The purpose of this modified Delphi study was to obtain consensus on wound closure (including best practices for each tissue layer of closure) and dressing management in total hip arthroplasty (THA), using an evidence-based approach. The Delphi panel included 20 orthopedic surgeons from Europe and North America. Eighteen statements were identified (14 specific to THA and 4 relating to both THA and total knee arthroplasty) using a targeted literature review. Consensus was developed on the statements with up to three rounds of anonymous voting per topic. Panelists ranked their agreement with each statement on a five-point Likert scale. An a priori threshold of 75% was required for consensus. In Round 1, 15 of 18 statements achieved consensus via a structured electronic questionnaire. In Round 2, the 3 statements that did not achieve consensus were revised during a virtual face to face meeting. An additional 2 statements were edited for clarity. In Round 3, the 5 revised statements achieved consensus via a structured electronic questionnaire. Wound closure related interventions that were recommended for use in THA included: 1) barbed sutures over non-barbed sutures (shorter closing times and overall cost savings); 2) subcuticular sutures over skin staples (lower risk of infections and higher patient preference); 3) mesh-adhesives over silver-impregnated dressings (lower rate of wound complications); 4) negative pressure wound therapy over other dressings (lower wound complications and reoperations and fewer dressing changes); 5) triclosan coated sutures (lower risk of surgical site infection). Using a modified Delphi approach, a panel of 20 orthopedic surgeons achieved consensus on 18 statements pertaining to multi-layer wound closure and dressing management in THA. This study forms the basis for identifying critical evidence gaps within wound management to help reduce variability in outcomes during THA

Aims

The Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) was introduced in 1997 to address the needs of young active patients using a historically proven large-diameter metal-on-metal (MoM) bearing. A single designer surgeon’s consecutive series of 130 patients (144 hips) was previously reported at five and ten years, reporting three and ten failures, respectively. The aim of this study was to extend the follow-up of this original cohort at 25 years.

Patients considered suitable for total hip resurfacing arthroplasty often have bilateral disease. The peri-operative complications, transfusion requirements, hospital stay, outcome and costs in patients undergoing one-stage bilateral total hip resurfacing were compared with a group of patients undergoing a two-stage procedure. A total of 92 patients were included in the study, of which 37 (40%) had a one-stage and 55 (60%) had a two-stage resurfacing. There were no significant differences in age, gender, or American Society of Anaesthesiologists grade between the groups (p = 0.31, p = 0.23, p = 0.13, respectively). There were three systemic complications in the one-stage group (8.1%) and one in the two-stage group (1.8% of patients; 0.9% of procedures). There was no significant difference in the complication rate (p = 0.72) or the transfusion requirements (p = 0.32) between the two groups. The one-stage group had a reduced total hospital stay of five days (95% confidence interval 4.0 to 6.9; p < 0.001), reduced length of time to completion of all surgery of five months (95% confidence interval 2.6 to 8.3; p < 0.001), and the reduced cost was 35% less than that of a two-stage procedure. However, the total anaesthetic time was significantly longer for the one-stage group (p < 0.001; 95% confidence interval 31 to 52).

This study demonstrates that consideration should be given to one-stage surgery for patients with bilateral symptomatic disease suitable for metal-on-metal hip resurfacing. A one-stage procedure appears to have benefits for both the patient and the hospital without additional complications.

We compared the safety and outcome of one-stage bilateral total hip arthroplasty with those of a two-stage procedure during different admissions in a prospective, randomised controlled trial in an Asian population. Of 168 patients included in the study, 83 had a single- and 85 a two-stage procedure. Most of the patients (59.9%) suffered from inflammatory arthritis.

The intra-operative complications, early systemic complications, the operating time, positioning of the components, the functional score, restoration of limb length and survival rates at 96 months were similar in the two groups. The total estimated blood loss was significantly lower in patients undergoing a one-stage procedure than in patients who had a two-stage procedure, but the transfusion requirements were significantly higher in the former group (p = 0.001). The hospital stay was significantly shorter in the one-stage group, 7.25 days (sd 1.30; 5 to 20) compared with 10 days (sd 1.65; 8 to 24) in the two-stage group (p = 0.023). We believe that a one-stage procedure is safe and appropriate in our population.