Joint replacement is a life-enhancing, cost-effective surgical intervention widely used to treat disabling joint pain mainly caused by osteoarthritis. Hip and knee joint replacements are common, highly successful operations bringing many patients relief from pain, and improve mobility. Prosthetic joint infections (PJI) are often difficult to diagnose; diagnosis often relying on a combination of clinical findings, microbiological data and histological evaluation of periprosthetic tissue. The majority of recent studies demonstrate a higher sensitivity for the culture of sonication fluid (62–94%) than periprosthetic tissue (55–88%). The Royal Devon & Exeter NHS Foundation Trust provided a specialist multidisciplinary team. We evaluated the use of sonication for identifying pathogens during revision hip and knee replacement in our unit with the intention of applying for further grants to study this technology in more detail; it was a diagnostic feasibility study. The target recruitment was 50 patients; 25 consecutive patients undergoing revision hip arthroplasty for any reason, and 25 undergoing revision knee arthroplasty for any reason. The majority of patients were identified in outpatient clinics. Our results show that tissue culture remains more sensitive than sonication. The sensitivity for direct sonication was 75% compared with 80% for tissue culture; sensitivity of enriched sonication was 80 %, compared to the unit results for tissue culture of 83%. The combined sensitivity of tissue culture was better as a higher number of tissue specimens were obtained. The different methodology might explain reported differences between this and other studies; however, our study does not support the use of sonication as the only tool in the diagnosis of PJI

Introduction. The proportion of arthroplasties performed in the ambulatory setting has increased substantially. However, concerns remain regarding whether same-day discharge may increase the risk of complications. The purpose of this study was to compare 90-day outcomes between inpatients and patients having surgery at an ambulatory surgery center (ASC). Methods. Among a single-surgeon cohort of 721 patients who underwent arthroplasty at a free-standing ASC, 611 (84.7%) were matched one-to-one to inpatients based on age, gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, and Body Mass Index (110 patients could not be adequately matched). The cohort included 208 total hip arthroplasties (34.0%), 196 total knee arthroplasties (32.1%), 178 unicompartmental knee arthroplasties (29.1%), 25 hip resurfacings (4.1%), two revision hip arthroplasties (0.3%) and two revision knee arthroplasties (0.3%). Post-operative outcomes including readmissions, reoperations, unplanned clinic visits, emergency department visits, and complications were compared. Complications were classified as either major (i.e. death, periprosthetic joint infection, pulmonary embolism) or as minor (i.e. delayed wound healing, rashes, urinary retention). Results. The inpatient and outpatient groups were similar in all demographic variables, reflecting successful matching. The rates of any complications (4.1% outpatient vs. 5.1% inpatient, p=0.41), minor complications (2.6% vs. 3.4%; p=0.40), readmissions (1.6% vs. 2.0%; p= 0.67), reoperations (0.7% vs. 1.1%; p=0.36), and unplanned clinic visits (5.4% vs 6.7%; p=0.34) were all lower amongst the outpatient group but did not reach significance with the sample size studied. The rate of major complications was the same in both groups (1.6% for both; p=1.0) while patients who underwent surgery at an ASC had significantly fewer emergency department visits (1.0% vs. 3.1%; p=0.009). Conclusions. Arthroplasty performed in the ambulatory setting appears to be safe in properly selected patients. However, this finding may be partly due to selection bias and intangible characteristics that were not adequately controlled for through matching

Aims

This study describes the variation in the annual volumes of revision hip arthroplasty (RHA) undertaken by consultant surgeons nationally, and the rate of accrual of RHA and corresponding primary hip arthroplasty (PHA) volume for new consultants entering 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

A retrospective review was performed of patients undergoing primary cementless total knee replacement (TKR) using porous tantalum performed by a group of surgical trainees. Clinical and radiological follow-up involved 79 females and 26 males encompassing 115 knees. The mean age was 66.9 years (36 to 85). Mean follow-up was 7 years (2 to 11). Tibial and patellar components were porous tantalum monoblock implants, and femoral components were posterior stabilised (PS) in design with cobalt–chromium fibre mesh. Radiological assessments were made for implant positioning, alignment, radiolucencies, lysis, and loosening. There was 95.7% survival of implants. There was no radiological evidence of loosening and no osteolysis found. No revisions were performed for aseptic loosening. Average tibial component alignment was 1.4° of varus (4°of valgus to 9° varus), and 6.2° (3° anterior to 15° posterior) of posterior slope. Mean femoral component alignment was 6.6° (1° to 11°) of valgus. Mean tibiofemoral alignment was 5.6° of valgus (7° varus to 16° valgus). Patellar tilt was a mean of 2.4° lateral (5° medial to 28° lateral). Patient satisfaction with improvement in pain was 91%. Cementless TKR incorporating porous tantalum yielded good clinical and radiological outcomes at a mean of follow-up of seven-years.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B(11 Suppl A):87–92.