Aims. Periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) and fracture-related infections (FRIs) are associated with a significant risk of adverse events. However, there is a paucity of data on cardiac complications following revision surgery for PJI and FRI and how they impact overall mortality. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the risk of perioperative myocardial injury (PMI) and mortality in this patient cohort. Methods. We prospectively included consecutive patients at high cardiovascular risk (defined as age ≥ 45 years with pre-existing coronary, peripheral, or cerebrovascular artery disease, or any patient aged ≥ 65 years, plus a postoperative hospital stay of > 24 hours) undergoing septic or aseptic major orthopaedic surgery between July 2014 and October 2016. All patients received a systematic screening to reliably detect PMI, using serial measurements of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T. All-cause mortality was assessed at one year. Multivariable logistic regression models were applied to compare incidence of PMI and mortality between patients undergoing septic revision surgery for PJI or FRI, and patients receiving aseptic major bone and joint surgery. Results. In total, 911 consecutive patients were included. The overall perioperative myocardial injury (PMI) rate was 15.4% (n = 140). Septic revision surgery for PJI was associated with a significantly higher PMI rate (43.8% (14/32) vs 14.5% (57/393); p = 0.001) and one-year mortality rate (18.6% (6/32) vs 7.4% (29/393); p = 0.038) compared to aseptic revision or primary arthroplasty. The association with PMI persisted in multivariable analysis with an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 4.7 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.1 to 10.7; p < 0.001), but was not statistically significant for one-year mortality (aOR 1.9 (95% CI 0.7 to 5.4; p = 0.240). PMI rate (15.2% (5/33) vs 14.1% (64/453)) and one-year mortality (15.2% (5/33) vs 9.1% (41/453)) after FRI revision surgery were comparable to aseptic long-bone fracture surgery. Conclusion. Patients undergoing revision surgery for PJI were at a risk of PMI and death compared to those undergoing aseptic arthroplasty surgery. Screening for PMI and treatment in specialized multidisciplinary units should be considered in major bone and joint infections. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(6):696–702

Aims

To investigate whether chronic kidney disease (CKD) is associated with the risk of all-cause revision or revision due to a periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after primary hip or knee arthroplasty.

Older patients with multiple medical co-morbidities are increasingly being offered and undergoing total joint arthroplasty (TJA). These patients are more likely to require intensive care support, following surgery. We prospectively evaluated the need for intensive care admission and intervention in a consecutive series of 738 patients undergoing elective hip and knee arthroplasty procedures. The mean age was 60.6 years (18 to 91; 440 women, 298 men. Risk factors, correlating with the need for critical care intervention, according to published guidelines, were analysed to identify high-risk patients who would benefit from post-operative critical care monitoring. A total of 50 patients (6.7%) in our series required critical care level interventions during their hospital stay. Six independent multivariate clinical predictors were identified (p < 0.001) including a history of congestive heart failure (odds ratio (OR) 24.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) 9.51 to 61.91), estimated blood loss >  1000 mL (OR 17.36, 95% CI 5.36 to 56.19), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (13.90, 95% CI 4.78 to 40.36), intra-operative use of vasopressors (OR 8.10, 95% CI 3.23 to 20.27), revision hip arthroplasty (OR 2.71, 95% CI 1.04 to 7.04) and body mass index > 35 kg/m² (OR 2.70, 95% CI 123 to 5.94). The model was then validated against an independent, previously published data set of 1594 consecutive patients. The use of this risk stratification model can be helpful in predicting which high-risk patients would benefit from a higher level of monitoring and care after elective TJA and aid hospitals in allocating precious critical care resources.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1512–18.

The aim of this study was to define return to theatre (RTT) rates for elective hip and knee replacement (HR and KR), to describe the predictors and to show the variations in risk-adjusted rates by surgical team and hospital using national English hospital administrative data.

We examined information on 260 206 HRs and 315 249 KRs undertaken between April 2007 and March 2012. The 90-day RTT rates were 2.1% for HR and 1.8% for KR. Male gender, obesity, diabetes and several other comorbidities were associated with higher odds for both index procedures. For HR, hip resurfacing had half the odds of cement fixation (OR = 0.58, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.47 to 0.71). For KR, unicondylar KR had half the odds of total replacement (OR = 0.49, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.56), and younger ages had higher odds (OR = 2.23, 95% CI 1.65 to 3.01) for ages < 40 years compared with ages 60 to 69 years). There were more funnel plot outliers at three standard deviations than would be expected if variation occurred on a random basis.

Hierarchical modelling showed that three-quarters of the variation between surgeons for HR and over half the variation between surgeons for KR are not explained by the hospital they operated at or by available patient factors. We conclude that 90-day RTT rate may be a useful quality indicator for orthopaedics.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014; 96-B:1663–8.

In order to compare the effect of oral apixaban (a factor Xa inhibitor) with subcutaneous enoxaparin on major venous thromboembolism and major and non-major clinically relevant bleeding after total knee and hip replacement, we conducted a pooled analysis of two previously reported double-blind randomised studies involving 8464 patients. One group received apixaban 2.5 mg twice daily (plus placebo injection) starting 12 to 24 hours after operation, and the other received enoxaparin subcutaneously once daily (and placebo tablets) starting 12 hours (± 3) pre-operatively. Each regimen was continued for 12 days (± 2) after knee and 35 days (± 3) after hip arthroplasty. All outcomes were centrally adjudicated. Major venous thromboembolism occurred in 23 of 3394 (0.7%) evaluable apixaban patients and in 51 of 3394 (1.5%) evaluable enoxaparin patients (risk difference, apixaban minus enoxaparin, -0.8% (95% confidence interval (CI) -1.2 to -0.3); two-sided p = 0.001 for superiority). Major bleeding occurred in 31 of 4174 (0.7%) apixaban patients and 32 of 4167 (0.8%) enoxaparin patients (risk difference -0.02% (95% CI -0.4 to 0.4)). Combined major and clinically relevant non-major bleeding occurred in 182 (4.4%) apixaban patients and 206 (4.9%) enoxaparin patients (risk difference -0.6% (95% CI -1.5 to 0.3)).

Apixaban 2.5 mg twice daily is more effective than enoxaparin 40 mg once daily without increased bleeding.

We audited the relationship between obesity and the age at which hip and knee replacement was undertaken at our centre. The database was analysed for age, the Oxford hip or knee score and the body mass index (BMI) at the time of surgery. In total, 1369 patients were studied, 1025 treated by hip replacement and 344 by knee replacement. The patients were divided into five groups based on their BMI (normal, overweight, moderately obese, severely obese and morbidly obese).

The difference in the mean Oxford score at surgery was not statistically significant between the groups (p > 0.05). For those undergoing hip replacement, the mean age of the morbidly obese patients was ten years less than that of those with a normal BMI. For those treated by knee replacement, the difference was 13 years. The age at surgery fell significantly for those with a BMI > 35 kg/m² for both hip and knee replacement (p > 0.05). This association was stronger for patients treated by knee than by hip replacement.