Aims. In the last decade, perioperative advancements have expanded the use of outpatient primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Despite this, there remains limited data on expedited discharge after revision TKA. This study compared 30-day readmissions and reoperations in patients undergoing revision TKA with a hospital stay greater or less than 24 hours. The authors hypothesized that expedited discharge in select patients would not be associated with increased 30-day readmissions and reoperations. Methods. Aseptic revision TKAs in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database were reviewed from 2013 to 2020. TKAs were stratified by length of hospital stay (greater or less than 24 hours). Patient demographic details, medical comorbidities, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, operating time, components revised, 30-day readmissions, and reoperations were compared. Multivariate analysis evaluated predictors of discharge prior to 24 hours, 30-day readmission, and reoperation. Results. Of 21,610 aseptic revision TKAs evaluated, 530 were discharged within 24 hours. Short-stay patients were younger (63.1 years (49 to 78) vs 65.1 years (18 to 94)), with lower BMI (32.3 kg/m. 2. (17 to 47) vs 33.6 kg/m. 2. (19 to 54) and lower ASA grades. Diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, and cancer were all associated with a hospital stay over 24 hours. Single component revisions (56.8% (n = 301) vs 32.4% (n = 6,823)), and shorter mean operating time (89.7 minutes (25 to 275) vs 130.2 minutes (30 to 517)) were associated with accelerated discharge. Accelerated discharge was not associated with 30-day readmission and reoperation. Conclusion. Accelerated discharge after revision TKA did not increase short-term complications, readmissions, or reoperations. Further efforts to decrease hospital stays in this setting should be evaluated. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(12):1323–1328

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. We compared the risks of re-revision and mortality between two-stage and single-stage revision surgeries among patients with infected primary hip arthroplasty. Methods. Patients with a periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of their primary arthroplasty revised with single-stage or two-stage procedure in England and Wales between 2003 and 2014 were identified from the National Joint Registry. We used Poisson regression with restricted cubic splines to compute hazard ratios (HRs) at different postoperative periods. The total number of revisions and re-revisions undergone by patients was compared between the two strategies. Results. In total, 535 primary hip arthroplasties were revised with single-stage procedure (1,525 person-years) and 1,605 with two-stage procedure (5,885 person-years). All-cause re-revision was higher following single-stage revision, especially in the first three months (HR at 3 months = 1.98 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.14 to 3.43), p = 0.009). The risks were comparable thereafter. Re-revision for PJI was higher in the first three postoperative months for single-stage revision and waned with time (HR at 3 months = 1.81 (95% CI 1.22 to 2.68), p = 0.003; HR at 6 months = 1.25 (95% CI 0.71 to 2.21), p = 0.441; HR at 12 months = 0.94 (95% CI 0.54 to 1.63), p = 0.819). Patients initially managed with a single-stage revision received fewer revision operations (mean 1.3 (SD 0.7) vs 2.2 (SD 0.6), p < 0.001). Mortality rates were comparable between these two procedures (29/10,000 person-years vs 33/10,000). Conclusion. The risk of unplanned re-revision was lower following two-stage revision, but only in the early postoperative period. The lower overall number of revision procedures associated with a single-stage revision strategy and the equivalent mortality rates to two-stage revision are reassuring. With appropriate counselling, single-stage revision is a viable option for the treatment of hip PJI. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2023;12(5):321–330

Aims. Revision rates for ankle arthroplasties are higher than hip or knee arthroplasties. When a total ankle arthroplasty (TAA) fails, it can either undergo revision to another ankle replacement, revision of the TAA to ankle arthrodesis (fusion), or amputation. Currently there is a paucity of literature on the outcomes of these revisions. The aim of this meta-analysis is to assess the outcomes of revision TAA with respect to surgery type, functional outcomes, and reoperations. Methods. A systematic review was conducted using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed, Medline, Embase, Cinahl, and Cochrane reviews were searched for relevant papers. Papers analyzing surgical treatment for failed ankle arthroplasties were included. All papers were reviewed by two authors. Overall, 34 papers met the inclusion criteria. A meta-analysis of proportions was performed. Results. Six papers analyzed all-cause reoperations of revision ankle arthroplasties, and 14 papers analyzed failures of conversion of a TAA to fusion. It was found that 26.9% (95% confidence interval (CI) 15.4% to 40.1%) of revision ankle arthroplasties required further surgical intervention and 13.0% (95% CI 4.9% to 23.4%) of conversion to fusions; 14.4% (95% CI 8.4% to 21.4%) of revision ankle arthroplasties failed and 8% (95% CI 4% to 13%) of conversion to fusions failed. Conclusion. Revision of primary TAA can be an effective procedure with improved functional outcomes, but has considerable risks of failure and reoperation, especially in those with periprosthetic joint infection. In those who undergo conversion of TAA to fusion, there are high rates of nonunion. Further comparative studies are required to compare both operative techniques. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(7):596–606

Aims. Pneumatic tourniquets are often used during the surgical treatment of unstable traumatic ankle fractures. The aim of this study was to assess the risk of reoperation after open reduction and internal fixation of ankle fractures with and without the use of pneumatic tourniquets. Methods. This was a population-based cohort study using data from the Danish Fracture Database with a follow-up period of 24 months. Data were linked to the Danish National Patient Registry to ensure complete information regarding reoperations due to complications, which were divided into major and minor. The relative risk of reoperations for the tourniquet group compared with the non-tourniquet group was estimated using Cox proportional hazards modelling. Results. A total of 4,050 ankle fractures treated with open reduction and internal fixation between 15 March 2012 and 31 December 2016 were included, with 669 (16.5%) undergoing surgery with a tourniquet and 3,381 (83.5%) without a tourniquet. The overall reoperation risk was 28.2% with an adjusted relative risk of 1.46 (95% CI 0.91 to 2.32) for group comparison. The reoperation risk due to major complications was 3.1% with a tourniquet and 4.4% without a tourniquet, resulting in an adjusted relative risk of 1.45 (95% CI 0.91 to 2.32). For minor complications, there were 24.7% and 23.9% reoperations, resulting in an adjusted relative risk of 0.99 (95% CI 0.84 to 1.17). Conclusion. We found no significant difference in the reoperation rate when comparing ankle fractures treated surgically with and without the use of pneumatic tourniquets. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(9):994–999

Aim. Repeat revision surgery of total hip or knee replacement may lead to massive bone loss of the femur. If these defects exceed a critical amount a stable fixation of a proximal or distal femur replacement may not be possible. In these extraordinary cases a total femur replacement (TFR) may be used as an option for limb salvage. In this retrospective study we examined complications, revision free survival (RFS), amputation free survival (AFS) and risk factors for decreased RFS and AFS following a TRF in cases of revision arthroplasty with a special focus on periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Method. We included all implantations of a TFR in revision surgery from 2006–2018. Patients with a primary implantation of a TFR for oncological indications were not included. Complications were classified using the Henderson Classification. Primary endpoints were revision of the TFR or disarticulation of the hip. The minimum follow up was 24 month. RFS and AFS were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier method, patients´ medical history was analyzed for possible risk factors for decreased RFS and AFS. Results. After applying the inclusion criteria 58 cases of a TFR in revision surgery were included with a median follow-up of 48.5 month. The median age at surgery was 68 years and the median amount of prior surgeries was 3. A soft tissue failure (Henderson Type I) appeared in 16 cases (28%) of which 13 (22%) needed revision surgery. A PJI of the TFR (Henderson Type IV) appeared in 32 cases (55%) resulting in 18 (31%) removals of the TFR and implantation of a total femur spacer. Disarticulation of the hip following a therapy resistant PJI was performed in 17 cases (29%). The overall 2-year RFS was 36% (95% confidence interval(CI) 24–48%). Patients with a Body mass Index (BMI) >30kg/m² had a decreased RFS after 24 month (>30kg/m² 11% (95%CI 0–25%) vs. <30kg/m² 50% (95%CI 34–66%)p<0.01). The overall AFS after 5 years was 68% (95%CI 54–83%). A PJI of the TFR and a BMI >30kg/m² was significantly correlated with a lower 5-year AFS (PJI 46% (95%CI 27–66%) vs no PJI 100%p<0.001) (BMI >30kg/m² 30% (95% KI 3–57%) vs. <30km/m² 85% (95% KI 73–98%)p<0.01). Conclusions. A TFR in revision arthroplasty is a valuable option for limb salvage but complications in need of further revision surgery are common. Patients with a BMI >30kg/m² should be informed regarding the increased risk for revision surgery and loss of extremity before operation

Arthrofibrosis is a less common complication following anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction and there are concerns that undergoing early surgery may be associated with arthrofibrosis. The aim of this study was to identify the patient and surgical risk factors for arthrofibrosis following primary ACL reconstruction. Primary ACL reconstructions prospectively recorded in the New Zealand ACL Registry between April 2014 and December 2019 were analyzed. The Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) database was used to identify patients who underwent a subsequent reoperation with review of operation notes to identify those who had a reoperation for “arthrofibrosis” or “stiffness”. Univariate Chi-Square test and multivariate Cox regression analysis was performed. Hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were computed to identify the risk factors for arthrofibrosis. 9617 primary ACL reconstructions were analyzed, of which 215 patients underwent a subsequent reoperation for arthrofibrosis (2.2%). A higher risk of arthrofibrosis was observed in female patients (adjusted HR = 1.67, 95% CI 1.22 – 2.27, p = 0.001), patients with a history of previous knee surgery (adjusted HR = 1.97, 95% CI 1.11 – 3.50, p = 0.021) and when a transtibial femoral tunnel drilling technique was used (adjusted HR = 1.55, 95% CI 1.06 – 2.28, p = 0.024). Patients who underwent early ACL reconstruction within 6 weeks of their injury did not have a higher risk of arthrofibrosis when compared to patients who underwent surgery more than 6 weeks after their injury (3.5% versus 2.1%, adjusted HR = 1.56, 95% CI 0.97 – 2.50, p = 0.07). Age, graft type and concomitant meniscal injury did not influence the rate of arthrofibrosis. Female sex, a history of previous knee surgery and a transtibial femoral tunnel drilling technique are risk factors for arthrofibrosis following primary ACL reconstruction

Introduction. Distal femur fractures around a total knee arthroplasty (TKA) are a growing problem for orthopaedic surgeons. The purpose of this study was to identify risks of reoperation for nonunion following open reduction and internal fixation of TKA periprosthetic distal femur fractures (PDFF). Method. Patients with PDFF (AO 33A-C[VB1, C1, D1], Su types 1-3) managed operatively with open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) were retrospectively reviewed. Exclusion criteria were acute management with a distal femur replacement, less than 6 months of follow-up, and lack of injury or follow-up radiographs. The primary outcome measure was reoperation to achieve bony union. Comparisons were made between cases that did and did not require a reoperation to achieve union. Univariate analysis was used to identify factors to be analyzed in multivariate analysis to determine independent risk factors for the primary outcome. Result. A total of 77 patients met inclusion criteria. Union rate was 69/77 (89.6%). There were no differences between the groups for age, sex, BMI, comorbidities, Su classification, open injury, or mechanism of injury. Multivariate analysis identified risks for nonunion including post-operative malalignment (OR 1.41; CI 1.20-1.64; p<0.001), notching pre-operatively (OR 1.22; CI 1.04-1.42; p=0.012), presence of screws through fracture line (OR 1.28; CI 1.17-1.39; p<0.001), plate length <12 holes (OR 1.16; CI 1.02-1.33; p=0.024) and screw density greater than 0.4 (OR 2.18; CI 1.25-3.78; p=0.006). Conclusion. The reoperation rate to promote union was 10.4%. The study identified post-operative malalignment, notching pre-operatively, presence of screws through fracture line, plate length <12 holes, and proximal screw density greater than 40% as independent risk factors for nonunion

Aims. The aim of this study was to compare open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) with revision surgery for the surgical management of Unified Classification System (UCS) type B periprosthetic femoral fractures around cemented polished taper-slip femoral components following primary total hip arthroplasty (THA). Methods. Data were collected for patients admitted to five UK centres. The primary outcome measure was the two-year reoperation rate. Secondary outcomes were time to surgery, transfusion requirements, critical care requirements, length of stay, two-year local complication rates, six-month systemic complication rates, and mortality rates. Comparisons were made by the form of treatment (ORIF vs revision) and UCS type (B1 vs B2/B3). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed with two-year reoperation for any reason as the endpoint. Results. A total of 317 periprosthetic fractures (in 317 patients) with a median follow-up of 3.6 years (interquartile range (IQR) 2.0 to 5.4) were included. The fractures were type B1 in 133 (42.0%), B2 in 170 (53.6%), and B3 in 14 patients (4.4%). ORIF was performed in 167 (52.7%) and revision in 150 patients (47.3%). The two-year reoperation rate (15.3% vs 7.2%; p = 0.021), time to surgery (4.0 days (IQR 2.0 to 7.0) vs 2.0 days (IQR 1.0 to 4.0); p < 0.001), transfusion requirements (55 patients (36.7%) vs 42 patients (25.1%); p = 0.026), critical care requirements (36 patients (24.0%) vs seven patients (4.2%); p < 0.001) and two-year local complication rates (26.7% vs 9.0%; p < 0.001) were significantly higher in the revision group. The two-year rate of survival was significantly higher for ORIF (91.9% (standard error (SE) 0.023%) vs 83.9% (SE 0.031%); p = 0.032) compared with revision. For B1 fractures, the two-year reoperation rate was significantly higher for revision compared with ORIF (29.4% vs 6.0%; p = 0.002) but this was similar for B2 and B3 fractures (9.8% vs 13.5%; p = 0.341). The most common indication for reoperation after revision was dislocation (12 patients; 8.0%). Conclusion. Revision surgery has higher reoperation rates, longer surgical waiting times, higher transfusion requirements, and higher critical care requirements than ORIF in the management of periprosthetic fractures around polished taper-slip femoral components after THA. ORIF is a safe option providing anatomical reconstruction is achievable. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(2):124–134

Aims. The aim of this study was to determine both the incidence of, and the reoperation rate for, postoperative periprosthetic femoral fracture (POPFF) after total hip arthroplasty (THA) with either a collared cementless (CC) femoral component or a cemented polished taper-slip (PTS) femoral component. Methods. We performed a retrospective review of a consecutive series of 11,018 THAs over a ten-year period. All POPFFs were identified using regional radiograph archiving and electronic care systems. Results. A total of 11,018 THAs were implanted: 4,952 CC femoral components and 6,066 cemented PTS femoral components. Between groups, age, sex, and BMI did not differ. Overall, 91 patients (0.8%) sustained a POPFF. For all patients with a POPFF, 16.5% (15/91) were managed conservatively, 67.0% (61/91) underwent open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF), and 16.5% (15/91) underwent revision. The CC group had a lower POPFF rate compared to the PTS group (0.7% (36/4,952) vs 0.9% (55/6,066); p = 0.345). Fewer POPFFs in the CC group required surgery (0.4% (22/4,952) vs 0.9% (54/6,066); p = 0.005). Fewer POPFFs required surgery in males with a CC than males with a PTS (0.3% (7/2,121) vs 1.3% (36/2,674); p < 0.001). Conclusion. Male patients with a PTS femoral component were five times more likely to have a reoperation for POPFF. Female patients had the same incidence of reoperation with either component type. Of those having a reoperation, 80.3% (61/76) had an ORIF, which could greatly mask the size of this problem in many registries. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(2):144–150

Aims. Open discectomy (OD) is the standard operation for lumbar disc herniation (LDH). Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD), however, has shown similar outcomes to OD and there is increasing interest in this procedure. However despite improved surgical techniques and instrumentation, reoperation and infection rates continue and are reported to be between 6% and 24% and 0.7% and 16%, respectively. The objective of this study was to compare the rate of reoperation and infection within six months of patients being treated for LDH either by OD or PELD. Methods. In this retrospective, nationwide cohort study, the Korean National Health Insurance database from 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2018 was reviewed. Data were extracted for patients who underwent OD or PELD for LDH without a history of having undergone either procedure during the preceding year. Individual patients were followed for six months through their encrypted unique resident registration number. The primary endpoints were rates of reoperation and infection during the follow-up period. Other risk factors for reoperation and infection were also evalulated. Results. Out of 549,531 patients, 522,640 had undergone OD (95.11%) and 26,891 patients had undergone PELD (4.89%). Reoperation rates within six months were 2.28% in the OD group, and 5.38% in the PELD group. Infection rates were 1.18% in OD group and 0.83% in PELD group. The risk of reoperation was lower for patients with OD than for patients with PELD (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.38). The risk of infection was higher for patients with OD than for patients undergoing PELD (HR, 1.325). Conclusion. Compared with the OD group, the PELD group showed higher reoperation rates and lower infection rates. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(8):1392–1399

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

Aims. The aim of this study was to assess the association of mortality and reoperation when comparing cemented and uncemented hemiarthroplasty (HA) in hip fracture patients aged over 65 years. Methods. This was a population-based cohort study on hip fracture patients using prospectively gathered data from several national registries in Denmark from 2004 to 2015 with up to five years follow-up. The primary outcome was mortality and the secondary outcome was reoperation. Hazard ratios (HRs) for mortality and subdistributional hazard ratios (sHRs) for reoperations are shown with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results. A total of 17,671 patients with primary HA were identified (9,484 uncemented and 8,187 cemented HAs). Compared to uncemented HA, surgery with cemented HA was associated with an absolute risk difference of 0.4% for mortality within the period zero to one day after surgery and an adjusted HR of 1.70 (95% CI 1.22 to 2.38). After seven days, there was no longer any association, with an adjusted HR of 1.07 (95% CI 0.90 to 1.28). This continued until five years after surgery with a HR of 1.01 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.06). There was a higher proportion of reoperations due to any reason after five years in the uncemented group with 10.2% compared to the cemented group with 6.1%. This yielded an adjusted sHR of 0.65 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.75) and difference continued up until five years after the surgery, demonstrating a sHR of 0.70 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.83). Conclusion. In a non-selected cohort of hip fracture patients, surgery with cemented HA was associated with a higher relative mortality during the first postoperative day compared to surgery with uncemented HA, but there was no difference after seven days up until five years after. In contrast, surgery with cemented HA was associated with lower risk of reoperation up to five years postoperatively compared with surgery with uncemented HA. There was a higher relative mortality on the first postoperative day for cemented HA versus uncemented HA. There was no difference in mortality after seven days up until five years after surgery. There were 6.1% reoperations for cemented HA compared to 10.2% for uncemented HA after five years. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(1):127–133

Aims. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of depressive and anxiety disorders prior to total hip (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and to assess their impact on the rates of any infection, revision, or reoperation. Methods. Between January 2000 and March 2019, 21,469 primary and revision arthroplasties (10,011 THAs; 11,458 TKAs), which were undertaken in 15,504 patients at a single academic medical centre, were identified from a 27-county linked electronic medical record (EMR) system. Depressive and anxiety disorders were identified by diagnoses in the EMR or by using a natural language processing program with subsequent validation from review of the medical records. Patients with mental health diagnoses other than anxiety or depression were excluded. Results. Depressive and/or anxiety disorders were common before THA and TKA, with a prevalence of 30% in those who underwent primary THA, 33% in those who underwent revision THA, 32% in those who underwent primary TKA, and 35% in those who underwent revision TKA. The presence of depressive or anxiety disorders was associated with a significantly increased risk of any infection (primary THA, hazard ratio (HR) 1.5; revision THA, HR 1.9; primary TKA, HR 1.6; revision TKA, HR 1.8), revision (THA, HR 1.7; TKA, HR 1.6), re-revision (THA, HR 2.0; TKA, HR 1.6), and reoperation (primary THA, HR 1.6; revision THA, HR 2.2; primary TKA, HR 1.4; revision TKA, HR 1.9; p < 0.03 for all). Patients with preoperative depressive and/or anxiety disorders were significantly less likely to report “much better” joint function after primary THA (78% vs 87%) and primary TKA (86% vs 90%) compared with those without these disorders at two years postoperatively (p < 0.001 for all). Conclusion. The presence of depressive or anxiety disorders prior to primary or revision THA and TKA is common, and associated with a significantly higher risk of infection, revision, reoperation, and dissatisfaction. This topic deserves further study, and surgeons may consider mental health optimization to be of similar importance to preoperative variables such as diabetic control, prior to arthroplasty. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(5):526–533

Aims. Hydroxyapatite (HA)-coated collars have been shown to reduce aseptic loosening of massive endoprostheses following primary surgery. Limited information exists about their effectiveness in revision surgery. The aim of this study was to radiologically assess osteointegration to HA-coated collars of cemented massive endoprostheses following revision surgery. Methods. Retrospective review of osseointegration frequency, pattern, and timing to a specific HA-coated collar on massive endoprostheses used in revision surgery at our tertiary referral centre between 2010 to 2017 was undertaken. Osseointegration was radiologically classified on cases with a minimum follow-up of six months. Results. In all, 39 patients underwent radiological review at mean 43.5 months; 22/39 (56.4%) showed no osseointegration to the collar. Revision endoprostheses for aseptic loosening were less likely to show osseointegration compared with other indications for revision. Oncological cases with previous or current infection were more likely to show osseointegration to ≥ 1 collar side than those without evidence of prior infection. Conclusion. This seven-year review identified osseointegration of HA-coated collars after revision surgery is less likely (43.6%, 17/39) than after primary surgery. Young patients who undergo revision surgery following initial oncological indication may benefit the most from this collar design. Use in revision oncological cases with a history of infection may be beneficial. HA-coated collars showed limited benefit for patients undergoing revision for failed arthroplasty with history of infection. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(6):371–379

Aims. Despite long-standing dogma, a clear relationship between the timing of surgical irrigation and debridement (I&D) and the development of subsequent deep infection has not been established in the literature. Traditionally, I&D of an open fracture has been recommended within six hours of injury based on animal studies from the 1970s, however the clinical basis for this remains unclear. Using data from a multicentre randomized controlled trial of 2,447 open fracture patients, the primary objective of this secondary analysis is to determine if a relationship exists between timing of wound I&D (within six hours of injury vs beyond six hours) and subsequent reoperation rate for infection or healing complications within one year for patients with open limb fractures requiring surgical treatment. Methods. To adjust for the influence of patient and injury characteristics on the timing of I&D, a propensity score was developed from the dataset. Propensity-adjusted regression allowed for a matched cohort analysis within the study population to determine if early irrigation put patients independently at risk for reoperation, while controlling for confounding factors. Results were reported as odds ratios (ORs), 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and p-values. All analyses were conducted using STATA 14. Results. In total, 2,286 of 2,447 patients randomized to the trial from 41 orthopaedic trauma centres across five countries had complete data regarding time to I&D. Prior to matching, the patients managed with early I&D had a higher proportion requiring reoperation for infection or healing complications (17% vs 13%; p = 0.019), however this does not account for selection bias of more severe injuries preferentially being treated earlier. When accounting for propensity matching, early irrigation was not associated with reoperation (OR 0.71 (95% CI 0.47 to 1.07); p = 0.73). Conclusion. When accounting for other variables, late irrigation does not independently increase risk of reoperation. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6):1055–1062

Introduction. Knee arthroplasty (KA), encompassing Total Knee Replacement (TKR) and Unicompartmental Knee Replacement (UKR), is one of the most common orthopedic procedures, aimed at alleviating severe knee arthritis. Postoperative KA management, especially radiographic imaging, remains a substantial financial burden and lacks standardised protocols for its clinical utility during follow-up. Method. In this retrospective multicentre cohort study, data were analysed from January 2014 to March 2020 for adult patients undergoing primary KA at Imperial NHS Trust. Patients were followed over a five-year period. Four machine learning models were developed to evaluate if post-operative X-ray frequency can predict revision surgery. The best-performing model was used to assess the risk of revision surgery associated with different number of X-rays. Result. The study assessed 289 knees with a 2.4% revision rate. The revision group had more X-rays on average than the primary group. The best performing model was Logistic Regression (LR), which indicated that each additional X-ray raised the revision risk by 52% (p<0.001). Notably, having four or more X-rays was linked to a three-fold increase in risk of revision (OR=3.02; p<0.001). Our results align with the literature that immediate post-operative X-rays have limited utility, making the 2nd post-operative X-ray of highest importance in understanding the patient's trajectory. These insights can enhance management by improving risk stratification for patients at higher revision surgery risk. Despite LR being the best-performing model, it is limited by the dataset's significant class imbalance. Conclusion. X-ray frequency can independently predict revision surgery. This study provides insights that can guide surgeons in evidence-based post-operative decision-making. To use those findings and influence post-operative management, future studies should build on this predictive model by incorporating a more robust dataset, surgical indications, and X-ray findings. This will allow early identification of high-risk patients, allowing for personalised post-operative recommendations

Aims. We aimed to compare reoperations following distal radial fractures (DRFs) managed with early fixation versus delayed fixation following initial closed reduction (CR). Methods. We used administrative databases in Ontario, Canada, to identify DRF patients aged 18 years or older from 2003 to 2016. We used procedural and fee codes within 30 days to determine which patients underwent early fixation (≤ seven days) or delayed fixation following CR. We grouped patients in the delayed group by their time to definitive fixation (eight to 14 days, 15 to 21 days, and 22 to 30 days). We used intervention and diagnostic codes to identify reoperations within two years. We used multivariable regression to compare the association between early versus delayed fixation and reoperation for all patients and stratified by age (18 to 60 years and > 60 years). Results. We identified 14,960 DRF patients, 8,339 (55.7%) of whom underwent early surgical fixation (mean 2.9 days (SD 1.8)). In contrast, 4,042 patients (27.0%) underwent delayed fixation between eight and 14 days (mean 10.2 days (SD 2.2)), 1,892 (12.7%) between 14 and 21 days (mean 17.5 days (SD 1.9)) and 687 (4.6%) > 21 days (mean 24.8 days (SD 2.4)) post-fracture. Patients who underwent delayed fixation > 21 days post-fracture had a higher odds of reoperation (odds ratio (OR) 1.33 (95% CI 1.11 to 1.79) vs early fixation). This worsened for patients aged > 60 years (OR 1.69 (95% CI 1.11 to 2.79)). We found no difference in the odds of reoperation for patients who underwent delayed fixation within eight to 14 or 15 to 21 days post-fracture (vs early fixation). Conclusion. These data suggest that DRF patients with fractures with unacceptable reduction following CR should be managed within three weeks to avoid detrimental outcomes. Prospective studies are required to confirm these findings. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(11):1257–1262

Introduction. The Kaplan Meier estimator is widely used in orthopedics. In situations where another event prevents the occurrence of the event of interest, the Kaplan Meier estimator is not appropriate and a competing risks model has to be applied. We questioned how much bias is introduced by erroneous use of the Kaplan Meier estimator instead of a competing risks model in a hip revision surgery cohort. Methods. In our previously published cohort study, 62 acetabular revisions (58 patients) were performed between January 1979 and March 1986. Twenty to twenty-five years after surgery, no patients were lost to follow-up. Thirteen patients underwent revision surgery. During the 20 to 25 years follow-up, 30 patients (33 acetabular revisions) died of causes unrelated to their hip surgery. Results. In the data set analyzed, the Kaplan Meier method overestimates the probability of implant failure by 6.7%, 13.8%,26.8%,48.6% at 5, 10, 15 and 20 years respectively. Discussion. We have performed two different analyses for a hip revision surgery cohort and discussed the use of a competing risks model. Ignoring competing risks leads to biased estimations of the probability of having future revision surgery. Therefore we recommended the use of a competing risks model whenever there are competing risks present

Aims. We compared the risks of re-revision and mortality between two-stage revision surgery and single-stage revision surgery among patients with infected primary knee arthroplasty. Methods. Patients with a periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of their primary knee arthroplasty, initially revised with a single-stage or a two-stage procedure in England and Wales between 2003 and 2014, were identified from the National Joint Registry. We used Poisson regression with restricted cubic splines to compute hazard ratios (HR) at different postoperative periods. The total number of revisions and re-revisions undergone by patients was compared between the two strategies. Results. A total of 489 primary knee arthroplasties were revised with single-stage procedure (1,390 person-years) and 2,377 with two-stage procedure (8,349 person-years). The adjusted incidence rates of all-cause re-revision and for infection were comparable between these strategies (HR overall five years, 1.15 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87 to 1.52), p = 0.308; HR overall five years, 0.99 (95% CI 0.70 to 1.39), p = 0.949, respectively). Patients initially managed with single-stage revision received fewer revision procedures overall than after two-stage revision (1.2 vs 2.2, p < 0.001). Mortality was lower for single-stage revision between six and 18 months postoperative (HR at six months, 0.51 (95% CI 0.25 to 1.00), p = 0.049 HR at 18 months, 0.33 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.99), p = 0.048) and comparable at other timepoints. Conclusion. The risk of re-revision was similar between single- and two-stage revision for infected primary knee arthroplasty. Single-stage group required fewer revisions overall, with lower or comparable mortality at specific postoperative periods. The single-stage revision is a safe and effective strategy to treat infected knee arthroplasties. There is potential for increased use to reduce the burden of knee PJI for patients, and for the healthcare system. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2022;11(10):690–699