Since its creation, labral repair has become the preferred method among surgeons for the arthroscopic treatment of acetabular labral tears resulting in pain and dysfunction for patients. Labral reconstruction is performed mainly in revision hip arthroscopy but can be used in the primary setting when the labrum cannot be repaired or is calcified. The purpose of this study was to compare the survival between primary labral repair and labral reconstruction with survival defined as no further surgery (revision or total hip replacement).

Patients who underwent labral repair or reconstruction between January 2005 and December 2018 in the primary setting were included in the study. Patients were included if they had primary hip arthroscopy with the senior author for femoroacetabular impingement (FAI), involving either labral reconstruction or labral repair, and were within the ages of 18 and 65 at the time of surgery. Exclusion criteria included confounding injuries (Leggs Calves Perthes, avascular necrosis, femoral head fracture, etc.), history of unilateral or bilateral hip surgeries, or Tönnis grades of 2 or 3 at the time of surgery. Labral repairs were performed when adequate tissue was available for repair and labral reconstruction was performed when tissue was absent, ossified or torn beyond repair.

A total of 501 labral repairs and 114 labral reconstructions performed in the primary setting were included in the study. Labral reconstruction patients were older (37±10) compared to labral repair (34±11).(p=0.021). Second surgeries were required in 19/114 (17%) of labral reconstruction and 40/501(8%) [odds ratio: 2.3; 95% CI 1.3 to 4.2] (p=0.008). Revision hip arthroscopy were required in 6/114(5%) labral reconstructions and 33/501(6.5%) labral repair (p=0.496). Total hip replacement was required in 13/114 labral reconstructions and 7/501 labral repairs [odds ratio:9.1 95%CI 3.5 to 23] (p=< 0.01). The mean survival for the labral repair group was 10.2 years (95%CI:10 to 10.5) and 11.9 years (98%CI:10.9 to 12.8) in the labral reconstruction group.

Conversion to total hip was required more often following primary labral reconstruction. Revision hip arthroscopy rates were similar between groups as was the mean survival, with both over 10 years. Similar survival was seen in labral repair and reconstruction when strict patient selection criteria are followed.

Aim. A significant number of patients undergoing shoulder arthroplasty surgery have C acnes contamination at the end of the primary surgery. The objective of this study is to determine whether patients with C acnes contamination at the end of their primary shoulder surgery have a worse prognosis than those who end up without C. acnes contamination. Method. Prospective study including all patients who underwent a reverse shoulder prosthesis from January 2015 to December 2018. In all of them, 5 to 12 cultures were performed during primary surgery. The patients underwent surgery for shoulder arthritis secondary to rotator cuff tears, acute fracture of the proximal humerus, and sequelae of fracture of the proximal humerus. Exclusion criteria included the existence of previous surgeries on the affected shoulder, the presence of signs of infection, having received infiltrations and / or complementary invasive examinations (Arthro-MRI and Arthro-CT). Follow-up from 2 to 5 years. Functional assessment according to the Constant Functional Scale. All complications were also recorded. Results. 162 patients were included. Of these, 25 had positive cultures for C. acnes at the end of primary shoulder surgery. Average age of 74.8 years. 136 women and 26 men. 75.9% Shoulder arthritis secondary to rotator cuff tears, 13.6% acute fractures and 10.5% sequelae of fractures. There were no differences between patients with C. acnes and those without C. acnes regarding age and indication for surgery. Predominance of men in the group with positive C. acnes (p <0.001). No differences at 2 and 5 years in the Constant functional scale between the two groups (2 years, 59.6 vs 59.2 p 0.870) (5 years, 62.4 vs 59.5 p 0.360). Significant differences regarding the number of complications (p 0.001). Patients without C. acnes had 1 aseptic loosening of the metaglene and patients with C. acnes had 2 infections, 1 dislocation, and 1 revision surgery. Patients with contamination by C. acnes had more comorbidities (p 0.035) than patients without contamination. Conclusions. Patients with C acnes contamination at the end of primary surgery do not have functional differences when compared with patients without contamination at 2 and 5 years, but they have a higher number of complications in the medium term

Aim. This retrospective study evaluated the outcome of treatment for unhealed fracture-related infections (FRI). Methods. We identified a consecutive, single-centre cohort of patients having treatment for an FRI Consensus confirmed FRI. All fractures were unhealed at the time of treatment. Patients were followed up for at least one year. Successful outcome was a healed fracture without recurrent infection. Lack of union, persistent infection and/or unplanned reoperation defined failure. Results. Demographics: 183 patients (184 FRIs) with mean age 52.1 years (range 17-96) were treated and followed up for a mean of 2.8 years (range 1-9.4). Mean duration of FRI was 1.1 years with 65 (35.5 %) presenting within 6 months of injury. 118 patients had established infected non-union. FRI was most frequent in the tibia (74), femur (48) and humerus (24). 171 patients were BACH Complex. 75.5% of FRIs were culture positive, with Staph. aureus being the most frequent organism. Polymicrobial infection and Gram negative cultures were common (25.5% and 33.6%). Treatment: 98.3% of surgeries were performed in one stage with just 3 planned 2-stage procedures (2 endoprosthetic replacements and 1 free fibular flap). No bone graft was used in any surgery and all wounds were closed at first operation. 48 cases (26%) required flap coverage (29 free flaps and 19 local flaps). Local antibiotics were used in 124 cases (67.4%) of primary surgeries. All patients had sampling, debridement, systemic antibiotics and wound closure. 40 (21.7%) had DAIR, 31 (16.8%) had new internal fixation and 105 (57.1%) had external fixation (including 79 Ilizarov fixators). Outcomes: After primary surgery, 84.6% of all patients were infection-free and 77.2% had united. After further surgery, 98.8% were infection-free and 98.1% had united. External fixation techniques achieved infection eradication in 89.1% compared to 71.7% with any internal fixation (p=0.005). Primary internal fixation achieved union in 81.7% compared to 74.3% with external fixation (p=0.27). Secondary surgery after external fixation was mainly docking site fixation. Conclusion. Unhealed FRIs present a difficult challenge for treatment. This large series demonstrated that single-stage treatment, without bone grafting, gave acceptable results with few reoperations. Primary external fixation gave more certainty of infection eradication but required more reoperations to secure union. However, this difference in reoperation was not statistically significant. We strongly advocate managing these patients with a multidisciplinary team which can treat all aspects of the condition

Aim. Cutibacterium acnes (C. acnes) is the most cultured organism implicated in periprosthetic shoulder infections. Nevertheless, the clinical significance of its persistence on the skin surface and in the deep layers during shoulder arthroplasty surgery remains still unknown. The purpose of this study was to know if the C. acnes isolate present in deep tissues at the end of a primary shoulder arthroplasty could be responsible for shoulder arthroplasty infection. Method. Prospective study including 156 patients undergoing primary shoulder arthroplasty. In all the patients included 5 to 12 tissue samples were obtained and were specifically cultured to detect C. acnes presence. DNA was extracted from the C. acnes colonies selected with the QIAsymphony DSP Virus/Pathogen Midi Kit (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany). Libraries were prepared using Nextera XT kit (Illumina) and sequenced in an Illumina MiSeq sequencer. Sequencing files were pre-processed using The Microbial Genome Atlas pipeline. Samples that failed on QC analysis were discarded for further analysis. Isolate nucleotide distances were calculated using Genome-based distance matrix calculator from the enveomics collection. Comparative genomic analysis was performed between intra- and inter-patients’ isolates. Data analysis was performed using R 3.6.3. Results. For twenty-seven out of 156 patients (17.31%), C. acnes was present at the end of the primary surgery. Two of these patients (both male) developed a C. acnes periprosthetic shoulder infection after 6 and 4 months from the primary surgery. DNA from the C. acnes responsible for the periprosthetic infection was further analysed by whole genome sequencing (WGS). Average Nucleotide Identity (ANI) value was assessed, measuring the nucleotide-level genomic similarity between genome pairs. We found a clear ANI clustering in two major groups which corresponded, mainly, to the associated phylotype (97%–98% ANI). Moreover, when analysing both isolates that developed a periprosthetic shoulder infection, we found that all the revision-surgery isolates clustered nearer to their corresponding primary-surgery isolates (99.4% of similarity) than to the other independent bacterial isolates, supporting the causal relationship between the initial and the delayed infection. Conclusions. C. acnes present at the end of the primary surgery can be the cause of early- or delayed-periprosthetic joint infections in shoulder arthroplasty, revealing the potential route of infection. Therefore, efforts must be made in terms of antibiotic prophylaxis and skin preparation to limit infections of total shoulder arthroplasties

While pre-soaking grafts in vancomycin has demonstrated to be effective in observational studies for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction (ACLR) infection prevention, the economic benefit of the technique is uncertain. The primary aim of this study was to determine the cost-effectiveness of vancomycin pre-soaking during primary ACLR to prevent post-operative joint infections. The secondary aims of the study were to establish the breakeven cost-effectiveness threshold of the technique. A Markov model was used to determine cost effectiveness and the incremental cost effectiveness ratio of additional vancomycin pre-soaking compared to intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis alone. A repeated meta-analysis of nine cohort studies (Level III evidence) was completed to determine the odds ratio of infection with vancomycin pre-soaking compared to intravenous antibiotics alone. Estimated costs and transitional probabilities for further surgery were obtained from the literature. Breakeven threshold analysis was performed. The vancomycin soaking technique provides an expected cost saving of $600AUD per patient. There was an improvement in the quality-adjusted life years of 0.007 compared to intravenous antibiotic prophylaxis alone (4.297 versus 4.290). If the infection rate is below 0.023% with intravenous antibiotics alone or the additional intervention cost more than $1000AUD, the vancomycin wrap would no longer be cost-effective. For $30AUD, the vancomycin soaking technique provides a $600AUD cost saving by both reducing the risk of ACLR related infection and economic burden of infection. Treating septic arthritis represents a mean cost per patient of 6 times compared to that of the primary surgery. There has been no previous cost-effectiveness study of the vancomycin wrap technique. The vancomycin pre-soaking technique is a highly cost-effective method to prevent post-operative septic arthritis following primary ACLR

The Accolade®TMZF is a taper-wedge cementless metaphyseal coated femoral stem widely utilized from 2002-2012. In recent years, there have been reports of early catastrophic failure of this implant. Establishing a deeper understanding of the rate and causes of revision in patients who developed aseptic failure in stems with documented concerns about high failure rates is critical. Understanding any potential patient or implant factors which are risk factors for failure is important to inform both clinicians and patients. We propose a study to establish the long-term survival of this stem and analyze patients who underwent aseptic revision to understand the causes and risk factors for failure. A retrospective review was undertaken of all patients who received a primary total hip arthroplasty with an Accolade® TMZF stem at a high-volume arthroplasty center. The causes and timing of revision surgery were documented and cross referenced with the Canadian Institute of Health Information Discharge Abstract Database to minimize loss to follow-up. Survivorship analysis was performed with use of the Kaplan-Meier curves to determine the overall and aseptic survival rates at final follow-up. Patient and implant factors commonly associated with aseptic failure were extracted and Cox proportional hazards model was used. A consecutive series of 2609 unilateral primary THA patients implanted with an Accolade®TMZF femoral hip stem were included. Mean time from primary surgery was 12.4 years (range 22 days to 19.5 years). Cumulative survival was 96.1% ± 0.2 at final follow-up. One hundred and seven patients underwent revision surgery with aseptic loosening of the femoral component was the most common cause of aseptic failure in this cohort (33/2609, 1.3%). Younger age and larger femoral head offset were independent risk factors for aseptic failure. To our knowledge, this is the largest series representing the longest follow-up of this taper-wedge cementless femoral implant. Despite early concerns, the Accolade® TMZF stem has excellent survivorship in this cohort. Trunnionosis as a recognized cause for revision surgery was rare. Younger age and larger femoral head offset were independent risk factors for aseptic failure

Symptomatic lumbar spinal stenosis is a common entity and increasing in prevalence. Limited evidence is available regarding patient reported outcomes comparing primary vs revision surgery for those undergoing lumbar decompression, with or without fusion. Evidence available suggest a lower rate of improvement in the revision group. The aim of this study was to assess patient reported outcomes in patients undergoing revision decompression, with or without fusion, when compared to primary surgery. Patient data was collected from the Canadian Spine Outcomes Research Network (CSORN) database. Patients undergoing lumbar decompression without or without fusion were included. Patients under 18, undergoing discectomy, greater than two level decompressions, concomitant cervical or thoracic spine surgery were excluded. Demographic data, smoking status, narcotic use, number of comorbidities as well as individual comorbidities were included in our propensity scores. Patients undergoing primary vs revision decompression were matched in a four:one ratio according to their scores, whilst a separate matched cohort was created for those undergoing primary vs revision decompression and fusion. Continuous data was compared using a two-tailed t-test, whilst categorical variables were assessed using chi-square test. A total of 555 patients were included, with 444 primary patients matched to 111 revision surgery patients, of which 373 (67%) did not have fusion. Patients undergoing primary decompression with fusion compared to revision patients were more likely to answer yes to “feel better after surgery” (87.8% vs 73.8%, p=0.023), “undergo surgery again” (90.1% vs 76.2%, P=0.021) and “improvement in mental health” (47.7% vs 28.6%, p=0.03) at six months. There was no difference in either of these outcomes at 12 or 24 months. There was no difference between the groups ODI, EQ-5D, SF 12 scores at any time point. Patients undergoing primary vs revision decompression alone showed no difference in PROMs at any time point. In a matched cohort, there appears to be no difference in improvement in PROMS between patients undergoing primary vs revision decompression, with or without fusion, at two year follow-up. This would suggest similar outcomes can be obtained in revision cases

Open debridement and Outerbridge and Kashiwagi debridement arthroplasty (OK procedure) are common surgical treatments for elbow arthritis. However, the literature contains little information on the long-term survivorship of these procedures. The purpose of this study was to determine the survivorship after elbow debridement techniques until conversion to total elbow arthroplasty and revision surgery. We performed a retrospective chart review of patients who underwent open elbow surgical debridement (open debridement, OK procedure) between 2000 and 2015. Patients were diagnosed with primary elbow osteoarthritis, post-traumatic arthritis, or inflammatory arthritis. A total of 320 patients had primary surgery including open debridement (n=142) and OK procedure (n=178), and of these 33 patients required a secondary revision surgery (open debridement, n=14 and OK procedure, n=19). The average follow-up time was 11.5 years (5.5 - 21.5 years). Survivorship was analyzed with Kaplan-Meier curves and Log Rank test. A Cox proportional hazards model was used assess the likelihood of conversion to total elbow arthroplasty or revision surgery while adjusting for covariates (age, gender, diagnosis). Significance was set p<0.05. Kaplan-Meier survival curves showed open debridement was 100.00% at 1 year, 99.25% at 5 years, and 98.49% at 10 years and for OK procedure 100.00% at 1 year, 98.80% at 5 years, 97.97% at 10 years (p=0.87) for conversion to total elbow arthroplasty. There was no difference in survivorship between procedures after adjusting for significant covariates with the cox proportional hazard model. The rate of revision for open debridement and OK procedure was similar at 11.31% rand 11.48% after 10 years respectively. There were higher rates of revision surgery in patients with open debridement (hazard ratio, 4.84 CI 1.29 – 18.17, p = 0.019) compared to OK procedure after adjusting for covariates. We also performed a stratified analysis with radiographic severity as an effect modifier and showed grade 3 arthritis did better with the OK procedure compared to open debridement for survivorship until revision surgery (p=0.05). However, this difference was not found for grade 1 or grade 2 arthritis. This may suggest that performing the OK procedure for more severe grade 3 arthritis could decrease reoperation rates. Further investigations are needed to better understand the indications for each surgical technique. This study is the largest cohort of open debridement and OK procedure with long term follow-up. We showed that open elbow debridement and the OK procedure have excellent survivorship until conversion to total elbow arthroplasty and are viable options in the treatment of primary elbow osteoarthritis and post traumatic cases. The OK procedure also has lower rates of revision surgery than open debridement, especially with more severe radiographic arthritis

Open debridement and Outerbridge and Kashiwagi debridement arthroplasty (OK procedure) are common surgical treatments for elbow arthritis. However, the literature contains little information on the long-term survivorship of these procedures. The purpose of this study was to determine the survivorship after elbow debridement techniques until conversion to total elbow arthroplasty and revision surgery. We performed a retrospective chart review of patients who underwent open elbow surgical debridement (open debridement, OK procedure) between 2000 and 2015. Patients were diagnosed with primary elbow osteoarthritis, post-traumatic arthritis, or inflammatory arthritis. A total of 320 patients had primary surgery including open debridement (n=142) and OK procedure (n=178), and of these 33 patients required a secondary revision surgery (open debridement, n=14 and OK procedure, n=19). The average follow-up time was 11.5 years (5.5 - 21.5 years). Survivorship was analyzed with Kaplan-Meier curves and Log Rank test. A Cox proportional hazards model was used assess the likelihood of conversion to total elbow arthroplasty or revision surgery while adjusting for covariates (age, gender, diagnosis). Significance was set p<0.05. Kaplan-Meier survival curves showed open debridement was 100.00% at 1 year, 99.25% at 5 years, and 98.49% at 10 years and for OK procedure 100.00% at 1 year, 98.80% at 5 years, 97.97% at 10 years (p=0.87) for conversion to total elbow arthroplasty. There was no difference in survivorship between procedures after adjusting for significant covariates with the cox proportional hazard model. The rate of revision for open debridement and OK procedure was similar at 11.31% rand 11.48% after 10 years respectively. There were higher rates of revision surgery in patients with open debridement (hazard ratio, 4.84 CI 1.29 - 18.17, p = 0.019) compared to OK procedure after adjusting for covariates. We also performed a stratified analysis with radiographic severity as an effect modifier and showed grade 3 arthritis did better with the OK procedure compared to open debridement for survivorship until revision surgery (p=0.05). However, this difference was not found for grade 1 or grade 2 arthritis. This may suggest that performing the OK procedure for more severe grade 3 arthritis could decrease reoperation rates. Further investigations are needed to better understand the indications for each surgical technique. This study is the largest cohort of open debridement and OK procedure with long term follow-up. We showed that open elbow debridement and the OK procedure have excellent survivorship until conversion to total elbow arthroplasty and are viable options in the treatment of primary elbow osteoarthritis and post traumatic cases. The OK procedure also has lower rates of revision surgery than open debridement, especially with more severe radiographic arthritis

Introduction. Osseointegration has emerged as a promising alternative to rehabilitating with a traditional socket mounted prosthesis. Advantages have been reported to include improved functional mobility, better osseoperception, improved comfort, reduced pain, better biomechanical alignment and better gait, which all lead to a less restricted lifestyle and significantly improved quality of life. A major concern of the Osseointegrated approach lies in the risk of infections occurring from the permanent transcutaneous opening often referred to as the stoma. Several systematic reviews have indicated that the occurrence of minor infections can be quite common, serious complications are reported to be rare. In addition to commonly anticipated complications including fractures, surgical debridements or revisions, we have identified several significant events in which a patient may require to be readmitted and go through additional surgery. The objective of this study is to examine the rate of occurrence and reports on the best management practices of serious complications across a multi-centre review of more than 1000 osseointegration surgeries. Materials & Methods. A detailed analysis has been performed on all osseointegration surgeries performed by the Osseointegration Group of Australia and it's affiliates between since 2010. The majority of surgeries took place in Australia, the United States, the Middle East as well as in Europe. All events leading to a re-admission and subsequent re-operation have been identified through hospital operation records and pooled together for meta-analysis. Events identified include: revision of implants, periprosthetic fracture fixation, surgical debridement due to infections, neurectomies and soft- tissue refashioning. Results. Over 800 surgeries have been identified with a minimum 12-month follow-up time and included in this study. These included tibial, femoral and humeral, radial-ulnar and transpelvic osseointegration cases. The majority of these were performed using a single stage protocol. While general complications such as infection and soft tissue refashioning are common, serious events such as revision and fracture are rare. Interestingly, the rate of debridements and soft-tissue refashions were found to be higher among patients who were operated using a two-stage surgery. Among all cases, there were a total of 399 re-operation events recorded which occurred among 163 patients, indicating a high recurrence rate among the same patients. We recorded a total of 112 washouts, 93 neurectomies, 117 soft tissue refashions, 53 implant revisions and 24 periprosthetic fracture fixations. Conclusions. Many events leading to readmission after the primary surgery may not necessarily be graded as a complication of the osseointegration technique. This study has identified several addition possible reasons in which an osseointegration patient may need to be re-admitted into hospital for additional surgery. It was identified that through the implementation of improved surgical techniques and rehabilitation protocols, the rate of several of these re-operation events can be largely reduced, thus improving the overall outcomes of patients undergoing osseointegration surgery

External validation of machine learning predictive models is achieved through evaluation of model performance on different groups of patients than were used for algorithm development. This important step is uncommonly performed, inhibiting clinical translation of newly developed models. Recently, machine learning was used to develop a tool that can quantify revision risk for a patient undergoing primary anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction (https://swastvedt.shinyapps.io/calculator_rev/). The source of data included nearly 25,000 patients with primary ACL reconstruction recorded in the Norwegian Knee Ligament Register (NKLR). The result was a well-calibrated tool capable of predicting revision risk one, two, and five years after primary ACL reconstruction with moderate accuracy. The purpose of this study was to determine the external validity of the NKLR model by assessing algorithm performance when applied to patients from the Danish Knee Ligament Registry (DKLR). The primary outcome measure of the NKLR model was probability of revision ACL reconstruction within 1, 2, and/or 5 years. For the index study, 24 total predictor variables in the NKLR were included and the models eliminated variables which did not significantly improve prediction ability - without sacrificing accuracy. The result was a well calibrated algorithm developed using the Cox Lasso model that only required five variables (out of the original 24) for outcome prediction. For this external validation study, all DKLR patients with complete data for the five variables required for NKLR prediction were included. The five variables were: graft choice, femur fixation device, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) Quality of Life subscale score at surgery, years from injury to surgery, and age at surgery. Predicted revision probabilities were calculated for all DKLR patients. The model performance was assessed using the same metrics as the NKLR study: concordance and calibration. In total, 10,922 DKLR patients were included for analysis. Average follow-up time or time-to-revision was 8.4 (±4.3) years and overall revision rate was 6.9%. Surgical technique trends (i.e., graft choice and fixation devices) and injury characteristics (i.e., concomitant meniscus and cartilage pathology) were dissimilar between registries. The model produced similar concordance when applied to the DKLR population compared to the original NKLR test data (DKLR: 0.68; NKLR: 0.68-0.69). Calibration was poorer for the DKLR population at one and five years post primary surgery but similar to the NKLR at two years. The NKLR machine learning algorithm demonstrated similar performance when applied to patients from the DKLR, suggesting that it is valid for application outside of the initial patient population. This represents the first machine learning model for predicting revision ACL reconstruction that has been externally validated. Clinicians can use this in-clinic calculator to estimate revision risk at a patient specific level when discussing outcome expectations pre-operatively. While encouraging, it should be noted that the performance of the model on patients undergoing ACL reconstruction outside of Scandinavia remains unknown

Aim. Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) aggravates an already difficult treatment of periprosthetic joint infections (PJI). The prevalence of drug-resistant pathogens varies across countries and increases over time. Regular monitoring of bacteriological analyses should be performed. Due to many factors influencing the AMR, the correct choice of antimicrobial management remains arguable. The primary purpose of this retrospective study was to identify and compare causative bacteria and to compare the incidence of antibiotic resistance between the septic revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and septic revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). Method. A review of all revision TKAs and revision THAs, undertaken between 2007 and 2020 in a tertiary referral centre, was performed. Included were cases meeting the consensus criteria for PJI, in which an organism has been identified. There were no major differences in tissue sampling between revision TKAs and revision THAs over time. Results. A total of 228 bacterial strains, isolated after revision TKA and THA, were analysed for their resistance to 20 different antibiotics. There was a statistically significant higher occurrence of Gram-negative bacteria (p=0.002) and Enterococcus species (p=0.026) identified after revision THAs compared to TKA. The comparison of antibiotic resistance between revision TKAs and revision THAs was statistically significant in 9 of 20 analysed antibiotics. Pathogens isolated after revision THA were much more resistant compared to pathogens isolated after revision TKA. Resistance in revision THAs was significantly higher to oxacillin (p=0.03), ciprofloxacin (p<0.001), levofloxacin (p<0.001), moxifloxacin (p=0.005), clindamycin (p<0.001), co-trimoxazole (p<0.001), imipenem (p=0.01), rifampicin (p=0.005) and tetracycline (p=0.009). There was no significantly higher resistance of pathogens isolated after revision TKAs detected. No statistically significant difference in antibiotic resistance of Gram-negative bacteria between revision TKA and revision THA was observed. Conclusions. The occurrence and the resistance of bacteria to antibiotics differs significantly between revision TKAs and revision THAs. This has implications on of the choice of empirical antibiotic in revision surgery as well as prophylactic antibiotic in primary surgery, depending on the joint that is to be replaced

Progressive collapsing foot deformity (PCFD) is a common condition with an estimated prevalence of 3.3% in women greater than 40 years. Progressive in nature, symptomatic flatfoot deformity can be a debilitating condition due to pain and limited physical function; it has been shown to have one of the poorest preoperative patient reported outcome scores in foot and ankle pathologies, second to ankle arthritis. Operative reconstruction of PCFD can be performed in a single-stage manner or through multiple stages. The purpose of this study is to compare costs for non-staged (NS) flatfoot reconstructions, which typically require longer hospital stays, with costs for staged (S) reconstructions, where patients usually do not require hospital admission. To our knowledge, the comparison between single-staged and multi-staged flatfoot reconstructions has not been previously done. This study will run in conjunction with one that compares rates of complications and reoperation, as well as patient reported outcomes on function and pain associated with S and NS flatfoot reconstruction. Overall, the goal is to optimize surgical management of PCFD, by addressing healthcare costs and patient outcomes. At our academic centre with foot and ankle specialists, we selected one surgeon who primarily performs NS flatfoot reconstruction and another who primarily performs S procedures. Retrospective chart reviews of patients who have undergone either S or NS flatfoot reconstruction were performed from November 2011 to August 2021. Length of operating time, number of primary surgeries, length of hospital admission, and number of reoperations were recorded. Cost analysis was performed using local health authority patient rates for non residents as a proxy for health system costs. Rates of operating room per hour and hospital ward stay per diem in Canadian dollars were used. The analysis is currently ongoing. 72 feet from 66 patients were analyzed in the S group while 78 feet from 70 patients were analyzed in the NS group. The average age in the S and NS group are 49.64 +/− 1.76 and 57.23 +/− 1.68 years, respectively. The percentage of female patients in the S and NS group are 63.89% and 57.69%, respectively. All NS patients stayed in hospital post-operatively and the average length of stay for NS patients is 3.65 +/− 0.37 days. Only 10 patients from S group required hospital admission. The average total operating room cost including all stages for S patients was $12,303.12 +/− $582.20. When including in-patient ward costs for patients who required admission from S group, the average cost for operating room and in-patient ward admission was $14,196.00 +/− $1,070.01 after flatfoot reconstruction. The average in-patient ward admission cost for NS patients was $14,518.83 +/− $1,476.94 after flatfoot reconstruction. The cost analysis for total operating room costs for NS patients are currently ongoing. Statistical analysis comparing S to NS flatfoot reconstruction costs are pending. Preliminary cost analysis suggests that multi-staged flatfoot reconstruction costs less than single-staged flatfoot reconstruction. Once full assessment is complete with statistical analysis, correlation with patient reported outcomes and complication rate can guide future PCFD surgical management

Aim. To investigate the incidence and time-trend in reoperation due to deep Surgical Site Infection (SSI) following hip fracture surgery. Method. This was a population-based, nationwide, cohort study. We included 74,771 from the Danish Multidisciplinary Hip Fractures Register (1) consisting of patients 65 years of age or older, who underwent surgery between January 1. st. 2005 and December 31. st. 2016 for all types of hip fracture. Cross-linkage with the Danish National Patient Register and The Danish Civil Registration system was made. Demographic data extracted included vital status, civil status, gender, age, Body Mass Index (BMI), fracture classification (AO/OTA 31A-C) and surgical procedures binary registered as joint replacement or internal fixation, Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) and secondary diseases not included in CCI. Outcome was reoperations due to deep SSI in accordance with the definition from Centre for Disease Control (2). We computed cumulative incidence rates and risk ratios (RR) by calendar year periods and by different risk factors, considering death as competing risk and adjusting for age, gender, CCI, fracture type and surgery type. Results. Within 365 days of primary surgery 2.1% of all hip fractures had undergone reoperation due to deep SSI. During the period 2005–2016, the incidence of reoperation due to SSI decreased from 2.7% to 1.7%, We could not identify differences in reoperation due to SSI within one year regarding gender, BMI or CCI. Patients aged above 85 had about 50% lower risk of being reoperated compared with the youngest age group; 65–74 years (RR: 0.5; 95% CI: 0.4:0.6). The RR for reoperation due to deep SSI was lower for patients with pertrochanteric or subtrochanteric fractures (AO/OTA: 31A1-3) versus femoral neck fractures (AO/OTA: 31B1-3), RR was 0.7 (95%CI: 0.7:0.8). However, RR for surgery type (joint replacement vs internal fixation) at 365 days was significantly lower for joint replacement, RR: 0.6 (95% CI: 0.6:0.7). Conclusions. This study shows reoperation risk due to SSI for all types of hip fractures of 2.1%. There was a 45% decrease in reoperation over time from 2005 to 2016. However, the risk of revision is still high, and further action in avoidance of SSI should be taken

Extended patient waiting lists for assessment and treatment are widely reported for planned elective joint replacement surgery. The development of regionally based Elective Orthopaedic Centres, separate from units that provide acute, urgent or trauma care has been suggested as one solution to provide protected capacity and patient pathways. These centres will adopt protocolised care to allow high volume activity and increased day-case care. We report the plan to establish a new elective orthopaedic centre serving a population of 2.4 million people. A census conducted in 2022 identified that 15000 patients were awaiting joint replacement surgery with predictions for further increases in waiting times. The principle of care will be to offer routine primary arthroplasty surgery for low risk (ASA 1 and 2) patients at a new regional centre. Pre-operative assessment and preparation will be undertaken digitally, virtually and/or in person at local centres close to the where patients live. This requires new and integrated pathways and ways of working. Predicting which patients will require perioperative transfusion of blood products is an important safety and quality consideration for new pathways. We reviewed all cases of hip and knee arthroplasty surgery conducted at our centre over a 12-month period and identified pre-operative patient related predictive factors to allow us to predict the need for the perioperative transfusion of blood products. We examined patient sex, age, pre-operative haemaglobin and platelet count, use of anti-coagulants, weight and body mass index to allow us to construct the Imperial blood transfusion tool. We have used the results of our study and the transfusion tool to propose the patient pathway for the new regional elective orthopaedic centre which we present

Arthroplasty procedures in low-income countries are mostly performed at tertiary centers, with waiting lists exceeding 12 to 24 months. Providing arthroplasty services at other levels of healthcare aims to offset this burden, however there is a marked paucity of literature regarding surgical outcomes. This study aims to provide evidence on the safety of arthroplasty at district level. Retrospective review of consecutive arthroplasty cases performed at a District Hospital (DH), and a Tertiary Hospital (TH) in Cape Town, between January 2015 and December 2018. Patient demographics, hospital length of stay, surgery related readmissions, reoperations, post-operative complications, and mortality rates were compared between cohorts. Seven hundred and ninety-five primary arthroplasty surgeries were performed at TH level and 228 at DH level. The average hospital stay was 5.2±2.0 days at DH level and 7.6±7.1 days for TH (p<0.05). Readmissions within 3 months post-surgery of 1.75% (4 patients) for district and 4.40% (35) for TH (p<0.05). Reoperation rate of 1 in every 100 patients at the DH and 8.3 in every 100 patients at the TH (p<0.05). Death rate was 0.4% vs 0.6% at district and TH respectively (p>0.05). Periprosthetic joint infection rate was 0.43% at DH and 2.26% at TH. The percentage of hip dislocation requiring revision was 0% at district and 0.37% at TH. During the study period, 228 patients received arthroplasty surgery at the DH; these patients would otherwise have remained on the TH waiting list. Hip and Knee Arthroplasty at District health care level is safe and may help ease the burden on arthroplasty services at tertiary care facilities in a Southern African context. Adequately trained surgeons should be encouraged to perform these procedures in district hospitals provided there is appropriate patient selection and adherence to strict theatre operating procedures

Aim. Strenuous efforts to minimize postoperative infection rates have been made, including the Swedish nation-wide initiative Prosthesis Related Infections Shall be Stopped (PRISS). The aim of this study was to calculate the incidence rate of periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) following primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) before and after PRISS. Method. All 45,438 primary TKAs registered in the Swedish knee arthroplasty register (SKAR) during 2007–2008 and 2012–2013 were included. Matched data on antibiotic prescriptions were obtained from the Swedish Prescribed Drug Register (SPDR). All patients with ≥28 days of continuous antibiotic treatment within 2 years of primary surgery had their medical charts reviewed to identify cases of PJI. Results. 644 PJIs were identified, equaling a 2-year cumulative incidence rate of 1.42% (95% CI: 1.31–1.53). The incidence rate was 1.41% before PRISS and 1.43% after. Diagnosis was made within 30 days of primary TKA in 52%, and within 90 days in 73% of the cases. 603 cases were reoperated. Debridement with exchange of the insert was performed in 32.1% and 62.5% of cases before and after PRISS respectively. Conclusions. No reduction in cumulative PJI incidence was seen after the PRISS initiative

Aim. The current recommendation in Norway is to use four doses of a first-generation cephalosporin (cefazolin or cephalotin) as systemic antibiotic prophylaxis (SAP) the day of surgery in primary joint arthroplasty. Due to shortage of supply, scientific development, changed courses of treatment and improved antibiotic stewardship, this recommendation has been disputed. We therefore wanted to assess if one dose of SAP was non-inferior to four doses in preventing periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in primary joint arthroplasty. Method. We included patients with primary hip- and knee arthroplasties from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register and the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register for the period 2005-2023. We included the most used SAPs (cephalotin, cefazolin, cefuroxime, cloxacillin and clindamycin), administered as the only SAP in 1-4 doses, starting preoperatively. Risk of revision (Hazard rate ratio; HRR) for PJI was estimated by Cox regression analyses with adjustment for sex, age, ASA class, duration of surgery, reason for- and type of arthroplasty, and year of primary arthroplasty. The outcome was 1-year reoperation or revision for PJI. Non-inferiority margins were calculated for 1, 2 and 3 doses versus reference of 4 doses of SAP at the day of surgery, against a predetermined limit of 15% increased risk of PJI. Results. In total 274,188 primary arthroplasties (total hip 133,985, hemi hip 51,442, and total knee 88,761) were included. Of these primary arthroplasties, 2,996 (1.1%) had subsequent revisions for PJI during the first postoperative year. One dose of SAP was given in 9,603 arthroplasties, two doses in 10,068, three doses in 18,351, and four doses in 236,166 arthroplasties. With the recommended four doses as reference, the HRR (95% CI) for 1-year revision for infection was 0.9 (0.7-1.1) for one dose, 1.0 (0.8-1.2) for two doses, and 0.9 (0.8-1.1) for three doses. The corresponding adjusted 1-year revision incidences for PJI was 0.9 (0.7-1.1), 1.0 (0.8-1.2), 0.9 (0. 8-1.1) and 1.0 (1.0-1.1) for one, two, three and four doses respectively, and less than four doses was found to be non-inferior. Conclusions. One preoperative dose of SAP in primary joint arthroplasty surgery seems to be non-inferior to the current recommendation of four doses of a first-generation cephalosporin as PJI-prophylaxis. This finding may simplify the course of treatment for arthroplasty patients, save costs, and improve antibiotic stewardship

Aim. The primary aim of this study was to examine whether the use of iodine impregnated incision drape (IIID) decreased the risk of periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs). The secondary aim was to investigate whether intraoperative contamination could predict postoperative infection. PJI is a devastating incident for the patients and in a population that is getting older and the incidence of arthroplasty surgery is rising it is vital to keep the infection rate as low as possible. Despite prophylactic measures as pre-operative decontamination, antisepsis and prophylactic antibiotics the infection rate has been constant at 1–2%. Method. We performed a transregional, prospective, randomized two arm study (IIID vs control group) of 1187 patients undergoing primary knee arthroplasty surgery. A database with patient demographics and surgical observations was established with the purpose of following the patients for ten years. Patients, who developed an infection within the first year of surgery were analyzed for correlation with the intraoperative bacterial findings and the use of IIID. Results. 31/1187 (3.6%) patients were re-operated during the follow-up period. 18/1187 (1.5%) patients were deemed infected and received antibiotic treatment. 9/18 patients deemed infected were male. Of the 18 infected patients 2 were contaminated at the primary surgery. Chi square test showed no correlation between contamination and infection (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.38–2.46, p=0.95). 9 of the 18 infected patients were operated with IIID at the primary surgery. No correlation was found between the use of IIID at primary surgery and subsequent infection (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.20–3.79, p=1). Conclusions. We found no effect of the use of IIID and subsequent development of PJI. Nor did we find a correlation between the intraoperative contamination and development of PJI within the first year of follow-up. Acknowledgements. University of Copenhagen and 3M Health Care (St. Paul, Minnesota) funded the study. 3M did not participate in the design of the study, data collection, data analysis or data interpretation

Revision is a key negative outcome of joint replacements. The purpose of this abstract is to present revision risk curves for hip and knee replacements based on the most recently available national data sources. Having a better understanding of determinants of revision risk can help inform clinical and health care system improvements. We explored revision risk of primary joint replacement stratified by key clinical, prosthesis, and surgeon-level factors using data from three databases managed by CIHI: the Canadian Joint Replacement Registry (CJRR), the Discharge Abstract Database, and the National Ambulatory Care Reporting System. To investigate early revisions, we used Kaplan-Meier analysis stratified by demographic factors to determine the risk of revision within up to five years of primary surgery. This analysis identified the primary cohort from the CJRR from April 1, 2012 to March 31, 2017 and was limited to mandatory reporting provinces (British Columbia, Manitoba and Ontario) to ensure maximal coverage of prosthesis information. Bearing surface was obtained from the International Prosthesis Library maintained by the International Consortium of Orthopaedic Registries (ICOR) and the International Society of Arthroplasty Registers (ISAR). The total revision risk cohort contained 283,620 primary surgeries, of which 5,765 (2%) had at least one revision. For total hip arthroplasties, revision risk at the end of the follow-up period did not differ by age, by sex or across bearing surface (metal on cross-linked polyethylene [XLPE], ceramic on XLPE, ceramic on ceramic, metal on non-cross-linked polyethylene). For hemiarthroplasties in hip fracture patients, cement fixation was significantly associated with decreased revision risk. Surgeon volume had a positive effect on survivorship with cementless fixation (2.7% at one year [95% CI 2.3%, 3.1%] for high-volume vs 3.2% [2.7%, 3.7%] for low-volume). However, surgeon volume did not have an effect on survivorship with cemented fixation (2% at one year [95% CI 1.3%, 2.6%] for high-volume vs. 2% [1.4%, 2.6%] for low-volume). For total knee replacements, revision risk increased with decreasing age and male sex. For patients aged 75 and older, four-year revision risks were 1.5% (95% CI 1.3%, 1.7%) for women and 2.0% (1.7%, 2.3%) for men, but for patients under 55 years old, they were 4.3% (3.7%, 5%) for women and 5.9% (4.9%, 6.9%) for men. Additional results from the upcoming 2019 CJRR annual report, including data up to March 31, 2018, will be presented. Revisions represent a key failure of the primary replacement, they are costly to the health care system and negatively affect patients' quality of life. CJRR's coverage is currently 72%, increased coverage and follow-up time will allow increasingly comprehensive reporting on hip and knee prostheses in Canada. Future work in this area involves exploring additional prosthesis attributes for stratification of revision risk curves and calculation of hazards ratios adjusted by age and sex