aims to assess the effectiveness of quality improvement collaboratives as a technique to introduce large-scale change and improve outcomes for patients undergoing primary elective total hip or total knee arthroplasty. 41 NHS Trusts that did not have; a preoperative anaemia screening and optimisation pathways, or a methicillin sensitive Staphylococcus Aureus (MSSA) decolonisation pathway, in place were randomised to one of two parallel collaboratives in a two arm, cluster randomised controlled trial. Each collaborative focussed on implementing one of these two preoperative pathways. Collaboratives took place from May 2018 to November 2019. 27 Trusts completed the trial. Outcome data were collected for procedures between November 2018 and November 2019. Co-primary outcomes were perioperative blood transfusion (within 7 days of surgery) and deep surgical site infections (SSI) caused by MSSA (within 90 days) for the anaemia and MSSA arms respectively. Secondary outcomes include deep and superficial SSIs (any organism), length of stay, critical care admissions, and readmissions. Process measures include the proportion of patients receiving each preoperative initiative. 19,254 procedures from 27 Trusts are included. Process measures show both preoperative pathways were implemented to a high degree (75.3% compliance in MSSA arm; 61.2% anaemia arm), indicating that QICs can facilitate change in the NHS. However, there were no improvements in blood transfusions (2.9% v 2.3% adjusted-OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.52–2.75, p=0.67), MSSA deep SSIs (0.13% v 0.14% adjusted-OR 1.01, 95%CI 0.42–2.46, p=0.98), or any secondary outcome. Whilst no significant improvement in patient outcomes were seen, this trial shows quality improvement collaboratives can successfully support the implementation of new preoperative pathways in planned surgery in the NHS

Between December 2004 and June 2006, 136 patients (156 total hip replacements), were sent from the waiting list of the Cardiff Vale NHS Trust to the NHS Treatment Centre, Weston-super-Mare, in an attempt to reduce the waiting time for total hip replacement. Because of concerns about their outcome, each patient was contacted and invited to attend a review appointment with a consultant specialising in hip and revision hip replacement. A total of 98 patients (113 hips) were reviewed after a mean of 23 months (11 to 30). There were 104 cemented hips, seven hybrid and two cementless. An acetabular inclination of > 55° was seen in 18 (16%). Radiolucent lines around the acetabular component were seen in 76 (67%). The femoral component was in more than 4° of varus in 47 (42%). The medial floor had been breached in 13 (12%) and there was a leg-length discrepancy of more than 1 cm in ten (9%). There were three dislocations, one femoral fracture, one pulmonary embolus, one deep infection and two superficial wound infections. To date, 13% (15 hips) have been revised and a further 4% (five hips) await revision, mostly for a painful loose acetabular component. The revision rate far exceeds the 0.5% five-year failure rate reported in the Swedish Registry for the components used. This initiative and the consequent need for correction of the problems created, has significantly increased the workload of our unit

In a time of limited resources, the debate continues over which types of hip prosthesis are clinically superior and more cost-effective. Orthopaedic surgeons increasingly need robust economic evidence to understand the full value of the operation, and to aid decision making on the ‘package’ of procedures that are available and to justify their practice beyond traditional clinical preference.

In this paper we explore the current economic debate about the merits of cemented and cementless total hip replacement, an issue that continues to divide the orthopaedic community.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:874–6.

Total hip replacement (THR) is one of the most common and cost-effective elective surgical procedures. In the National Health Service (NHS) of England and Wales a myriad of implants for THR are offered at a variety of locally negotiated prices. This study aims to estimate the total burden of elective THR to the NHS, expenditure on implants, and different scenarios of cost changes if implant selection changed for different patient groups. Using National Joint Registry (NJR) data and NHS reference costs, we estimated the number and expenditure of NHS funded primary and revision THR in the 10-year period 2008–2017 and forecasted the number and expenditure on THR over the next decade. Using NJR average NHS Trust prices for the different implant combinations we estimated the average cost of implants used in THRs and estimated the budget impact on NHS providers from switching to alternative implants. The NHS spent over £4.76 billion performing 702,381 THRs between 2008–2017. The average cost of implants was £1,260 per surgery, almost a fifth of the cost of primary THR. Providing cemented implant combinations in primary elective THRs may potentially save up to £281 million over the next 10 years, whilst keeping 10-year revision risks low. The NHS is likely to spend over £5.6 billion providing primary elective THR over the next decade. There are efficiency savings to realise in the NHS by switching to more cost-effective implant combinations available for patients undergoing primary elective THR surgery, but these will need to be balanced against the risks inherent to a change in selection of implants and surgical practice. The HIPPY programme will be conducting practice surveys, discrete choice experiments and a large randomised controlled trial of cemented, uncemented and hybrid fixation in THR for patients under 70 to answer uncertainties

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. Methods. A retrospective analysis of all revision hip procedures was performed at this centre over two consecutive financial years (2018 to 2020). Cases were classified according to the Revision Hip Complexity Classification (RHCC) and whether they were infected or non-infected. Patients with an American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade ≥ III or BMI ≥ 40 kg/m. 2. are considered “high risk” by the RHCC. Costs were calculated using the Patient Level Information and Costing System (PLICS), and remuneration based on Healthcare Resource Groups (HRG) data. The primary outcome was the financial difference between tariff and cost per patient episode. Results. In all, 199 revision episodes were identified in 168 patients: 25 (13%) least complex revisions (H1); 110 (55%) complex revisions (H2); and 64 (32%) most complex revisions (H3). Of the 199, 76 cases (38%) were due to infection, and 78 patients (39%) were “high risk”. Median length of stay increased significantly with case complexity from four days to six to eight days (p = 0.006) and for revisions performed for infection (9 days vs 5 days; p < 0.001). Cost per episode increased significantly between complexity groups (p < 0.001) and for infected revisions (p < 0.001). All groups demonstrated a mean deficit but this significantly increased with revision complexity (£97, £1,050, and £2,887 per case; p = 0.006) and for infected failure (£2,629 vs £635; p = 0.032). The total deficit to the NHS Trust over two years was £512,202. Conclusion. Current NHS reimbursement for rTHA is inadequate and should be more closely aligned to complexity. An increase in the most complex rTHAs at major revision centres will likely place a greater financial burden on these units. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(8):559–566

Aims. This study aims to assess the feasibility of conducting a pragmatic, multicentre randomized controlled trial (RCT) to test the clinical and cost-effectiveness of an informal caregiver training programme to support the recovery of people following hip fracture surgery. Methods. This will be a mixed-methods feasibility RCT, recruiting 60 patients following hip fracture surgery and their informal caregivers. Patients will be randomized to usual NHS care, versus usual NHS care plus a caregiver-patient dyad training programme (HIP HELPER). This programme will comprise of three, one-hour, one-to-one training sessions for the patient and caregiver, delivered by a nurse, physiotherapist, or occupational therapist. Training will be delivered in the hospital setting pre-patient discharge. It will include practical skills for rehabilitation such as: transfers and walking; recovery goal setting and expectations; pacing and stress management techniques; and introduction to the HIP HELPER Caregiver Workbook, which provides information on recovery, exercises, worksheets, and goal-setting plans to facilitate a ‘good’ recovery. After discharge, patients and caregivers will be supported in delivering rehabilitation through three telephone coaching sessions. Data, collected at baseline and four months post-randomization, will include: screening logs, intervention logs, fidelity checklists, quality assurance monitoring visit data, and clinical outcomes assessing quality of life, physical, emotional, adverse events, and resource use outcomes. The acceptability of the study intervention and RCT design will be explored through qualitative methods with 20 participants (patients and informal caregivers) and 12 health professionals. Discussion. A multicentre recruitment approach will provide greater external validity across population characteristics in England. The mixed-methods approach will permit in-depth examination of the intervention and trial design parameters. The findings will inform whether and how a definitive trial may be undertaken to test the effectiveness of this caregiver intervention for patients after hip fracture surgery. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(11):909–920

There is little known about how patient socioeconomic status impacts clinical outcomes in hip preservation surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship between indices of multiple deprivation, funding provider (NHS Funded or Private Funded) and clinical outcomes following surgery for femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). The study analysed the data of 5590 patients recorded in the NAHR who underwent primary hip arthroscopic treatment for FAI between November 2013 and July 2023. Records were matched to the UK National index of multiple deprivation using the lower layer super output area. Using iHOT12 score, patient reported outcome measures were analysed at base line and 1 year following surgery. 2358 records were matched to LLSOA deciles. Between the lowest (most deprived) 3 deciles and the highest (least deprived) the average baseline iHOT12 score was 28.98 (n=366) and 35.33 (n=821). The proportion of patients receiving treatment through NHS funding compared to independent funding for the most deprived, 292 (90%) 37 (10%) respectively compared to the least deprived 515 (70%) and 244 (30%) respectively. At 1year, iHOT12 scores for each group were 51.64 (29.1 SD) compared to 61.5 (28.06 SD) respectively. The study demonstrates that patients from lower socioeconomic backgrounds had poorer baseline and one-year post-surgery iHOT12 scores compared to those from higher socioeconomic strata. Furthermore, a higher reliance on NHS funding was observed among the most deprived, while more affluent patients predominantly opted for private funding. These findings underscore the significant influence of socioeconomic status on both the quality of healthcare received and recovery outcomes in hip preservation surgery, calling attention to the need for more equitable healthcare solutions

Implants in total hip replacement (THR) are associated with different clinical and cost-effectiveness profiles,. We estimate the costs and outcomes for NHS patients in the year after THR associated with implant bearing materials using linked routinely collected data. We linked NJR primary elective THR patients for osteoarthritis to HES and National PROMs. We estimated health care costs, health-related quality of life indices, and revision risks, in the year after primary and revision THRs overall. We used generalised linear models adjusting for patient and hospital characteristics and estimated 10-year cumulative probability of revision. We imputed utilities using chained equations for half the sample with missing PROMS. We linked 577,973 elective primary THRs and 11,812 subsequent revisions. One year after primary THR, patients with the cemented THRs using cobalt chrome or stainless steel head with HCLPE liner/cup cost the NHS, on average, £13,101 (95%CI £13,080,£13,122), had an average quality-of-life score of 0.788 (95%CI 0.787,0.788), and a 10-year revision probability of 1.9% (95%CI 1.6,2.3). Compared to the reference, patients receiving a cemented THR with delta ceramic head and HCLPE liner/cup, hybrid THR with delta ceramic head and HCLPE liner/cup, and hybrid THR with alumina head and HCLPE liner/cup had lower 1-year costs (-£572 \[95% CI -£775,-£385\], -£346 \[-£501,-£192\], -£371 \[-£574,-£168\] respectively), better quality of life (0.007 \[95% CI 0.003,0.011\], 0.013 \[0.010,0.016\], 0.009 \[0.005,0.013\] respectively), and lower 10-year revision probabilities (1.4% \[1.03,2.0\], 1.5 \[1.3,1.7\], 1.6%\[1.2,2.1\] respectively). Implant bearing materials are associated with varying mean costs and health outcomes after primary THR. Ours is the first study to derive costs and health outcomes from large, linked databases using multiple imputation methods to deal with bias. Our findings are useful for commissioning and procurement decisions and to inform a subsequent cost-effectiveness model with more granular detail on THR implant types

Aims. The aim of this study was to compare the cost-effectiveness of cemented hemiarthroplasty (HA) versus hydroxyapatite-coated uncemented HA for the treatment of displaced intracapsular hip fractures in older adults. Methods. A within-trial economic evaluation was conducted based on data collected from the World Hip Trauma Evaluation 5 (WHiTE 5) multicentre randomized controlled trial in the UK. Resource use was measured over 12 months post-randomization using trial case report forms and participant-completed questionnaires. Cost-effectiveness was reported in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained from the NHS and personal social service perspective. Methodological uncertainty was addressed using sensitivity analysis, while decision uncertainty was represented graphically using confidence ellipses and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Results. The base-case analysis showed that cemented implants were cost-saving (mean cost difference -£961 (95% confidence interval (CI) -£2,292 to £370)) and increased QALYs (mean QALY difference 0.010 (95% CI 0.002 to 0.017)) when compared to uncemented implants. The probability of the cemented implant being cost-effective approximated between 95% and 97% at alternative cost-effectiveness thresholds held by decision-makers, and its net monetary benefit was positive. The findings remained robust against all the pre-planned sensitivity analyses. Conclusion. This study shows that cemented HA is cost-effective compared with hydroxyapatite-coated uncemented HA in older adults with displaced intracapsular hip fractures. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(8):922–928

Revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) can be complex and associated with significant cost, with an increasing burden within the UK and globally. Regional rTHA networks have been proposed aiming to improve outcomes, reduce re-revisions and therefore costs. The aim of this study was to accurately quantify the cost and reimbursement for the rTHA service and to assess the financial impact of case complexity at a tertiary referral centre within the NHS. A retrospective analysis of all revision hip procedures was performed over two consecutive financial years (2018–2020). Cases were classified according to the Revision Hip Complexity Classification (RHCC) and by mode of failure; infected or non-infected. Patients of ASA grade of 3 or greater or BMI over 40 are considered “high-risk” by the RHCC. Costs were calculated using PLICS and remuneration based on the HRG data. The primary outcome was the financial difference between tariff and cost per episode per patient. Comparisons between groups were analysed using analysis of variance and two-tailed unpaired t-test. 199 revision episodes were identified in 168 patients: 25 (13%) least complex revisions (H1), 110 (55%) complex revisions (H2) and 64 (32%) most complex revisions (H3). 76 (38%) cases were due to infection. 78 (39%) of patients were in the “high-risk” group. Median length of stay increased with case complexity from 4, to 6 to 8 days (p=0.17) and significantly for revisions performed for infection (9 vs 5 days; p=0.01). Cost per episode increased significantly between complexity groups (p=0.0002) and for infected revisions (p=0.003). All groups demonstrated a mean deficit, but this significantly increased with revision complexity (£301, £1,820 and £4,757 per case; p=0.02) and for infected failure (£4,023 vs £1,679; p=0.02). The total deficit to the trust for the two-years was £512,202. Current NHS reimbursement for rTHA is inadequate and should be more closely aligned to complexity. An increase in the most complex rTHA at major revision centres (MRC) will likely place a greater financial burden on these units

Arthroplasty in patients who are intravenous drug abusers presents a complex challenge, frequently requiring intervention at a younger age. The cohort suffer increased complication rates due to significant co-morbidities and poor engagement in medical services, in comparison to other patients undergoing lower limb arthroplasty. Multiple small studies show arthroplasty in this patient cohort is associated with high complication and mortality rates. A search of electronic databases were undertaken with the assistance of the library services from the Rotherham NHS Foundation Trust, including Chocraine, SCOPUS and PubMed. Abstracts were reviewed and relevant studies extracted for full review. Full text articles were reviewed based on strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. Searches identified Two thousand and forty-four papers; twenty-seven studies were identified for full review of the paper based on the inclusion criteria above. From this, nine studies were deemed appropriate to for data extraction. These nine papers present one hundred and thirty-two cases of lower limb arthroplasty, fifty nine Total Knee Arthroplasty and seventy three Total Hip Arthroplasty. From this the authors examined incidences of implant failure due to infection, revision, mortality, dislocation, aseptic loosening, peri-prosthetic fracture, or other causes. Of these, 58% of patients (n = 77) with a history of intravenous drug abuse suffered some form of significant complication; 4% of this cohort (n = 5) were lost to follow up. Infection was reported in 32% of cases and a mortality rate of 4.7%. The rising demand of lower limb arthroplasty for intra-venous drug abusers presents a very real problem for the modern Orthopaedic surgeon. Within the studies examined, more than half report implant failure. This study synthesises the available literature regarding treatment of these patients to help facilitate decision making and informed consent

Industries such as agriculture, construction and military have stringent rules about hearing protection due to the risk of noise induced hearing loss (NIHL). Due to the use of power tools, orthopaedic staff may be at risk of the same condition. The UK Health and Safety Executive (HSE) have clear standards as to what is deemed acceptable occupational noise levels on an A-weighted and C weighted scale. This review is aimed to assess evidence on noise exposure testing within Orthopaedic theatres to see if it exceeds the HSE regulations. A targeted search of online databases PUBMED and EMBASE was conducted using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) principles. This review was registered prospectively in PROSPERO. An eligibility criterion identifying clinical studies which assessed noise exposure for Orthopaedic staff in theatres were included. Noise exposure data was extracted from these studies and a comparison was made with A weighted and C weighted acceptable exposure levels as quoted in the HSE regulations. Fourteen papers were deemed eligible, which reviewed 133 Orthopaedic operations and 64 Orthopaedic instruments. In total, 61% (81 of 132) of Orthopaedic operations and 70% (45 of 64) of instruments exceeded the noise regulations on an A weighted scale. 22% (10 of 46) of operations exceeded the maximum C weighted peak acceptable noise level. Orthopaedic instruments and operations can exceed safe occupational noise levels. NHS Trusts have clear policies about noise exposure in the workplace but have yet to identify Orthopaedic theatres as a potential at risk area. Orthopaedic staff need education, monitoring and protection whereas Employers and Occupational Health should consider assessments to identify at risk staff in Orthopaedic theatres and offer preventative methods from NIHL

Periprosthetic joint infection is a serious complication of primary total hip replacement (THR) with significant associated morbidity. In acute infection, Debridement, Antibiotics and Implant Retention (DAIR) may be considered. Current national guidelines recommend a DAIR should be performed by “an experienced arthroplasty surgeon┕ but do not specify the need for this to be a revision arthroplasty surgeon. We investigated outcomes in our NHS Trust of DAIR procedures performed by revision and non-revision arthroplasty surgeons. Infection registry data and patient records were analysed for all DAIR procedures of infected primary THRs between 2017 and 2021. Data collected included details of the primary surgery, the presentation with infection, the DAIR procedure and any subsequent complications including return to theatre at any time point. Routinely collected pre- and post-operative patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) were reviewed. 54 periprosthetic joint infections of primary THRs received a DAIR procedure. 41 DAIRs were performed by a revision surgeon and 13 by non-revision surgeons. There was no significant difference in time from primary THR to presentation with infection, time from presentation to DAIR or pre-operative C-reactive protein between the two groups. In 21 (38.9%) patients the DAIR procedure was classed as a treatment failure; 17 patients (31.5%) returned to theatre for further revision surgery, one (2.4%) died related to infection and three (5.6%) had persistent infection but did not receive further surgery. Treatment failure was significantly higher in the non-revision surgeon group (9/13 (69.2%)) than in the revision surgeon group (12/41 (29.3%)) (p = 0.02). Overall, improvement in PROMs after DAIR was seen at both six and 12 months. The overall success rate of DAIR was 61.1% and there was a sustained improvement in PROMs after surgery. However, there was a significant difference in failure rates between revision surgeons and non-revision surgeons

Current treatment options for displaced acetabular fractures in elderly patients include non-surgical management, surgical fixation and surgical fixation with simultaneous hip replacement, the so-called “fix-and-replace”™. There remains a paucity of evidence to guide surgeons in decision making for these difficult injuries. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of performing an appropriately powered RCT between treatment options for acetabular fractures in older patients. This was an NIHR funded feasibility triple-arm RCT with participation from 7 NHS MTCs. Patients older than 60 were recruited if they had an acetabular fracture deemed sufficiently displaced for the treating surgeon to consider surgical fixation. Randomisation was performed on a 1:1:1 basis. The three treatment arms were non-surgical management, surgical fixation and fix-and-replace. Feasibility was assessed by willingness of patients to participate and clinicians to recruit, drop out rate, estimates of standard deviation to inform the sample size calculation for the full trial and completion rates to inform design of a future definitive trial. EQ-5D was the primary outcome measure at 6 months, OHS and Disability Rating Index were secondary outcome measures. Of 117 eligible patients, 60 were randomised whilst 50 declined study participation. Nine patients did not receive their allocated intervention. Analysis was performed on an intention to treat basis. During the study period 4 patients withdrew before final review, 4 patients died and 1 was lost to follow-up. The estimated sample size for a full scale study was calculated to be 1474 participants for an EQ-5D MCID of 0.06 with a power of 0.8. This feasibility study suggests a full scale trial would require international collaboration. This study also has provided observed safety data regarding mortality and morbidity for the fix-and-replace procedure to aid surgeons in the decision-making process when considering treatment options

Elevated synovial leukocyte count is a minor criterion derived from the musculoskeletal infection society (MSIS) widely used in clinical practice for diagnosis of prosthetic joint infection. There is evidence to suggest analysis within 1 hour, preferentially within 30 minutes, of aspiration reduces the risk of ex vivo cell lysis occurring during prolonged transport. Multiple site working is more common practice and the availability of a lab on site to perform these tests is not always possible. We aimed to assess whether we could safely perform synovial leukocyte counts within our cold site in the diagnosis of prosthetic joint infection. We reviewed all orthopaedic synovial fluid aspirates within the lower limb arthroplasty unit from April 2021 – April 2022 performed at South Tees NHS Foundation Trust. We assessed time from aspirate to the lab using electronic data resources. This information was compared with the labs ability to perform a synovial leukocyte count to determine the impact of delays on testing. 110 patients (34.5% hips and 63.6% knees) were identified between two sites. Time from aspirate to lab ranged from 0 mins to 26 hrs 34 mins. Mean time to processing was 3hrs 10 mins. 50% of all samples had a synovial leukocyte count performed. 67% of patients had a cell differential performed. There was no difference in the ability to perform a synovial leukocyte count between samples process in < 2hours vs > 6 hours. We conclude that it is safe practice to perform joint aspirates for the work up of periprosthetic joint infections in sites where no laboratory is immediately available as the delay to processing synovial fluid does not alter the ability to perform a synovial leukocyte count. This study will provide evidence to enable the work up of periprosthetic joint infections in cold centres and therefore reduce the delay in diagnosis and proceeding management

Studies have shown that 10–30% patients do not achieve optimal function outcomes after total hip replacement (THR). High quality randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the clinical and cost-effectiveness of techniques to improve functional outcomes after THR are lacking. We performed this study to evaluate the feasibility of a RCT comparing patient-reported functional outcomes after hybrid or fully cemented THR (ISRCTN11097021). Patients were recruited from two centres and randomised to receive either a fully cemented or hybrid THR. Data collection included Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs), non-serious adverse events of special interest (AESI), serious adverse device effects (SADE) and NHS resource use. Qualitative interviews were undertaken to understand a) patient experiences of study processes and their reasons for taking part or not, and b) to understand surgeons’ perceptions of the study, factors affecting willingness to participate, and barriers to implementation of the future RCT findings. The target of 40 patients were successfully recruited for the feasibility RCT; the ratio of successful recruitment to eligible patients was 0.61 across both sites. Treatment crossovers occurred in four patients, all related to bone quality. Four patients were withdrawn due to not undergoing surgery within the study window because of the pandemic. Follow-up was 100% and PROMs were completed by all patients at all time points. The feasibility of conducting a within-trial cost-utility analysis was demonstrated. Interviews were conducted with 27 patients and 16 surgeons. Patients and surgeons generally found the study procedures acceptable and workable. Some declined participation because they did not want treatment allocated at random, or because blinding was off-putting. Surgeons’ perceptions of equipoise varied, and implementation of findings from the future RCT would need to recognise the ‘craft’ nature of surgery and the issue of training. We conclude that a full RCT with economic analysis will be both feasible and practicable, although mechanisms to safely implement potential changes to practice because of RCT findings may need consideration by the wider arthroplasty community

The development and implementation of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols are of particular interest in elective orthopaedics due to clinical benefits and cost effectiveness. The Wycombe Arthroplasty Rapid-Recovery Pathway (WARP) was designed to streamline hip and knee joint arthroplasty to reduce time spent in hospital whilst optimising outcomes in an NHS District General Hospital. 966 patients were admitted to Wycombe General Hospital for primary elective joint replacement (60 UKR, 446 THR, 460 TKR) during the period 1st September 2020 to 31st September 2022. The WARP pathway was used for 357 (37%) patients (32 UKR, 155 THR, 170 TKR) and the standard “non-WARP” pathway was used for 609 (63%) patients (28 UKR 291 THR, 290 TKR). Data was collected on length of stay, time of mobilisation, number of physiotherapy sessions, and inpatient morbidity. Average length of stay following UKR was 0.75 days for WARP vs 2.96 for non-WARP patients, following THR was 2.17 days for WARP vs 4.17 for non-WARP patients, following TKR was 3.4 days for WARP vs 3.92 for non-WARP patients. Day-0 mobilisation after UKR was achieved in 97% of WARP vs 12% of non-WARP patients, after THR in 43% of WARP vs 14% of non-WARP patients, after TKR in 33% of WARP vs 11% of non-WARP patients. Same-day discharge was achieved in the WARP cohort in 63% of UKR, 10% of THR, 2% of TKR patients. There were no same-day discharges in the non-WARP cohort. Complications delaying mobilisation (pain, nausea/vomiting, dizziness/low BP) were identified in 8.4% of WARP vs 25% of non-WARP patients. Our cohort study shows that the initiation of WARP Rapid Recovery pathway for joint arthroplasty decreased the average length of stay after UKR by 2.21 days, after THR by 2 days, after TKR by 0.52 days. Time to first mobilisation was decreased significantly by increased rates of same-day mobilisation and reduced rates of postoperative anaesthetic-related complications