Mortality following hip arthroplasty is affected by a large number of confounding variables each of which must be considered to enable valid interpretation. The aim of this study was to establish whether it is possible to determine a true cause-and-effect relationship between the risk of mortality and data that are routinely collected by the NJR and to establish the degree to which variation in the mortality rate could be explained by each variable. Relevant variables available from the 2011 NJR data setwere included in a Cox model. We carried out two analyses:. Firstly, we conducted an analysis of data collected from the NJR data set used in preparation of the NJR's 8th Annual Report (2011) looking for an association between the variables collected and the risk of mortality. Secondly, as social deprivation is also known to influence mortalityrates but is not routinely collected as part of the NJR data set, a further analysis was performed which included social deprivation data derived from partial postcodes. Mortality rates in hip arthroplasty patients were lower than in the age matched population across all hip types. Age at surgery, ASA grade, diagnosis, gender, provider type, hip type and lead surgeon grade all had a significant effect on mortality. Schemper's statistic showed that only 18.98% of the variation in mortality was explained by the variables available in the NJR data set. It is inappropriate to use Registry data to study an outcome affected by a multitude of confounding variables when these cannot be adequately accounted for in the available data set

Aim

Aim was to compare revision rates when using single versus dual antibiotic loaded cement (ABLC) in hip fracture arthroplasty and aseptic revision hip or knee arthroplasty using data from the Dutch national joint registry (LROI).

Aim. Debridement Antibiotics and Implant Retention(DAIR) is a procedure to treat a periprosthetic joint infection(PJI) after Total Hip Arthroplasty(THA) or Total Knee Arthroplasty(TKA). The timing between the primary procedure and the DAIR is likely a determinant for its successful outcome. There are few retrospective studies correlating timing of a DAIR with success (1,2). However, the optimal timing of a DAIR and the chance of success still remains unclear. We aimed to assess the risk of re-revision within one year after a DAIR procedure and to evaluate the timing of the DAIR in primary THA and TKA. An estimation of the chance of a successful DAIR will help clinicians and patients in their decision-making process in case of an acute postoperative PJI. Method. We used data from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register(LROI) and selected all primary THA and TKA in the period 2007–2016 who underwent a DAIR within 12 weeks after primary procedure. A DAIR was defined as a revision for infection in which only modular parts were exchanged. A DAIR was successful if not followed by a re-revision within 1 year after DAIR. The analyses were separated for THA and TKA procedures. Results. 207 DAIRs were performed <4 weeks after THA of which 41(20%) received a re-revision within 1 year; 87 DAIRs were performed between 4–8 weeks of which 15(17%) were re-revised and 11 DAIRs were performed >8 weeks and 2(18%) received a re-revision. 126 DAIRs were performed <4 weeks after TKA of which 27(21%) received a re-revision within 1 year; 68 DAIRs were performed between 4–8 weeks of which 14(21%) were re-revised and 15 DAIRs were performed >8 weeks and 3(20%) received a re-revision. Conclusions. There was no difference in 1-year re-revision rate after a DAIR procedure by timing of DAIR procedure for total hip and knee arthroplasty based on Dutch registry data

Background and aim

Since the market withdrawal of the ASR hip resurfacing in August 2010 because of a higher than expected revision rate as reported in the Australian Joint Replacement Registry (AOAJRR), metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty (MoMHRA) has become a controversial procedure for hip replacement. Failures related to destructive adverse local tissue reactions to metal wear debris have further discredited MoMHRA. Longer term series from experienced resurfacing specialists however, demonstrated good outcomes with excellent 10-to-15-year survivorship in young and active men. These results have recently been confirmed for some MoMHRA designs in the AOAJRR. Besides, all hip replacement registries report significantly worse survivorship of total hip arthroplasty (THA) in patients under 50 compared to older ages. The aim of this study was to review MoMHRA survivorship from the national registries reporting on hip resurfacing and determine the risk factors for revision in the different registries.

Background

The most appropriate form of chemical thromboprophylaxis following knee replacement is a contentious issue. Most national guidelines recommend the use of low molecular weight Heparin (LMWH) whilst opposing the use of aspirin. We compared thromboembolic events, major haemorrhage and death after knee replacement in patients receiving either aspirin or LMWH.

Introduction

National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines recommend the use of total hip replacement (THR) for displaced intracapsular fractured neck of femur (NOF) in cognitively intact patients who were independently mobile prior to the injury. The National Joint Registry for England and Wales (NJR) has collected data on THRs performed since 2003. This retrospective cohort study explores risk factors independently associated with implant failure and perioperative mortality.

In order to emulate normal knee kinematics more closely and thereby potentially improve wear characteristics and implant longevity the Medial Pivot type knee replacement geometry was designed. In the current study the clinical and radiographic results of 50 consecutive knee replacements using a Medial Pivot type knee replacement are reported; results are compared to the Australian Orthopaedic Associations National Joint Replacement Registry. The patients' data were crossed checked against the registry to see if they had been revised elsewhere. After a mean follow-up of 9.96 years results show that the Medial Pivot Knee replacement provides good pain relief and functional improvement according to KSS and Womac scores and on subjective patient questionnaires. There was one minor revision; insertion of a patella button at 6.64 years FU. There were no major revisions; all implants appeared to be well fixed on standard radiographic examination. While the revision rate for the Medial Pivot knee according to the Australia Joint Registry results is higher compared to all other types of knee replacements in the registry, and to what is reported in the literature on the medial pivot knee, it is not in the current series. Revision rate was similar to what is reported on in the literature, but after a longer follow-up period. However, long term follow-up is required to draw definitive conclusions on the longevity of this type of implant.

The National Joint Registry (NJR) was set up by the Department of Health to collect information on all joint replacements. The NJR data is externally validated against nationally collated Hospital Episode Statistics (HES).

Errors associated with the use of HES data have been widely documented. We sought to explore the accuracy of the NJR data, for a single surgeon, against a prospectively collected personal logbook.

The NJR and logbook were compared over a 3-year period (01/07/2009 to 30/06/2012).

Total procedure recorded in the personal logbook was 684 and in the NJR was 681. TKR in personal log book was 304 and in NJR 316, revision knee's in personal logbook 45 and in NJR 36, THR 274 in personal logbook and 271 in NJR, revision hip procedures in personal logbook 64 and 58 in NJR.

Whilst the total number of procedures captured correlates closely (681 vs 684) there is more variation with the different individual procedures. This may be due to the addition of 11% of HES data used for this time period by the NJR as it is known to be inaccurate. This therefore demonstrates the importance of maintaining your own accurate records.

Recent registry data from around the world has strongly suggested that using cemented hip hemiarthroplasty has lower revision rates compared to cementless hip hemiarthroplasty for acute femoral neck hip fractures. The adoption of using cemented hemiarthroplasty for hip fracture has been slow as many surgeons continue to use uncemented stems. One of the reasons is that surgeons feel more comfortable with uncemented hemiarthroplasty as they have used it routinely. The purpose of this study is to compare the difference in revision rates of cemented and cementless hemiarthroplasty and stratify the risk by surgeon experience. By using a surgeons annual volume of Total Hip Replacements performed as an indicator for surgeon experience. The Canadian Joint Replacement Registry Database was used to collect and compare the outcomes to report on the revision rates based on surgeon volume. This is a large Canadian Registry Study where 68447 patients were identified for having a hip hemiarthroplasty from 2012-2020. This is a retrospective cohort study, identifying patients that had cementless or cemented hip hemiarthroplasty. The surgeons who performed the procedures were linked to the procedure Total Hip Replacement. Individuals were categorized as experienced hip surgeons or not based on whether they performed 50 hip replacements a year. Identifying high volume surgeon (>50 cases/year) and low volume (<50 cases/year) surgeons. Hazard ratios adjusted for age and sex were performed for risk of revision over this 8-year span. A p-value <0.05 was deemed significant. For high volume surgeons, cementless fixation had a higher revision risk than cemented fixation, HR 1.29 (1.05-1.56), p=0.017. This pattern was similar for low volume surgeons, with cementless fixation having a higher revision risk than cemented fixation, HR 1.37 (1.11-1.70) p=0.004 We could not detect a difference in revision risk for cemented fixation between low volume and high volume surgeons; at 0-1.5 years the HR was 0.96 (0.72-1.28) p=0.786, and at 1.5+ years the HR was 1.61 (0.83-3.11) p=0.159. Similarly, we could not detect a difference in revision risk for cementless fixation between low volume and high volume surgeons, HR 1.11 (0.96-1.29) p=0.161. Using large registry data, cemented hip hemiarthroplasty has a significant lower revision rate than the use of cementless stems even when surgeons are stratified to high and low volume. Low volume surgeons who use uncemented prostheses have the highest rate of revision. The low volume hip surgeon who cements has a lower revision rate than the high volume cementless surgeon. The results of this study should help to guide surgeons that no matter the level of experience, using a cemented hip hemiarthroplasty for acute femoral neck fracture is the safest option. That high volume surgeons who perform cementless hemiarthroplasty are not immune to having revisions due to their technique. Increased training and education should be offered to surgeons to improve comfort when using this technique

Recent registry data from around the world has strongly suggested that using cemented hip hemiarthroplasty has lower revision rates compared to cementless hip hemiarthroplasty for acute femoral neck hip fractures. The adoption of using cemented hemiarthroplasty for hip fracture has been slow as many surgeons continue to use uncemented stems. One of the reasons is that surgeons feel more comfortable with uncemented hemiarthroplasty as they have used it routinely. The purpose of this study is to compare the difference in revision rates of cemented and cementless hemiarthroplasty and stratify the risk by surgeon experience. By using a surgeons annual volume of Total Hip Replacements performed as an indicator for surgeon experience. The Canadian Joint Replacement Registry Database was used to collect and compare the outcomes to report on the revision rates based on surgeon volume. This is a large Canadian Registry Study where 68447 patients were identified for having a hip hemiarthroplasty from 2012-2020. This is a retrospective cohort study, identifying patients that had cementless or cemented hip hemiarthroplasty. The surgeons who performed the procedures were linked to the procedure Total Hip Replacement. Individuals were categorized as experienced hip surgeons or not based on whether they performed 50 hip replacements a year. Identifying high volume surgeon (>50 cases/year) and low volume (<50 cases/year) surgeons. Hazard ratios adjusted for age and sex were performed for risk of revision over this 8-year span. A p-value <0.05 was deemed significant. For high volume surgeons, cementless fixation had a higher revision risk than cemented fixation, HR 1.29 (1.05-1.56), p=0.017. This pattern was similar for low volume surgeons, with cementless fixation having a higher revision risk than cemented fixation, HR 1.37 (1.11-1.70) p=0.004 We could not detect a difference in revision risk for cemented fixation between low volume and high volume surgeons; at 0-1.5 years the HR was 0.96 (0.72-1.28) p=0.786, and at 1.5+ years the HR was 1.61 (0.83-3.11) p=0.159. Similarly, we could not detect a difference in revision risk for cementless fixation between low volume and high volume surgeons, HR 1.11 (0.96-1.29) p=0.161. Using large registry data, cemented hip hemiarthroplasty has a significant lower revision rate than the use of cementless stems even when surgeons are stratified to high and low volume. Low volume surgeons who use uncemented prostheses have the highest rate of revision. The low volume hip surgeon who cements has a lower revision rate than the high volume cementless surgeon. The results of this study should help to guide surgeons that no matter the level of experience, using a cemented hip hemiarthroplasty for acute femoral neck fracture is the safest option. That high volume surgeons who perform cementless hemiarthroplasty are not immune to having revisions due to their technique. Increased training and education should be offered to surgeons to improve comfort when using this technique

Background. Obesity has been linked with increased rates of knee osteoarthritis. Limited information is available on the survival and functional outcome results of rTKR in the obese patients. This registry-based study aimed to identify whether BMI is an independent risk factor for poorer functional outcomes and /or implant survival in rTKA. Methods. New Zealand Joint Registry (NZJR) data of patients who underwent rTKA from 1st January 2010 to January 2023 was performed. Demographics, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), BMI, Operative time, indications for revision and components revised of the patients undergoing rTKA was collected. Oxford knee score (OKS) at 6 months and rates of second revision (re- revision) were stratified based on standardised BMI categories. Results. Of the 2687 revisions, functional outcome scores were available for 1261 patients. Oxford knee scores following rTKA are significantly inferior in higher BMI patients (36.5 vs 31.5 p<0.001). This held true when adjusted for age (35.7 vs 30.9 p<0.001). Tibial component loosening was a more common indication for revision in patients with BMI >40 (31.1% vs 21% for BMI <25), whereas periprosthetic femoral fracture was significantly more commonly seen in patients with BMI <25. Re-revision rates displayed no significant differences between any pairs of BMI groups (2.18/100 component years) and adjusting for age and sex did not alter this (p= 0.462). Indications for re-revision were also not different between BMI categories. Over 50% of the rTKA patients were obese. Significantly more obese patients were ASA grade 3,4 and more were <75 years. Operative time was longer in the obese patients (p<0.001). Conclusions. Although overall re-revision rates are similar between all BMI categories, the functional outcomes favour those with lower BMI. Patients with higher BMI are younger, more comorbid and carry potentially higher perioperative risks. The registry data provides valuable information when providing counsel to patients undergoing rTKA and lends further support to optimising patients prior to pTKA

Prosthetic joint infections (PJI) are one of the most devastating complications of joint replacement surgery. They are associated with significant patient morbidity and carry a significant economic cost to treat. The management of PJI varies from antibiotic suppression, debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) procedures through to single/multiple stage revision procedures. Concerns have been raised recently in relation to the rising number of revision arthroplasty procedures that are being undertaken in relation to infection. This database aims to collect data on all PJIs that have been managed in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) region. This will allow us to investigate the microbial trends, outcomes of surgical intervention and patient outcomes within our local population. This database will incorporate diagnostic, demographic, microbiological and treatment information in relation to local PJI cases. The data will be collated from the local infectious diseases database, hospital medical records, and where available the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry Data. The first 100 cases of PJI were assessed. 76% were defined as being acute. 56% of the patients received antibiotics prior to their diagnosis however only 3% were culture negative. 89% were monomicrobial and 11% polymicrobial. The intended management strategy was a DAIR in 38% of patients and a 2-stage revision in 12% of cases. The intended management strategy was successful in 46% of the patients. The ACT is uniquely placed to analyze and create a local PJI database. This will allow us to guide further treatment and local guidelines in terms of management of these complex patients

Introduction. A key outcome measured by national joint registries are revision events. This informs best practice and identifies poor-performing surgical devices. Although registry data often record reasons for revision arthroplasty, interpretation is limited by lack of standardised definitions of revision reasons and objective assessment of radiologic and laboratory parameters. Our study aim was to compare reasons for unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) revision reported to the New Zealand Joint Registry (NZJR) with reasons identified by independent clinical review. Methods. A total of 2,272 patients undergoing primary medial and lateral UKA at four large tertiary hospitals between 2000 and 2017 were included. A total of 158 patients underwent subsequent revision with mean follow-up of 8 years. A systematic review of clinical findings, radiographs and operative data was performed to identify revision cases and to determine the reasons for revision using a standardised protocol. These were compared to reasons reported to the NZJR using Chi-squared and Fisher exact tests. Results. Osteoarthritis progression was the most common reason for revision on systematic clinical review (30%), however this was underreported to the registry (4%, p<0.001). A larger proportion of revisions reported to the registry were for ‘unexplained pain’ (30% of cases vs. 4% on clinical review, p<0.001). A reason for revision was not reported to the registry for 24 (15%) of cases. Discussion and Conclusion. We found significant inaccuracies in registry-reported reasons for revision following UKA. These included over-reporting of ‘unexplained pain’, under-reporting of osteoarthritis progression, and failure to identify a reason for revision. Efforts to improve registry capture of revision reasons for UKA should focus on increasing accuracy in these three areas. This could be addressed through standardised recording methods and tailored revision reason options for UKA for surgeons to select when recording the reasons

For all the research into arthroplasty, provision of total knee arthroplasty (TKR) services based on gender in the Australian context is yet to be explored. International literature points toward a heavily gender biased provision of TKA services, skewed away from female patients. This research has aimed to assess the current experience of Australian female patients and to explore better assessment techniques that could provide more equitable services. A retrospective cohort analysis has been conducted using pre-op PROMs data, where available, from the Australian National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR), between 7 August 2018 and 31 December 2021, including: EQ VAS Health; Oxford Knee Score; joint pain; and KOOS-12. Data was adjusted for age, ASA score, BMI, primary diagnosis, public vs private hospital, surgeon gender and years of practice (as estimated from years of registry data available). Of 1,001,231 procedures performed, 27,431 were able to be analysed (12,300 male and 15,131 female). Gender-based bias against female patients reached statistical significance across all PROM scores, according to the Kruskal-Wallis test of difference (p-value <0.0001). Males were more likely to undergo TKR than females, with odds ratios remaining statistically significant when adjusted for age, ASA score, BMI, primary diagnosis, and hospital type. Numbers were further analysed for surgeon years of recorded practice and surgeon gender with mixed results. This study found that women were less likely to undergo TKR despite worse scores on every pre-op PROM available, thus we demonstrate a statistically significant gender-based bias against female patients. More effort needs to be made to identify the base of this bias and find new ways to assess patients that can provide more equitable provision of healthcare

Introduction. Acetabular component loosening with associated bone loss is a challenge in revision hip arthroplasty. Trabecular Metal (TM) by Zimmer Biomet has been shown to have greater implant survivorship for all-cause acetabular revision in small cohort retrospective studies. Our study aims to review outcomes of acetabular TM implants locally. Method. This is a retrospective observational study using data from Auckland City and North Shore Hospitals from 1st of January 2010 to 31st of December 2020. Primary outcome is implant survivorship (re-revision acetabular surgery for any cause) demonstrated using Kaplan-Meier analysis. Secondary outcome is indication for index revision and re-revision surgery. Multivariate analysis used to identify statistically significant factors for re-revision surgery. Results. 225 cases used acetabular TM implants (shells and/or augments) over 10 years. Indications include aseptic loosening (63%), instability (15%) and infection (13%). Of these, 12% (n=28) had further re-revision for infection (54%) and instability (21%). Median time to re-revision was 156 days (range 11 – 2022). No cases of re-revision were due to failure of bony ingrowth or acetabular component loosening. Ethnicity, smoking status, and age were not risk factors for re-revision procedures. Additionally, previous prosthetic joint infection, ethnicity, sex and age were not significant risk factors for re-revision due to infection. Implant survivorship was 80% at 1 year, 71% at 5 years and 64% at 10 years. Discussion. Main indications for re-revision were infection and instability. Demographic factors and co-morbidities did not correlate with increased re-revision risk. Survivorship is poorer compared to cumulative survivorship reported by the New Zealand Joint Registry (NZJR). Explanations are multifactorial and possibly contributed by underestimation of true revision rates by registry data. Conclusions. We need to identify alternate causes for poorer survivorship and review the role of TM implants in acetabular revision within our specified population

Failure of cephalomedullary fixation for proximal femur fractures is an uncommon event associated with significant morbidity to the patient and cost to the healthcare system. This institution changed nailing system from the PFNA (DePuy Synthes) to InterTan (Smith and Nephew) in February 2020. To assess for non-inferiority, a retrospective review was performed on 247 patients treated for unstable proximal femur fractures (AO 31 A2; A3). Patients were identified through manual review of fluoroscopic images. Stable fracture patterns were excluded (AO 31 A1). Pre/post operative imaging, demographic data, operative time and ASA scores assessed. Internal/external imaging and national joint registry data were reviewed for follow up. No significant difference was found in overall failure rate of PFNA vs InterTan (4.84% vs 3.23%; p = 0.748). Overall, short nails were more likely to fail by cut-out than long nails (7.5% vs 1.2%; p = 0.015). Nails which failed by varus cut-out had a higher tip/apex distance (TAD) (26.2mm vs 17.0mm; p < 0.001). Of concern, varus cut-out occurred in two InterTan nails with TAD of <25mm. The PFNA enjoyed a shorter operative time for both the short (59.1 vs 71.8 mins; p = 0.022) and long nails (98.8 vs 114.3 mins; p = 0.016) with no difference in 120-day survival rate. Overall failure rates of the PFNA and InterTan nailing systems were comparable. However, the failure rate of short nails in this study is concerning. Using long nails with a lag screw design for unstable intertrochanteric femoral fractures may reduce failure rates. Cumulative frequency analysis suggests stringent tip-apex distances of less than 21mm may reduce failure rates in lag-screw design cephulomedullary nails. This dataset suggests that unstable intertrochanteric fractures may be more reliably managed with a long cephalomedullary device

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is an effective treatment for symptomatic hip osteoarthritis (OA). While computer-navigation technologies in total knee arthroplasty show survivorship advantages and are widely used, comparable applications within THA show far lower utilisation. Using national registry data, this study compared patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in patients who underwent THA with and without computer navigation. Data from Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR) PROMs program included all primary THA procedures performed for OA up to 31 December 2020. Procedures using the Intellijoint HIP® navigation system were identified and compared to procedures using other computer navigation systems or conventional instrumentation only. Changes in PROM scores between pre-operative and 6-month post-operative time points were analysed using multiple regression model, adjusting for pre-operative score, patient age, gender, ASA score, BMI, surgical approach, and hospital type. There were 65 primary THA procedures that used the Intellijoint HIP® system, 90 procedures used other types of computer navigation, and the remaining 5,284 primary THA procedures used conventional instrumentation. The estimated mean changes in the EuroQol visual analogue scale (EQ VAS) score and Oxford Hip score did not differ significantly when Intellijoint® was compared to conventional instruments (estimated differences of 2.4, 95% CI [-1.7, 6.5], p = 0.245, and −0.5, 95% CI [-2.5, 1.4], p = 0.592, respectively). The proportion of patients who were satisfied with their procedure was also similar when Intellijoint® was compared to conventional instruments (rate ratio 1.06, 95% CI [0.97, 1.16], p = 0.227). The preliminary data demonstrate no significant difference in PROMs when comparing the Intellijoint HIP® THA navigation system with both other navigation systems and conventional instrumentation for primary THAs performed for OA. Level of evidence: III (National registry analysis)

Most studies comparing medial pivot to the posterior stabilised (PS) systems sacrifice the PCL. It is unknown whether retaining the PCL in the Medial Congruent (MC) system may provide further benefit compared to the more commonly used PS system. A retrospective review of a single-surgeon's registry data comparing 44 PS and 25 MC with PCL retained (MC-PCLR) TKAs was performed. Both groups had similar baseline demographics in terms of age, gender, body mass index, and American Society for Anaesthesiology score. There was no significant difference in their preoperative range of motion (ROM) (104º±20º vs. 102º±20º,p=0.80), Oxford Knee Score (OKS) (27±6 vs. 26±7,p=0.72), and Knee Society Scoring System (KS) Function Score (KS-FS) (52±24 vs. 56±24,p=0.62). The preoperative KS Knee Score (KS-KS) was significantly lower in the PS group (44±14 vs. 54 ± 18,p<0.05). At 3-months postoperation, the PS group had significantly better OKS (38±6 vs. 36±6,p=0.02) but similar ROM (111º±14º vs. 108º±12º,p=0.25), KS-FS (73±20 vs. 68±23, p=0.32) and KS-KS (87±10 vs. 86±9,p=0.26). At 12-months postoperation, both groups had similar ROM (115º±13º vs. 115º±11º,p=0.99), OKS (41±5 vs. 40±5,p=0.45), KS-FS (74±22vs.78±17,p=0.80), and KS-KS (89±10vs.89±11,p=0.75). There was statistically significant improvement in all parameters at 1-year postoperation (p<0.05). The PS group had significant improvement in all parameters from preoperation to 3-month postoperation (p<0.05), but not from 3-month to 1-year postoperation (p≥0.05). The MC-PCLR group continued to have significant improvement from 3-month to 1-year postoperation (p<0.05). The MC provides stability in the medial compartment while allowing a degree of freedom in the lateral compartment. Preserving the PCL when using MC may paradoxically cause an undesired additional restrain that slows the recovery process of the patients after TKA. In conclusion, compared to MC-PCLR, a PS TKA may expect significantly faster improvement at 3 months post operation, although they will achieve similar outcomes at 1-year post operation

The rate of arterial injury in trauma patients with pelvic ring fractures has been cited as high as 15%. Addressing this source of hemorrhage is essential in the management of these patients as mortality rates are reported as 50%. Percutaneous techniques to control arterial bleeding, such as embolization and REBOA, are being employed with increasing frequency due to their assumed lower morbidity and invasiveness than open exploration or cross clamping of the aorta. There are promising results with regards to the mortality benefits of angioembolization. However, there are concerns with regards to morbidity associated with embolization of the internal iliac vessels and its branches including surgical wound infection, gluteal muscle necrosis, nerve injury, bowel infarction, and thigh / buttock claudication. The primary aim of this study is to determine whether pelvic arterial embolization is associated with surgical site infection (SSI) in trauma patients undergoing pelvic ring fixation. This observational cohort study was conducted using US trauma registry data from the American College of Surgeons (ACS) National Trauma Database for the year of 2018. Patients over the age of 18 who were transported through emergency health services to an ACS Level 1 or 2 trauma hospital and sustained a pelvic ring fracture treated with surgical fixation were included. Patients who were transferred between facilities, presented to the emergency department with no signs of life, presented with isolated penetrating trauma, and pregnant patients were excluded from the study. The primary study outcome was surgical site infection. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to estimate treatment effects of angioembolization of pelvic vessels on surgical site infection, adjusting for known risk factors for infection. Study analysis included 6562 trauma patients, of which 508 (7.7%) of patients underwent pelvic angioembolization. Overall, 148 (2.2%) of patients had a surgical site infection, with a higher risk (7.1%) in patients undergoing angioembolization (unadjusted odds ratio (OR) 4.0; 95% CI 2.7, 6.0; p < 0 .0001). Controlling for potential confounding, including patient demographics, vitals on hospital arrival, open fracture, ISS, and select patient comorbidities, pelvic angioembolization was still significantly associated with increased odds for surgical site infection (adjusted OR 2.0; 95% CI 1.3, 3.2; p=0.003). This study demonstrates that trauma patients who undergo pelvic angioembolization and operative fixation of pelvic ring injuries have a higher surgical site infection risk. As the use of percutaneous hemorrhage control techniques increase, it is important to remain judicious in patient selection

During total knee arthroplasty (TKA), a tourniquet is often used intraoperatively. There are proposed benefits of tourniquet use including shorter duration of surgery, improved surgical field visualization and increased cement penetration which may improve implant longevity. However, there are also cited side effects that include increased post-operative pain, slowed recovery, skin bruising, neurovascular injury and quadriceps weakness. Randomized controlled trials have demonstrated no differences in implant longevity, however they are limited by short follow-up and small sample sizes. The objective of the current study was to evaluate the rates of revision surgery among patients undergoing cemented TKA with or without an intraoperative tourniquet and to understand the causes and risk factors for failure. A retrospective cohort study was undertaken of all patients who received a primary, cemented TKA at a high-volume arthroplasty centre from January 1999 to December 2010. Patients who underwent surgery without the use of a tourniquet and those who had a tourniquet inflated for the entirety of the case were included. The causes and timing of revision surgery were recorded and cross referenced with the Canadian Institute of Health Information Discharge Abstract Database to reduce the loss to follow-up. Survivorship analysis was performed with the use of Kaplan-Meier curves to determine overall survival rates at final follow-up. A Cox proportional hazards model was utilized to evaluate independent predictors of revision surgery. Data from 3939 cases of primary cemented TKA were available for analysis. There were 2276 (58%) cases in which a tourniquet was used for the duration of the surgery and 1663 (42%) cases in which a tourniquet was not utilized. Mean time from the primary TKA was 14.7 years (range 0 days - 22.8 years) when censored by death or revision surgery. There were 150 recorded revisions in the entire cohort, with periprosthetic joint infection (n=50) and aseptic loosening (n=41) being the most common causes for revision. The cumulative survival at final follow-up for the tourniquetless group was 93.8% at final follow-up while the cumulative survival at final follow-up for the tourniquet group was 96.9% at final follow-up. Tourniquetless surgery was an independent predictor for all-cause revision with an HR of 1.53 (95% CI 1.1, 2.1, p=0.011). Younger age and male sex were also independent factors for all cause revision. The results of the current study demonstrate higher all-cause revision rates with tourniquetless surgery in a large cohort of patients undergoing primary cemented TKA. The available literature consists of short-term trials and registry data, which have inherent limitations. Potential causes for increased revision rates in the tourniquetless group include reduced cement penetration, increased intraoperative blood loss and longer surgical. The results of the current study should be taken into consideration, alongside the known risks and benefits of tourniquet use, when considering intraoperative tourniquet use in cemented TKA