Telehealth has the potential to change the way we approach patient care. From virtual consenting to reducing carbon emissions, costs, and waiting times, it is a powerful tool in our clinical armamentarium. There is mounting evidence that remote diagnostic evaluation and decision-making have reached an acceptable level of accuracy and can safely be adopted in orthopaedic surgery. Furthermore, patients’ and surgeons’ satisfaction with virtual appointments are comparable to in-person consultations. Challenges to the widespread use of telehealth should, however, be acknowledged and include the cost of installation, training, maintenance, and accessibility. It is also vital that clinicians are conscious of the medicolegal and ethical considerations surrounding the medium and adhere strictly to the relevant data protection legislation and storage framework. It remains to be seen how organizations harness the full spectrum of the technology to facilitate effective patient care.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(8):843–849.

Aims. The Ponseti method is the gold standard treatment for congenital talipes equinovarus (CTEV), with the British Consensus Statement providing a benchmark for standard of care. Meeting these standards and providing expert care while maintaining geographical accessibility can pose a service delivery challenge. A novel ‘Hub and Spoke’ Shared Care model was initiated to deliver Ponseti treatment for CTEV, while addressing standard of care and resource allocation. The aim of this study was to assess feasibility and outcomes of the corrective phase of Ponseti service delivery using this model. Methods. Patients with idiopathic CTEV were seen in their local hospitals (‘Spokes’) for initial diagnosis and casting, followed by referral to the tertiary hospital (‘Hub’) for tenotomy. Non-idiopathic CTEV was managed solely by the Hub. Primary and secondary outcomes were achieving primary correction, and complication rates resulting in early transfer to the Hub, respectively. Consecutive data were prospectively collected and compared between patients allocated to Hub or Spokes. Mann-Whitney U test, Wilcoxon signed-rank test, or chi-squared tests were used for analysis (alpha-priori = 0.05, two-tailed significance). Results. Between 1 March 2020 and 31 March 2023, 92 patients (139 feet) were treated at the service (Hub 50%, n = 46; Spokes 50%, n = 46), of whom nine were non-idiopathic. All patients (n = 92), regardless of allocation, ultimately achieved primary correction, with idiopathic patients at the Hub requiring fewer casts than the Spokes (mean 4.0 (SD 1.4) vs 6.9 (SD 4.4); p < 0.001). Overall, 60.9% of Spokes’ patients (n = 28/46) required transfer to the Hub due to complications (cast slips Hub n = 2; Spokes n = 17; p < 0.001). These patients ultimately achieved full correction at the Hub. Conclusion. The Shared Care model was found to be feasible in terms of providing primary correction to all patients, with results comparable to other published services. Complication rates were higher at the Spokes, although these were correctable. Future research is needed to assess long-term outcomes, parents’ satisfaction, and cost-effectiveness. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(11):865–872

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to discover if student led clinics (SLC) are feasible delivery mechanisms for Low back pain (LBP) self-management support and to develop a service model.

Arthroplasty has consistently shown ‘beneficial and often dramatic improvements in quality of life'. In developed healthcare systems arthroplasty has evolved to minimised complications through evidence-based implant selection, rigorous infection control and high volume training. The Children's Surgical Centre has performed 256 THAs since 2007, We aim to assess the outcome of arthroplasty in a LMIC. Our primary outcome was all cause of re-operation and our secondary outcome was any complications not requiring return to theatre.

A retrospective review of all consecutive THA since 2007 was conducted. Electronic and physical case notes were reviewed and basic demographics, indication for THA, risk factors for complications, implant combinations and complications were recorded. Statistical analysis was performed using MedCalc.

A total of 256 THA were identified in 225 patients. The mean age was 43, with a M2:1F ratio. The most common pathologies were (1)AVN (44%), (2)OA (11%) and (3)DDH (11%). Revision rate was 13%. The mean time from implantation to revision was 2.8 years (0–9). The most common reasons for revision were (1)stem fracture (5.8%), (2)aseptic loosening (4.8%) and (3)infection (2.7%). Six different stems have been use over the time period. The best surviving were the Zimmer ML Taper and the UMA Muller stems. The UMA C-Stem was the worst performing which suffered 100% stem fracture. 109 complications were identified in 85 patients (33.2%). The three most common complications were (1)aseptic loosening (10.5%) (2)stem fracture (5.8%) and (3)dislocation (5.8%). Previous surgery (n=44) was found to be a significant risk for complications but not infection. OHS initially improved but began to decline after year 3.

Patients present to CSC with neglected hip pathology, disability and significant pre-operative deformity. These patients benefit from THA and the initially high complication rates at CSC are declining suggesting the apex of the ‘learning curve' has passed. Cheap poorly manufactured implants continue to cause catastrophic failure.

The rising prevalence of osteoarthritis, associated with an ageing population, is expected to deliver increasing demand across Scotland for arthroplasty services in the future. Understanding the scale of potential change to operative workflow is essential to ensure adequate provision of services and prevent prolonged waiting times that can cause patient harm. This future service demand for primary and revision hip arthroplasty across Scotland, and the rest of the U.K., is hitherto unknown. We set out to provide projections of future primary & revision hip arthroplasty out to 2038 utilising historical trend data (2008–2018) from the Scottish Arthroplasty Project. All analyses were performed using the Holt's exponential smoothing projection method with the forecast package in R statistics. Results were adjusted for projected future population estimates provided by National Records of Scotland. Independent age & sex group predictions were also performed. All results are presented per 100,000 population at-risk per year (/100k/year). The predicted rise of primary hip arthroplasty for all ages is from 120/100k/year in 2018 to 152/100k/year in 2038, a 27% increase. Based on a static 3 day length of stay average this would see 4280 additional patient bed days required for primary hip arthroplasty patients per annum. The number of revision hip arthroplasty procedures for all ages is projected to fall from 14/100k/year to 4/100k/year based on historical trend data. This does not however take into account the suspect increase in primary arthroplasty numbers that is likely to influence future revision rates. Anticipated future demand for primary hip arthroplasty will require significant additional resource and funding to prevent deterioration in quality of care and an increase in patient wait times. Demand for revision arthroplasty is set to decrease, likely on account of improved implant materials, technique, and understanding of best practice to minimise complication risk. This doesn't however take into account the impact of the complex interaction between an increasing primary arthroplasty rate and revision risk. Understanding presented projections of changes to arthroplasty demand is key to future service delivery

The 2010 Fellows undertook a six-week journey through centres of orthopaedic excellence along the East Coast of Canada and the United States. What we learned and gained from the experience and each other is immeasurable, but five areas particularly stand out; education, research, service delivery, financial insights and professional development

Aims. COVID-19 necessitated abrupt changes in trauma service delivery. We compare the demographics and outcomes of patients treated during lockdown to a matched period from 2019. Findings have important implications for service development. Methods. A split-site service was introduced, with a COVID-19 free site treating the majority of trauma patients. Polytrauma, spinal, and paediatric trauma patients, plus COVID-19 confirmed or suspicious cases, were managed at another site. Prospective data on all trauma patients undergoing surgery at either site between 16 March 2020 and 31 May 2020 was collated and compared with retrospective review of the same period in 2019. Patient demographics, injury, surgical details, length of stay (LOS), COVID-19 status, and outcome were compared. Results. There were 1,004 urgent orthopaedic trauma patients (604 in 2019; 400 in 2020). Significant reductions in time to theatre and LOS stay were observed. COVID-19 positive status was confirmed in 4.5% (n = 18). The COVID-19 mortality rate was 1.8% (n = 7). Day-case surgery comprised 47.8% (n = 191), none testing positive for COVID-19 or developing clinically significant COVID-19 symptoms requiring readmission, at a minimum of 17 days follow-up. Conclusion. The novel split-site service, segregating suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cases, minimized onward transmission and demonstrated improved outcomes regarding time to surgery and LOS, despite altered working patterns and additional constraints. Day-surgery pathways appear safe regarding COVID-19 transmission. Lessons learned require dissemination and should be sustained in preparation for a potential second wave or, the return of a “normal” non-COVID workload. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-9:568–575

Long waiting times and a growing demand on services for joint replacement surgery (JRS) prompted the Victorian Department of Human Services to fund a University of Melbourne/Melbourne Health partnership to develop and implement an osteoarthritis (OA) hip and knee service delivery and prioritisation system for those who may require JRS. The service delivery model consists of a multidisciplinary team providing, comprehensive early assessment, evidence-based interventions, including support for patient self-management, continuity of care processes, and prioritisation for both surgical assessment and JRS. Prioritisation occurs via clinical assessment and the Hip and Knee Multi-Attribute Prioritisation Tool (MAPT), a patient, clinician, or proxy-administered 11-item questionnaire, resulting in a 100-point scale ranking of need for surgery. The Hip and Knee MAPT was developed using intensive consultation with surgeons, state-of-the-art clinimetrics and with input from patients, hospital management groups. Ninety-six surgeons contributed to the developing the final scoring system. Over 4000 patients per year are entering the system across 14 hospitals in Victoria. Under the supervision of the orthopaedics unit, musculoskeletal coordinator (MSC), typically an experienced physiotherapist or nurse, as part of the multidisciplinary team, undertakes early comprehensive assessment, referral and prioritisation of patients with hip or knee OA referred to orthopaedic outpatient clinics. In addition, the MSC coordinates the monitoring and management of patients on the orthopaedic surgery waiting list. The processes enable patients who are most needy (via higher MAPT score and clinical assessment) to be fast-tracked to orthopaedic surgery; conversely those patients with lower scores receive prompt conservative management. Time to first assessment and waiting times to see a surgeon for many patients have reduced from 12+ months to weeks. Patients seen by surgeons are more likely to be ready for surgery and have had more comprehensive non-operative optimisation. Patients placed on the surgical waiting list receive quarterly reassessments and evidence of deterioration is used as a basis for fast-tracking to surgery. The OWL system is a whole of system(tm) approach informed by patients needs and surgeons needs. Clinicians have developed confidence in the clinical relevance of the MAPT scores. Uptake of the OWL model of care has been very high because it facilitates better care and better patient outcomes

Objectives. The annual incidence of hip fracture is 620 000 in the European Union. The cost of this clinical problem has been estimated at 1.75 million disability-adjusted life years lost, equating to 1.4% of the total healthcare burden in established market economies. Recent guidance from The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) states that research into the clinical and cost effectiveness of total hip arthroplasty (THA) as a treatment for hip fracture is a priority. We asked the question: can a trial investigating THA for hip fracture currently be delivered in the NHS?. Methods. We performed a contemporaneous process evaluation that provides a context for the interpretation of the findings of WHiTE Two – a randomised study of THA for hip fracture. We developed a mixed methods approach to situate the trial centre within the context of wider United Kingdom clinical practice. We focused on fidelity, implementation, acceptability and feasibility of both the trial processes and interventions to stakeholder groups, such as healthcare providers and patients. Results. We have shown that patients are willing to participate in this type of research and that surgeons value being part of a team that has a strong research ethos. However, surgical practice does not currently reflect NICE guidance. Current models of service delivery for hip fractures are unlikely to be able to provide timely total hip arthroplasty for suitable patients. Conclusions. Further observational research should be conducted to define the population of interest before future interventional studies are performed. Cite this article: C. Huxley, J. Achten, M. L. Costa, F. Griffiths, X. L. Griffin. A process evaluation of the WHiTE Two trial comparing total hip arthroplasty with and without dual mobility component in the treatment of displaced intracapsular fractures of the proximal femur: Can a trial investigating total hip arthroplasty for hip fracture be delivered in the NHS? Bone Joint Res 2016;5:444–452. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.510.BJR-2015-0008.R1

There is a growing requirement by governmental and other funders of research, that investigators pay attention to and integrate considerations of sex and gender in their health research studies. Doing so, the argument goes, will reduce data waste, lead to the generation of more complete and accurate evidence to apply to the delivery of health care, and hopefully improve outcomes for both male and female patients. Yet, it is not always clear what sex and gender mean and how best to apply these to the study of diverse health conditions and health service delivery. In this presentation sex, gender and other related factors will be considered in the context of fractures, fracture repair, and post-operative management. Examples of sex and gender bias, sex and gender differences, and the integration of sex and gender in research on fracture and fracture repair will be presented

Background. The Bundled Payments for Care Improvement (BPCI) was developed by the US Center for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) to evaluate a payment and service delivery model to reduce cost but preserve quality. 90 day postoperative expenditures are reconciled against a target price, allowing for a monetary bonus to the provider if savings were achieved. The surgeon is placed in a position to optimize the patients preoperatively to minimize expensive postoperative cardiovascular readmissions in a high risk population. Traditionally, surgeons request that primary care providers medically clear the patient for surgery with or without additional cardiology consultation, without dictating specific testing. Typical screening includes an EKG, occasionally an echocardiogram and nuclear stress test, and rarely a cardiac catheterization. Our participation in the BPCI program for total hip and knee replacement surgeries since 1/1/15 has demonstrated a significant number of patients having readmissions for cardiac events. Objective. To determine the medical effectiveness and cost savings of instituting a new innovative cardiac screening program (Preventive Cardio-Orthopaedics) for total hip and knee replacement patients in the BPCI program and to compare result to those managed in the more traditional fashion. Methods. The new screening program was instituted on 11/1/17 directed by an advanced cardiac imaging cardiologist (EH). Testing included an electrocardiogram, echocardiogram, carotid and abdominal ultrasound, and coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA). If needed, a 3 day cardiac rhythm monitor was also performed. Four of the ten physicians in our group performing hip and knee replacement surgeries participated. Charts of readmitted patients were reviewed to determine past medical history, method of cardiac clearance, length and cost of readmission. Results. 1,361 patients had total hip or knee replacement in the BPCI program between 1/1/15 and 1/28/18 and all had complete 90 day postoperative readmission data supplied by the CMS, with 25 of these patients evaluated through the Preventive Cardio- Orthopaedics program. 12 (0.90%) screened via the traditional cardiac program had a cardiac event readmission. The average readmission hospital stay was 3.67 days at a total cost of $69,378. 7 of 12 had a preoperative clearance by a cardiologist. In 9 of the 12 patients, the only preoperative cardiac screening tool performed was an electrocardiogram. None of these 25 patients evaluated through the new program has been readmitted. 84 more patients have been evaluated in this program since 1/28/18, but 90 day readmission data is still incomplete. Preliminary data suggests that the highest risk in these patients is not severe coronary artery disease, but atrial fibrillation, hypertension with left ventricular hypertrophy, and cardiac plaques with ulceration. Conclusions. Risk sharing programs have forced joint replacement surgeons to take a more active role in optimizing their patients medically; otherwise they will be penalized with a decreased reimbursement. Traditionally, we have abdicated this responsibility to primary care and cardiology physicians but have noted a high readmission risk with a cardiac event. In response, we have begun using a unique cardiac screening model. Our preliminary experience predicts fewer cardiac readmissions thereby improving care, and at a lower cost

Competition ratios for Core Surgical Training (CST) and Higher Specialist Training in Trauma & Orthopaedic (T&O) surgery have decreased over the last 5 years. Whilst multifactorial, one reason thought to contribute to career decision- making, is junior doctors' experience whilst working in that specialty. This study aimed to identify ‘who’ is currently working on the “1st on call” tier in T&O in the UK, and what clinical activities are undertaken. Collaborators were recruited between 12/09/2015 – 17/01/2016 via the BOTA networks. Data was prospectively collected between 18/01/2015 and 22/01/2015. Each collaborator completed a coded clinical activity diary for all doctors on the “1st on call” rota for T&O in their hospital. Activity parameters included doctor grade, rota gaps, operative and clinic exposure, on call activity, and ward cover. 221 collaborators submitted clinical activity data regarding 933 junior doctors from 100 T&O departments in the UK. 30 rota gaps were identified. The mean number of junior tier doctors was 9 (range 1–23). The “Lost Tribe” comprised Foundation Year 2 (26%), Core Surgical Trainee (19%), Trust Grade (20%), and locum doctors (13%), amongst other grades. During the study period, 2.5% of the ‘Lost Tribe’s' time was allocated to clinic, 2.7% to theatre, 27% to ward cover and 34.6% to zero sessions. Doctors-in-training make up a minority of the workforce and as such, the T&O profession need to do more to ensure that junior doctors are exposed to clinics and operative lists to specifically address the balance between training and service delivery

Introduction. Albania is one of the poorest countries in Western European with a GDP per capita standing at 26 percent of the EU average in 2010. Whilst there is government-funded universal free provision of healthcare, it is accepted that delivery is patchy, not accessible to all and lacking expertise for more complex paediatric orthopaedic conditions. With the sponsorship of a UK-based charity, we have set up and completed 5 visits to Albania (3 assessment and 2 operative) to provide additional expertise for paediatric orthopaedic disorders running parallel to and utilising currently available local services. We present the results of this treatment and training programme to date. Patients and methods. Between 2008 and 2011, we assessed 204 children and adolescents with paediatric orthopaedic disorders in Tirana and Durres on 3 separate visits. Of these, 28 were listed for surgical procedures whilst the rest were treated non-operatively. Of the listed patients, 14 patients underwent surgical intervention (total of 18 procedures). Results. The most common diagnoses were developmental dysplasia of the hip, club feet, cerebral palsy and scoliosis. Most patients were treated non-operatively with advice and/or reassurance. Of those listed for surgery, the reasons for cancellation included problems with access to the treating hospital and failure to establish patient contact on the day of admission. Of the operated patients, the procedures performed, the perioperative challenges and significant complications (2/18) will be discussed. Conclusion. Although it is viable to establish parallel service delivery of paediatric orthopaedic surgical services in countries such as Albania, the perioperative and social challenges must be considered

Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is an uncommon but serious complication of hip and knee replacement. We investigated the rates of revision surgery for the treatment of PJI following primary and revision hip and knee replacement, explored time trends, and estimated the overall surgical burden created by PJI. We analysed the National Joint Registry for England and Wales for revision hip and knee replacements performed for a diagnosis of PJI and their index procedures from 2003–2014. The index hip replacements consisted of 623,253 primary and 63,222 aseptic revision hip replacements with 7,642 revisions subsequently performed for PJI; for knee replacements the figures were 679,010 primary and 33,920 aseptic revision knee replacements with 8,031 revisions subsequently performed for PJI. Cumulative incidence functions, prevalence rates and the burden of PJI in terms of total procedures performed as a result of PJI were calculated. Revision rates for PJI equated to 43 out of every 10,000 primary hip replacements (2,705/623,253), i.e. 0.43%(95%CI 0.42–0.45), subsequently being revised due to PJI. Around 158 out of every 10,000 aseptic revision hip replacements performed were subsequently revised for PJI (997/63,222), i.e. 1.58%(1.48–1.67). For knees, the respective rates were 0.54%(0.52–0.56) for primary replacements, i.e. 54 out of every 10,000 primary replacements performed (3,659/679,010) and 2.11%(1.96–2.23) for aseptic revision replacements, i.e. 211 out of every 10,000 aseptic revision replacements performed (717/33,920). Between 2005 and 2013, the risk of revision for PJI in the 3 months following primary hip replacement rose by 2.29 fold (1.28–4.08) and after aseptic revision by 3.00 fold (1.06–8.51); for knees, it rose by 2.46 fold (1.15–5.25) after primary replacement and 7.47 fold (1.00–56.12) after aseptic revision. The rates of revision for PJI performed at any time beyond 3 months from the index surgery remained stable or decreased over time. From a patient perspective, after accounting for the competing risk of revision for an aseptic indication and death, the 10-year cumulative incidence of revision hip replacement for PJI was 0.62%(95%CI 0.59–0.65) following primary and 2.25%(2.08–2.43) following aseptic revision; for knees, the figures were 0.75%(0.72–0.78) following primary replacement and 3.13%(2.81–3.49) following aseptic revision. At a health service level, the absolute number of procedures performed as a consequence of hip PJI increased from 387 in 2005 to 1,013 in 2014, i.e. a relative increase of 2.6 fold. While 70% of those revisions were two-stage, the use of single stage revision increased from 17.6% in 2005 to 38.5% in 2014. For knees, the burden of PJI increased by 2.8 fold between 2005 and 2014. Overall, 74% of revisions were two-stage with an increase in use of single stage from 10.0% in 2005 to 29.0% in 2014. Although the risk of revision due to PJI following hip or knee replacement is low, it is rising. Given the burden and costs associated with performing revision joint replacement for prosthetic joint infection and the predicted increased incidence of both primary and revision hip replacement, this has substantial implications for service delivery

The demand for primary hip replacements has grown steadily over the past 20 years and continues to do so. The challenge is to deliver a high quality and cost-effective service by developing short-stay pathways to optimise patient care and outcome. A four-day hip protocol was established, with attention to detail on analgesia, thrombo-prophylaxis, mobilisation and patient motivation. A multi-disciplinary team was trained to deliver the pathway on a designated ward for primary hip replacements with the aim to discharge patients on the third post-operative day (four day stay in total). Before the initiation of this audit our average stay for primary hips was nine days. The national average stay is 10.6 days, with the top 10 trusts averaging 6.7 days. In the initial three-month trial, 66 hip replacements (39 females and 27 males) done by the hip team at Princess Elizabeth Orthopaedic Centre in Exeter were audited against the four-day hip protocol. Average age was 72.4 years (range 44 – 92 years). Two patients were discharged on the second post-operative day and another 15 patients on the third post-operative day. As a result, we managed to get 25.8% of the patients home within four days. Overall, the average length of stay was only 6.3 days. In conclusion, while we only achieved our target in 25.8% of patients, the project improved our overall length of stay remarkably. It is clearly evident that a targeted pathway focused to patient care in all aspects using a multi-disciplinary approach can improve the overall service delivery

The management of pathological fractures due to Metastatic Bone Disease (MBD) and Primary Bone Tumours (PBTs) has implications for the Trauma service due to the extra pressures on staff, service delivery and budgets. We undertook an analysis of a cohort of patients presenting with MBD and PBTs. A retrospective chart review of all cases with MBD and PBTs admitted to a 40-bed Trauma Unit between 2005 and 2009 was conducted. The study looked at frequency, primary pathology, and site of pathology/fracture, time from primary diagnosis to referral, subsequent interventions and others. The results identified 34 patients, 21 females (62%) and 13 males (38%) (mean age: 64.6 years) with MBD or PBTs. Metastases secondary to breast cancer (n=13, 38%) and Myeloma (n=5, 15%) were the most common with the majority being found in the femur (n=22, 65%) and the Humerus (n=6, 18%). The mean time from primary tumour diagnosis to fracture referral was 29.6 months with 27 (79%) patients undergoing definitive surgical management within the unit. The conclusions of the study demonstrate that a wide variety of pathology presented to the unit over a 5 year period. Considerable variation was noted in the time from primary tumour diagnosis to presentation with a fracture. This could be due to improvements in treatments of specific cancers or a lack of understanding of what an Orthopaedic surgeon can offer the cancer patient. No definitive increase in pathological fractures was seen. The consensus opinion is that prompt and appropriate management of pathological fractures in cancer patients is cost effective. Management of these injuries, in a Trauma Unit, represents a small, but significant part of the annual work-load. While no significant trend has been seen, with respect to an increased incidence, it is noted that a proportion of these patients were a number of years from their initial diagnosis. With improvements in the survivorship of cancer patients, close scrutiny will be required to determine whether this ultimately translates into an increased fracture burden

Systems for collecting information about patient care are increasingly common in orthopaedic practice. Databases can allow various comparisons to be made over time. Significant decisions regarding service delivery and clinical practice may be made based on their results. We set out to determine the number of cases needed for comparison of Thirty-day mortality, inpatient wound infection rates and mean hospital length of stay, with a power of 80% for the demonstration of an effect at a significance level of p< 0.05. We analysed two years of prospectively collected data on 1,050 hip fracture patients admitted to a city teaching hospital. Power calculations were performed using standard equations from the literature. Detection of a 10% difference in 30 day mortality would require 14,065 patients in each arm of any comparison, demonstration of a 50% difference would require 643 patients in each arm; For wound infections, demonstration of a 10% difference in incidence would require 23,921 patients in each arm and 1127 patients for demonstration of a 50% difference; For length of stay, a difference of 10% would require 1,479 patients and 6660 patients for a 50% difference. Our data helps to illustrate the importance of sample size when interpreting the results of performance monitoring. Since a unit as large as our own only admits 525 patients per year, comparisons between trusts would require very prolonged data collection. Within a single unit the demonstration of poor performance by one surgeon or one team would clearly be impossible. Statistically meaningful analyses will only be possible with major multi-centre collaborations, as will be possible if hospital Trusts participate in the National Hip Fracture Database

Aims

This study aims to determine difference in annual rate of early-onset (≤ 90 days) deep surgical site infection (SSI) following primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) for osteoarthritis, and to identify risk factors that may be associated with infection.

The Unified Classification System (UCS), or Vancouver system, is a validated and widely used classification system to guide the management of periprosthetic femoral fractures. It suggests that well-fixed stems (type B1) can be treated with fixation but that loose stems (types B2 and B3) should be revised. Determining whether a stem is loose can be difficult and some authors have questioned how to apply this classification system to polished taper slip stems which are, by definition, loose within their cement mantle. Recent evidence has challenged the common perception that revision surgery is preferable to fixation surgery for UCS-B periprosthetic fractures around cemented polished taper slip stems. Indications for fixation include an anatomically reducible fracture and cement mantle, a well-fixed femoral bone-cement interface, and a well-functioning acetabular component. However, not all type B fractures can or should be managed with fixation due to the risk of early failure. This annotation details specific fracture patterns that should not be managed with fixation alone.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(5):481–486.

Aims

National hip fracture registries audit similar aspects of care but there is variation in the actual data collected; these differences restrict international comparison, benchmarking, and research. The Fragility Fracture Network (FFN) published a revised minimum common dataset (MCD) in 2022 to improve consistency and interoperability. Our aim was to assess compatibility of existing registries with the MCD.