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

Aims. Periprosthetic hip-joint infection is a multifaceted and highly detrimental outcome for patients and clinicians. The incidence of prosthetic joint infection reported within two years of primary hip arthroplasty ranges from 0.8% to 2.1%. Costs of treatment are over five-times greater in people with periprosthetic hip joint infection than in those with no infection. Currently, there are no national evidence-based guidelines for treatment and management of this condition to guide clinical practice or to inform clinical study design. The aim of this study is to develop guidelines based on evidence from the six-year INFection and ORthopaedic Management (INFORM) research programme. Methods. We used a consensus process consisting of an evidence review to generate items for the guidelines and online consensus questionnaire and virtual face-to-face consensus meeting to draft the guidelines. Results. The consensus panel comprised 21 clinical experts in orthopaedics, primary care, rehabilitation, and healthcare commissioning. The final output from the consensus process was a 14-item guideline. The guidelines make recommendations regarding increased vigilance and monitoring of those at increased risk of infection; diagnosis including strategies to ensure the early recognition of prosthetic infection and referral to orthopaedic teams; treatment, including early use of DAIR and revision strategies; and postoperative management including appropriate physical and psychological support and antibiotic strategies. Conclusion. We believe the implementation of the INFORM guidelines will inform treatment protocols and clinical pathways to improve the treatment and management of periprosthetic hip infection. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(4):226–233

Since the introduction of national guidelines in 2009 encouraging the use of total hip arthroplasty (THA) to treat intracapsular neck of femur fractures there has been no population-based studies into the surgical outcomes for this indication. This study aims to calculate the complication rates for THA when performed for a fractured neck of femur and compare them to THA performed for primary osteoarthritis in the same population. The Scottish Arthroplasty Project was used to identify all THAs performed in Scotland for neck of femur fracture and osteoarthritis between 1st of January 2009 and 31st December 2014. Dislocation, infection and revision rates at 1 year were calculated. The rate of dislocation, infection and revision at 1 year were all significantly increased among the fracture neck of femur cohort. In total 44046 THAs were performed, 38316 for OA and 2715 for a neck of femur fracture. 2.1% of patients (n=57) who underwent a THA for a neck of femur fracture suffered a dislocation in the 1st year postoperatively, compared to 0.9% (n=337) when the THA was performed for osteoarthritis. Relative Risk of dislocation: 2.3870 (95% C.I. 1.8077–3.1252, p value <0.0001). Relative Risk of infection: 1.4561 (95% C.I. 1.0496–2.0200, p value 0.0245) Relative Risk of revision: 1.4807 (95% C.I. 1.0308–2.1268, p value 0.0336). This is the first time a dislocation rate for THA performed for a neck of femur fracture has been calculated for an entire population. As the number of THAs for neck of femur fracture increases this dislocation rate will have clinical implications

Aims

Our primary aim was to assess reoperation-free survival at one year after the index injury in patients aged ≥ 75 years treated with internal fixation (IF) or arthroplasty for undisplaced femoral neck fractures (uFNFs). Secondary outcomes were reoperations and mortality analyzed separately.

Aims

Displaced femoral neck fractures (FNF) may be treated with partial (hemiarthroplasty, HA) or total hip arthroplasty (THA), with recent recommendations advising that THA be used in community-ambulant patients. This study aims to determine the association between the proportion of FNF treated with THA and year of surgery, day of the week, surgeon practice, and private versus public hospitals, adjusting for known confounders.

The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) published the guidelines on the selection of prostheses for primary hip replacement in 2000. They supported the use of cemented hip prostheses to the exclusion of uncemented and hybrid implants. The information from the Trent (and Wales) Regional Arthroplasty Study has been examined to identify retrospectively the types of hip prostheses used between 1990 and 2005, and to assess the impact that the guidelines have had on orthopaedic practice.

The results show that the publication of the NICE guidelines has had little impact on clinical practice, with the use of uncemented prostheses increasing from 6.7% (137) in 2001 to 19.2% (632) in 2005. The use of hybrid prostheses has more than doubled from 8.8% (181) to 22% (722) of all hips implanted in the same period. The recommendations made by NICE are not being followed, which calls into question their value.

Conventional treatment of mild slipped capital femoral epiphysis consists of fixation in situ with wires or screws. Recent contributions to the literature suggest that even a mild slip may lead to early damage of the acetabular labrum and adjacent cartilage by abutment of a prominent femoral metaphysis. It has been suggested that the appropriate treatment in mild slipped capital femoral epiphysis should not only prevent further slipping of the epiphysis, but also address potential femoroacetabular impingement by restoring the anatomy of the proximal femur.

Between October 1984 and December 1995 we treated 16 patients for unilateral mild slipped capital femoral epiphysis by fixation in situ with Kirschner wires. In this study we have reviewed these patients for clinical and radiological evidence of femoroacetabular impingement. There was little clinical indication of impingement but radiological evaluation assessing the femoral head-neck ratio and measuring the Nötzli α angle on the anteroposterior and cross-table radiographs showed significant alterations in the proximal femur. None of the affected hips had a normal head-neck ratio and the mean α angle was 86° (55° to 99°) and 55° (40° to 94°) on the anteroposterior and lateral cross-table radiographs, respectively.

While our clinical data favours conventional treatment, our radiological findings are in support of restoring the anatomy of the proximal femur to avoid or delay the development of femoroacetabular impingement following mild slipped capital femoral epiphysis.

Despite increasing scientific investigation, the best method for preventing post-operative deep-vein thrombosis remains unclear. In the wake of the publication of the Pulmonary Embolism Prevention trial and the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) on the prevention of thromboembolism, we felt that it was timely to survey current thromboprophylactic practices. Questionnaires were sent to all consultants on the register of the British Orthopaedic Association. The rate of response was 62%. The survey showed a dramatic change in practice towards the use of chemoprophylaxis since the review by Morris and Mitchell in 1976. We found that there was a greater uniformity of opinion and prescribing practices in Scotland, consistent with the SIGN guidelines, than in the rest of the UK. We argue in favour of the use of such documents which are based on a qualitative review of current scientific literature.