Considerable debate exists regarding which agent(s) should be preferred for venous thromboembolism (VTE) chemical prophylaxis following joint replacement. We assessed the practice of surgeons regarding VTE chemical prophylaxis for primary THR and TKR, pre and post issuing of updated NICE guidance in 2018. A survey, circulated through the British Hip Society and regional trainee networks/collaboratives, was completed by 306 UK surgeons at 187 units. VTE chemical prophylaxis prescribing patterns for surgeons carrying out primary THR (n=258) and TKR (n=253) in low-risk patients were assessed post publication of 2018 NICE recommendations. Prescribing patterns before and after the NICE publication were subsequently explored. Questions were also asked about surgeon equipoise for participation in future RCTs. Following the new guidance, 34% (n=87) used low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH) alone, 33% (n=85) aspirin (commonly preceded by LMWH), and 31% (n=81) direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs: with/without preceding LMWH) for THR. For TKR, 42% (n=105) used aspirin (usually monotherapy), 31% (n=78) LMWH alone, and 27% (n=68) DOAC (with/without preceding LMWH). NICE guidance changed the practice of 34% of hip and 41% of knee surgeons, with significantly increased use of aspirin preceded by LMWH for THR (before=25% vs. after=73%;p<0.001), and aspirin for TKR (before=18% vs. after=84%;p<0.001). Significantly more regimens were NICE guidance compliant after the 2018 update for THR (before=85.7% vs. after=92.6%;p=0.011) and TKR (before=87.0% vs. after=98.8%;p<0.001). Support from surgeons for future RCTs was dependent on the clinical question, ranging from 48% participation in trials (effectiveness of aspirin vs. a DOAC) to 79% (effectiveness of 14 days LMWH vs. 28 days LMWH). Over one-third of surveyed surgeons changed their VTE chemical prophylaxis in response to 2018 NICE recommendations, with more THR and TKR surgeons now compliant with latest NICE guidance. The major change in practice was an increased use of aspirin for VTE chemical prophylaxis. Furthermore, there is an appetite amongst UK surgeons for participating in future RCTs, with a trial comparing standard versus extended duration LMWH likely feasible in current practice

Introduction. Between 2005 and 2010, the number of revision hip arthroplasties rose by 49.1%, and revision knee arthroplasties by 92.1%. This number is predicted to rise by 31% and 332% respectively by 2030. In March 2014, NHS England invited bids to run a pilot revision network. Nottingham Elective Orthopaedic Service (NEOS) was successful and the East Midlands Specialist Orthopaedic Network (EMSON) runs on a ‘hub-and-spoke’ model. Patients/Materials & Methods. All patients within the EMSON area requiring revision arthroplasty are discussed at a weekly meeting. The meeting is chaired by a revision hip and knee surgeon and attended by arthroplasty surgeons and an orthopaedic microbiologist. Other specialties are available as required. EMSON discussions and a proposed management plan are recorded, signed by the Chair and returned as a permanent record in the patient's notes. Results. To date, 255 arthroplasties in 253 patients have been discussed. 131 have been for revision hip arthroplasties. Two patients had both problematic hip and knee replacements. In 47% of the cases there was a recommendation to change the management plan. Several of these changes have been significant. 4% of cases have been transferred to NUH for revision surgery. In 35% of cases extra loan kit was likely to be required, predominantly in the spoke hospitals. Discussion. Although we have not seen many patients transferred to NEOS, we have seen a 20% increase in tertiary referrals from the spoke hospitals. Surgeons taking part in EMSON have expressed their satisfaction with the support received from EMSON. Conclusion. Discussing these complex cases supports revision surgeons in the region and is likely to improve patient care. We note a high number of changes to the management plan and an increase in direct referrals to NEOS. EMSON has been well received and we recommend this approach to other regions

This conversation represents an attempt by several arthroplasty surgeons to critique several abstracts presented over the last year as well as to use them as a jumping off point for trying to figure out where they fit in into our current understanding of multiple issues in modern hip and knee arthroplasty.