Aims. The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted the provision of arthroplasty services in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. This study aimed to quantify the backlog, analyze national trends, and predict time to recovery. Methods. We performed an analysis of the mandatory prospective national registry of all independent and publicly funded hip, knee, shoulder, elbow, and ankle replacements in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland between January 2019 and December 2022 inclusive, totalling 729,642 operations. The deficit was calculated per year compared to a continuation of 2019 volume. Total deficit of cases between 2020 to 2022 was expressed as a percentage of 2019 volume. Sub-analyses were performed based on procedure type, country, and unit sector. Results. Between January 2020 and December 2022, there was a deficit of 158,994 joint replacements. This is equivalent to over two-thirds of a year of normal expected operating activity (71.6%). There were 104,724 (-47.1%) fewer performed in 2020, 41,928 (-18.9%) fewer performed in 2021, and 12,342 (-5.6%) fewer performed in 2022, respectively, than in 2019. Independent-sector procedures increased to make it the predominant arthroplasty provider (53% in 2022). NHS activity was 73.2% of 2019 levels, while independent activity increased to 126.8%. Wales (-136.3%) and Northern Ireland (-121.3%) recorded deficits of more than a year’s worth of procedures, substantially more than England (-66.7%). It would take until 2031 to eliminate this deficit with an immediate expansion of capacity over 2019 levels by 10%. Conclusion. The arthroplasty deficit following the COVID-19 pandemic is now equivalent to over two-thirds of a year of normal operating activity, and continues to increase. Patients awaiting different types of arthroplasty, in each country, have been affected disproportionately. A rapid and significant expansion in services is required to address the deficit, and will still take many years to rectify. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(8):834–841

Aims

Return to sport following undergoing total (TKA) and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has been researched with meta-analyses and systematic reviews of varying quality. The aim of this study is to create an umbrella review to consolidate the data into consensus guidelines for returning to sports following TKA and UKA.

Aims. In the UK, the NHS generates an estimated 25 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents (4% to 5% of the nation’s total carbon emissions) and produces over 500,000 tonnes of waste annually. There is limited evidence demonstrating the principles of sustainability and its benefits within orthopaedic surgery. The primary aim of this study was to analyze the environmental impact of orthopaedic surgery and the environmentally sustainable initiatives undertaken to address this. The secondary aim of this study was to describe the barriers to making sustainable changes within orthopaedic surgery. Methods. A literature search was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines through EMBASE, Medline, and PubMed libraries using two domains of terms: “orthopaedic surgery” and “environmental sustainability”. Results. A total of 13 studies were included in the final analysis. All papers studied the environmental impact of orthopaedic surgery in one of three areas: waste management, resource consumption, and carbon emissions. Waste segregation was a prevalent issue and described by nine studies, with up to 74.4% of hazardous waste being generated. Of this, six studies reported recycling waste and up to 43.9% of waste per procedure was recyclable. Large joint arthroplasties generated the highest amount of recyclable waste per procedure. Three studies investigated carbon emissions from intraoperative consumables, sterilization methods, and through the use of telemedicine. One study investigated water wastage and demonstrated that simple changes to practice can reduce water consumption by up to 63%. The two most common barriers to implementing environmentally sustainable changes identified across the studies was a lack of appropriate infrastructure and lack of education and training. Conclusion. Environmental sustainability in orthopaedic surgery is a growing area with a wide potential for meaningful change. Further research to cumulatively study the carbon footprint of orthopaedic surgery and the wider impact of environmentally sustainable changes is necessary. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(8):628–640

The February 2024 Research Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: If you use a surgical helmet, you should seal your gown-glove interface; The use of iodophor-impregnated drapes in patients with iodine-related allergies: a case series and review of the literature; Location of the ovaries in children and efficacy of gonadal shielding in hip and pelvis radiography; Prehospital tranexamic acid administration does not improve outcomes in severe trauma patients; Silver-coated distal femur megaprosthesis in chronic infections with severe bone loss: a multicentre case series.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2023;12(4):256–258.

Reports of improved functional outcome of Metal on Metal Hip Resurfacing Arthroplasty (mHRA) to Total Hip Replacement needs to be balanced with concerns of metal ion release. By removing cobalt-chrome, cHRA reduces these risks. To the author's knowledge, there is no data available on functional outcomes of cHRA, therefore the aim of the study was to compare the function between cHRA patients and mHRA patients. 24 patients received a unilateral cHRA (H1, Embody) and was compared to 24 age and gender matched patients with a unilateral mHRA (BHR, Smith and Nephew). All patients completed the Oxford Hip Score (OHS)[T2] and underwent gait analysis on an instrumented treadmill before and at a mean of 74wks (+/− 10) for mHRA and 53wks (+/− 2) for cHRA post op. Walking trials started at 4km/h and increased in 0.5km/h increments until a top walking speed (TWS) was achieved. Vertical ground reaction forces (GRF) were recorded along with the symmetry index (SI). Spatiotemporal measures of gait were also recorded. Vertical GRF were captured for the entire normalised stance phase using statistical parametric mapping (SPM; CI = 95%). The gain in OHS was similar: H1 (25-46), BHR(27-47). TWS increased by 19% with H1 (6.02 – 8.0km/hr), and 20% with BHR (6.02 – 7.37km/hr). SPM of the entire gait cycle illustrated the restoration of symmetry in both groups with no difference in GRF across the stance phase between groups at 5km/hr pre-op and post-op. At faster speeds (6.5km/hr), H1 patients had a mid-support GRF slightly closer to normal compared to BHR. Both groups increased step length similar from pre to post op (H1:0.76 – 0.85cm, BHR:0.77-0.86cm). In this study, subjective and objective functional outcome measures suggest that short term functional outcomes of ceramic resurfacing is not inferior to metal resurfacing

Aims. To compare complication-related reoperation rates following primary arthroplasty for proximal humerus fractures (PHFs) versus secondary arthroplasty for failed open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). Patients and Methods. We identified patients aged 50 years and over, who sustained a PHF between 2004 and 2015, from linkable datasets. We used intervention codes to identify patients treated with initial ORIF or arthroplasty, and those treated with ORIF who returned for revision arthroplasty within two years. We used multilevel logistic regression to compare reoperations between groups. Results. We identified 1624 patients who underwent initial arthroplasty for PHF, and 98 patients who underwent secondary arthroplasty following failed ORIF. In total, 72 patients (4.4%) in the primary arthroplasty group had a reoperation within two years following arthroplasty, compared with 19 patients (19.4%) in the revision arthroplasty group. This difference was significantly different (p < 0.001) after covariable adjustment. Conclusion. The number of reoperations following arthroplasty for failed ORIF of PHF is significantly higher compared with primary arthroplasty. This suggests that primary arthroplasty may be a better choice for patients whose prognostic factors suggest a high reoperation rate following ORIF. Prospective clinical studies are required to confirm these findings. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:1272–1279

In 1975, Sweden started registering primary knee replacement surgeries based on the personal identity number. Individual-based registrations of primary total hip replacements started in 1992 and for hemiarthroplasties the registration started in 2006. The completeness of these registrations is estimated at 98% during the last 10-year period. The long history and high completeness allow for accurate calculations of population-based prevalence of joint replacement and trends over time. We used all data on primary joint replacements available in the Swedish Arthroplasty Register. The prevalence was calculated using number of alive patients with 1) at least one joint replacement 2) at least one hip replacement 3) at least one knee replacement at the end of each year from 2010 – 2021. Publicly available population numbers were retrieved from Statistics Sweden. We calculated total prevalence and prevalence per age in years. By the end of 2021, 3.2% of the Swedish population had at least one hip or knee replacement. This was an increase from 2.5% in 2010. Among 80-year-old, the prevalence was 17.5% for any joint replacement. For both hip and knee replacement and all ages, the prevalence was higher for women. For knee replacement, the 2021 prevalence peaked at the age of 89 (9,4%) while the prevalence continuously increased with age for hip replacements. A considerable proportion of the Swedish elderly population is living with at least one hip or knee replacement. The prevalence has increased during the last 12-year period for both hips and knees. An increasing prevalence may also affect the incidence of fractures and infections. Knowledge about the prevalence is fundamental for planning future demand for primary and revision hip and knee replacement

Aims. Cementing in arthroplasty for hip fracture is associated with improved postoperative function, but may have an increased risk of early mortality compared to uncemented fixation. Quantifying this mortality risk is important in providing safe patient care. This study investigated the association between cement use in arthroplasty and mortality at 30 days and one year in patients aged 50 years and over with hip fracture. Methods. This retrospective cohort study used linked data from the Australian Hip Fracture Registry and the National Death Index. Descriptive analysis and Kaplan-Meier survival curves tested the unadjusted association of mortality between cemented and uncemented procedures. Multilevel logistic regression, adjusted for covariates, tested the association between cement use and 30-day mortality following arthroplasty. Given the known institutional variation in preference for cemented fixation, an instrumental variable analysis was also performed to minimize the effect of unknown confounders. Adjusted Cox modelling analyzed the association between cement use and mortality at 30 days and one year following surgery. Results. The 30-day mortality was 6.9% for cemented and 4.9% for uncemented groups (p = 0.003). Cement use was significantly associated with 30-day mortality in the Kaplan-Meier survival curve (p = 0.003). After adjusting for covariates, no significant association between cement use and 30-day mortality was shown in the adjusted multilevel logistic regression (odd rati0 (OR) 1.1, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.9 to 1.5; p = 0.366), or in the instrumental variable analysis (OR 1.0, 95% CI 0.9 to 1.0, p=0.524). There was no significant between-group difference in mortality within 30days (hazard ratio (HR) 0.9, 95% CI 0.7to 1.1; p = 0.355) or one year (HR 0.9 95% CI 0.8 to 1.1; p = 0.328) in the Cox modelling. Conclusion. No statistically significant difference in patient mortality with cement use in arthroplasty was demonstrated in this population, once adjusted for covariates. This study concludes that cementing in arthroplasty for hip fracture is a safe means of surgical fixation. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(3):198–204

Aims. The aim of this study was to estimate time to arthroplasty among patients with hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA), and to identify factors at enrolment to first-line intervention that are prognostic for progression to surgery. Methods. In this longitudinal register-based observational study, we identified 72,069 patients with hip and knee OA in the Better Management of Patients with Osteoarthritis Register (BOA), who were referred for first-line OA intervention, between May 2008 and December 2016. Patients were followed until the first primary arthroplasty surgery before 31 December 2016, stratified into a hip and a knee OA cohort. Data were analyzed with Kaplan-Meier and multivariable-adjusted Cox regression. Results. At five years, Kaplan-Meier estimates showed that 46% (95% confidence interval (CI) 44.6 to 46.9) of those with hip OA, and 20% (95% CI 19.7 to 21.0) of those with knee OA, had progressed to arthroplasty. The strongest prognostic factors were desire for surgery (hazard ratio (HR) hip 3.12 (95% CI 2.95 to 3.31), HR knee 2.72 (95% CI 2.55 to 2.90)), walking difficulties (HR hip 2.20 (95% CI 1.97 to 2.46), HR knee 1.95 (95% CI 1.73 to 2.20)), and frequent pain (HR hip 1.56 (95% CI 1.40 to 1.73), HR knee 1.77 (95% CI 1.58 to 2.00)). In hip OA, the probability of progression to surgery was lower among those with comorbidities (e.g. ≥ four conditions; HR 0.64 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.69)), with no detectable effects in the knee OA cohort. Instead, being overweight or obese increased the probability of OA progress in the knee cohort (HR 1.25 (95% CI 1.15 to 1.37)), but not among those with hip OA. Conclusion. Patients with hip OA progressed faster and to a greater extent to arthroplasty than patients with knee OA. Progression was strongly influenced by patients’ desire for surgery and by factors related to severity of OA symptoms, but factors not directly related to OA symptoms are also of importance. However, a large proportion of patients with OA do not seem to require surgery within five years, especially among those with knee OA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(7):792–800

The development and implementation of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols are of particular interest in elective orthopaedics due to clinical benefits and cost effectiveness. The Wycombe Arthroplasty Rapid-Recovery Pathway (WARP) was designed to streamline hip and knee joint arthroplasty to reduce time spent in hospital whilst optimising outcomes in an NHS District General Hospital. 966 patients were admitted to Wycombe General Hospital for primary elective joint replacement (60 UKR, 446 THR, 460 TKR) during the period 1st September 2020 to 31st September 2022. The WARP pathway was used for 357 (37%) patients (32 UKR, 155 THR, 170 TKR) and the standard “non-WARP” pathway was used for 609 (63%) patients (28 UKR 291 THR, 290 TKR). Data was collected on length of stay, time of mobilisation, number of physiotherapy sessions, and inpatient morbidity. Average length of stay following UKR was 0.75 days for WARP vs 2.96 for non-WARP patients, following THR was 2.17 days for WARP vs 4.17 for non-WARP patients, following TKR was 3.4 days for WARP vs 3.92 for non-WARP patients. Day-0 mobilisation after UKR was achieved in 97% of WARP vs 12% of non-WARP patients, after THR in 43% of WARP vs 14% of non-WARP patients, after TKR in 33% of WARP vs 11% of non-WARP patients. Same-day discharge was achieved in the WARP cohort in 63% of UKR, 10% of THR, 2% of TKR patients. There were no same-day discharges in the non-WARP cohort. Complications delaying mobilisation (pain, nausea/vomiting, dizziness/low BP) were identified in 8.4% of WARP vs 25% of non-WARP patients. Our cohort study shows that the initiation of WARP Rapid Recovery pathway for joint arthroplasty decreased the average length of stay after UKR by 2.21 days, after THR by 2 days, after TKR by 0.52 days. Time to first mobilisation was decreased significantly by increased rates of same-day mobilisation and reduced rates of postoperative anaesthetic-related complications

This annotation reviews current concepts on the three most common surgical approaches used for proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty: dorsal, volar, and lateral. Advantages and disadvantages of each are highlighted, and the outcomes are discussed. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(12):1329–1333

Introduction. Circular external frames (CEF) are commonly used for a wide variety of indications, often when other devices are not appropriate. Circular frames are particularly associated with pin-site infection (PSI). Currently there is a gap in the available literature surrounding the risk of frame use with in-situ prosthetic joints. This retrospective study investigated the incidence of prosthetic joint infection (PJI) in a series of patients with in-situ arthroplasties treated with CEF. Materials & Methods. From a departmental database of 1052 frames performed from March 2007-March 2023, the outcomes of 34 patients (40 frames) with in-situ arthroplasties at the time of CEF were reviewed (mean follow-up 70 months). Patient identification was by review of all local and regional imaging. The primary outcome was development of PJI during or following CEF and subsequent need for surgical intervention. Secondary outcomes were development of superficial pin site or deep bone infection (without PJI). Results. Of 40 frames used to treat 34 patients, no PJIs were detected. Average patient age was 67 (range 55–82). 22 had cardio-respiratory disease, 11 diabetes, 15 smoked and 8 were immunosuppressed. 53 arthroplasties were in situ at the time of treatment, 12 involving the same bone as the frame. Average time in frame was 253 days. 23 patients developed PSI, 2 required a further procedure for persistent deep bone infection not involving the arthroplasties. Conclusions. Although this study involves a relatively low numbers of patients, our results are reassuring that circular frame management in patients with in-situ arthroplasty does not represent an unacceptable risk of PJI. We hope to promote these findings and encourage multi-centre collaboration to expand on the available evidence to better answer this important yet under-reported clinical question

Aims. The proximal tibia (PT) is the anatomical site most frequently affected by primary bone tumours after the distal femur. Reconstruction of the PT remains challenging because of the poor soft-tissue cover and the need to reconstruct the extensor mechanism. Reconstructive techniques include implantation of massive endoprosthesis (megaprosthesis), osteoarticular allografts (OAs), or allograft-prosthesis composites (APCs). Methods. This was a retrospective analysis of clinical data relating to patients who underwent proximal tibial arthroplasty in our regional bone tumour centre from 2010 to 2018. Results. A total of 76 patients fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in the study. Mean age at surgery was 43.2 years (12 to 86 (SD 21)). The mean follow-up period was 60.1 months (5.4 to 353). In total 21 failures were identified, giving an overall failure rate of 27.6%. Prosthesis survival at five years was 75.5%, and at ten years was 59%. At last follow-up, mean knee flexion was 89.8° (SD 36°) with a mean extensor lag of 18.1° (SD 24°). In univariate analysis, factors associated with better survival of the prosthesis were a malignant or metastatic cancer diagnosis (versus benign), with a five- and ten-year survival of 78.9% and 65.7% versus 37.5% (p = 0.045), while in-hospital length of stay longer than nine days was also associated with better prognosis with five- and ten-year survival rates at 84% and 84% versus 60% and 16% (p < 0.001). In multivariate analysis, only in-hospital length of stay was associated with longer survival (hazard ratio (HR) 0.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.08 to 0.66). Conclusion. We have shown that proximal tibial arthroplasty with endoprosthesis is a safe and reliable method for reconstruction in patients treated for orthopaedic oncological conditions. Either modular or custom implants in this series performed well. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(9):733–740

We aim to explore the potential technologies for monitoring and assessment of patients undergoing arthroplasty by examining selected literature focusing on the technology currently available and reflecting on possible future development and application. The reviewed literature indicates a large variety of different hardware and software, widely available and used in a limited manner, to assess patients’ performance. There are extensive opportunities to enhance and integrate the systems which are already in existence to develop patient-specific pathways for rehabilitation. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(10):1104–1109