Aims. This study aimed to describe preoperative waiting times for surgery in hip fracture patients in Norway, and analyze factors affecting waiting time and potential negative consequences of prolonged waiting time. Methods. Overall, 37,708 hip fractures in the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register from January 2014 to December 2018 were linked with data in the Norwegian Patient Registry. Hospitals treating hip fractures were characterized according to their hip fracture care. Waiting time (hours from admission to start of surgery), surgery within regular working hours, and surgery on the day of or on the day after admission, i.e. ‘expedited surgery’ were estimated. Results. Mean waiting time was 22.6 hours (SD 20.7); 36,652 patients (97.2%) waited less than three days (< 72 hours), and 27,527 of the patients (73%) were operated within regular working hours (08:00 to 16:00). Expedited surgery was given to 31,675 of patients (84%), and of these, 19,985 (53%) were treated during regular working hours. Patients classified as American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classes 4 and 5 were more likely to have surgery within regular working hours (odds ratio (OR) 1.59; p < 0.001), and less likely to receive expedited surgery than ASA 1 patients (OR 0.29; p < 0.001). Low-volume hospitals treated a larger proportion of patients during regular working hours than high volume hospitals (OR 1.26; p < 0.001). High-volume hospitals had less expedited surgery and significantly longer waiting times than low and intermediate-low volume hospitals. Higher ASA classes and Charlson Comorbidity Index increased waiting time. Patients not receiving expedited surgery had higher 30-day and one-year mortality rates (OR 1.19; p < 0.001) and OR 1.13; p < 0.001), respectively. Conclusion. There is inequality in waiting time for hip fracture treatment in Norway. Variations in waiting time from admission to hip fracture surgery depended on both patient and hospital factors. Not receiving expedited surgery was associated with increased 30-day and one-year mortality rates. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(9):710–720

The aims were to assess whether preoperative joint-specific function (JSF) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) were associated with level of clinical frailty in patients waiting for a primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) or knee arthroplasty (KA). Patients waiting for a THA (n=100) or KA (n=100) for more than six months were prospectively recruited from the study centre. Overall, 162 patients responded to the questionnaire (81 THA; 81 KA). Patient demographics, Oxford score, EuroQol five dimension (EQ-5D) score, EuroQol visual analogue score (EQ-VAS), Rockwood Clinical Frailty Score (CFS), and time spent on the waiting list were collected. There was a significant correlation between CFS and the Oxford score (THA r=ˆ’0.838; p<0.001, KA r=ˆ’0.867; p<0.001), EQ-5D index (THA r=ˆ’0.663, p<0.001; KA r=ˆ’0.681; p< 0.001), and EQ-VAS (THA r=ˆ’0.414; p<0.001, KA r=ˆ’0.386; p<0.001). Confounding variables (demographics and waiting time) where adjusted for using multiple regression analysis. For each 8.5 (THA, 95% CI 7.1 to 10.0; p<0.001) and 9.9 (KA, 95% CI 8.4 to 11.4; p<0.001) point change in the Oxford score, there was an associated change in level of the CFS. For each 0.16 (THA, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.22; p<0.001) and 0.20 (KA, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.27; p<0.001) utility change in EQ-5D, there was an associated change in level of the CFS. EQ-VAS (THA, B=ˆ’11.5; p<0.001, KA B=ˆ’7.9; p=0.005) was also associated with CFS. JSF and HRQoL in patients awaiting THA or KA for more than six months, were independently associated with level of clinical frailty. With further prospective studies, clinical frailty may prove to be a useful metric to assist in the prioritization of arthroplasty waiting lists

There is a surge of patients on the waiting-list for primary total hip replacement (THR), due to unprecedented reduction of elective activity caused by COVID-19. A higher incidence of femoral head collapse (FC) and acetabular erosion (AE) leading to increase in pain and instability as well as requirement of more complex surgery and potentially higher risk to patients was noted in this period. Rapidly progressive Arthritis (RPA) of the hip is a known entity often described as progression of joint space narrowing greater than 2mm over one year time period. The study aims to identify any potential relationship between waiting time and establishment of femoral head collapse and/ or acetabular erosion. A retrospective review of arthroplasty surgeon's waiting list during COVID. Serial hip radiographs recorded between February 2020 and February 2022 were analysed. FC was quantified as a percentage of the femoral head radius, while AE was assessed by drawing two parallel lines, one through both tear drops and the other through superior most aspect of intact acetabulum, parallel to the inter tear-drop line and expressed as percentage of normal side. Only 105 patients out of 264 patients added to the waiting list had elective arthroplasty for hip/knee. Only 35 patients out of 90 listed for THR, had the surgery. 36 of 90 (40%) were found to have developed FC and fitted the criteria for RPA. Acetabular erosion was seen in 19 (21%). Therefore 53% (19 of 36) of those who developed FC progressed to AE. Incidence of collapse was higher in females (32%), with mean age of 62 (range 51–81), compared to 21% in males with mean age 59 (range 53–87). Mean extent of femoral head collapse was 20% (10 – 44%). A significant proportion of patients added to waiting list during COVID developed RPA of the hip with 40% having femoral head collapse and 21% progressing to acetabular erosion leading to a complex case-mix. Patients on long waiting lists need regular x-ray checks/PROMS since significant proportion progress to FC and Acetabular Erosion

Given the prolonged waits for hip arthroplasty seen across the U.K. it is important that we optimise priority systems to account for potential disparities in patient circumstances and impact. We set out to achieve this through a two-stage approach. This included a Delphi-study of patient and surgeon preferences to determine what should be considered when determining patient priority, followed by a Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) to decide relative weighting of included attributes. The study was conducted according to the published protocol ([. https://boneandjoint.org.uk/article/10.1302/2633-1462.310.BJO-2022-0071. ](. https://boneandjoint.org.uk/article/10.1302/2633-1462.310.BJO-2022-0071. )). The Delphi study was performed online over 3 rounds with anonymous ranking and feedback. Included factors were voted as either Consensus in, Consensus out, or No Consensus• following an established scoring criterion. A final consensus meeting determined the prioritisation factors (and their levels) to be included in the DCE. The DCE was then conducted using an online platform, with surgeons performing 18 choice sets regarding which merited greater priority between two hypothetical patients. Results were collated and analysed using multinomial logit regression analysis (MNL). For the Delphi study there were 43 responses in the first round, with a subsequent 91% participation rate. Final consensus inclusion was achieved for Pain; Mobility/Function; Activities of Daily Living; Inability to Work/Care; Length of Time Waited; Radiological Severity and Mental Wellbeing. 70 individuals subsequently contributed to the DCE, with radiological severity being the most significant factor (Coefficient 2.27 \[SD 0.31\], p<0.001), followed by pain (Coefficient 1.08 \[SD 0.13\], p<0.001) and time waited (Coefficient for 1-month additional wait 0.12 \[SD 0.02\], p<0.001). The calculated trade-off in waiting time for a 1-level change in pain (e.g., moderate to severe pain) was 9.14 months. These results present a new method of determining comparative priority for those on primary hip arthroplasty waiting lists. Evaluation of potential implementation in clinical practice is now required

Waiting times for arthroplasty surgery in Northern Ireland are among the longest in the National Health Service, which have been further lengthened by the onset of the SARS-CoV-19 global pandemic in March 2020. The Department of Health (DoH) in Northern Ireland has announced a new Elective Care Framework (ECF), with the framework proposing that by March 2026 no patient will wait more than 52 weeks for inpatient/day case treatment. We aimed to assess the feasibility of achieving this with reference to Total Hip Arthroplasty (THA). Waiting list information was obtained via a Freedom of Information request to the DoH (May 2021) and National Joint Registry data was used to determine baseline operative numbers. Mathematical modelling was undertaken to calculate the time taken to meet the ECF target and also to determine the time to clear the waiting lists for THA using the number of patients currently on the waiting list and percentage operating capacity relative to pre-Covid-19 capacity to determine future projections. As of May 2021, there were 3,757 patients awaiting primary THA in Northern Ireland. Prior to April 2020, there were a mean 2,346 patients/annum added to the waiting list for primary THA and there were a mean 1,624 primary THAs performed per annum. The ECF targets for THA will only be achieved in 2026 if operating capacity is 200% of pre COVID-19 pandemic capacity and will be achieved in 2030 if capacity is 170%. Surgical capacity must exceed pre-Covid capacity by at least 30% to meet ongoing demand. THA capacity was significantly reduced following resumption of elective orthopaedics post-COVID-19 (22% of pre-COVID-19 capacity – 355 THAs/annum post-COVID-19 versus 1,624/annum pre-COVID-19). This modelling demonstrates that, in the absence of major funding and reorganisation of elective orthopaedic care, the targets set out in the ECF will not be achieved with regards to hip arthroplasty. Waiting times for THA surgery in the NHS in Northern Ireland are likely to remain greater than 52 weeks for most of this decade

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

Within an ageing population, the morbidity and mortality burden of neck of femur fractures will only worsen. Financially incentivising acute Trusts via the Best Practice Tariff for inpatient care has yielded good results(1,2,3,4) but post-discharge care is still variable. Most importantly, restoring patients to their pre-fracture mobility is key to their quality of life(5,6) and reducing both readmissions to hospital(7,8) and expensive local authority residential care. Unfortunately, physiotherapist vacancies are in their thousands(9,10) leading to waiting times of around three months once discharged(11). In 2019, the Royal Derby Hospital created a novel Hip Fracture Patient Advocate (HFPA) to observe those who have fallen through gaps in community services. It involves monitoring patients’ progression, signposting to appropriate services, flagging issues to the responsible consultant and assisting in physical mobilisation. A retrospective review examined data from patients discharged to their own homes. This included demographics, residential status and mobility, both pre-fracture and at 120 days post-fracture. Mobility was classified into five categories, in line with the national hip fracture database. In 2018, of 238 patients, 41.2% returned to their baseline or increased mobility, and, after the introduction of the HFPA in 2019, this figure increased to 48.2%. In one year, there was a 7% increase in patients recovering their baseline mobility. This is a cost-effective intervention that can successfully improve mobility, leading to improved long-term outcomes. This includes the potential to reduce acute readmissions and the need for residential care, appealing to Integrated Care Boards. It also bridges the gap to primary care to optimise medical management and after further development, could be financially-incentivised via the Best Practice Tariff. Rather than thinking more expensive clinicians are required, this study proposes that a HFPA can garner better outcomes for both the patient and the wider system

The documentation of deep infection rates in joint replacement is fraught with multiple difficulties. Deep infections acquired in theatre may present late, but some later presenting deep infections are clearly haematogenous, and not related to surgical management. The effect of Ultra Clean Air on infection rates was published by Charnley in 1972 (CORR,87:167–187). The data is valuable because large numbers of THRs were performed in standard and Ultra Clean theatres, and detailed microbiology of the air was also recorded. No IV antibiotics were used, so only the effect of air quality was studied. We extracted the data on theatre type and numbers from Table 3, and numbers and intervals from surgery of deep infections from Table 7. Theatre types with 300 air changes per hour and 3.5 CFU/M. 3. were classified as Ultra Clean. A logistic regression model was used to examine the effect of theatre type and time elapsed after procedure on the probability of becoming infected. The model suggests that, controlling for time period, Ultra Clean Air is associated with a significantly lower probability of infection, with an OR of 0.30, p = 2.74 × 10. −6. The effect is larger earlier post-surgery, but it does persist. The results are best reviewed as a graphic, which shows that Ultra Clean Air clearly affects the deep infection rate for up to four years post-surgery. Ultra Clean Air reduces infection rates for up to four years post-surgery, so it is safe to assume that infections presenting after this are haematogenous. Ultra Clean Air does not eliminate early deep infection, so some early infections are not related to air quality. It is not practical to undertake widespread detailed retrospective analyses of cases. When monitoring infection rates there needs to be a balance between failing to record infections related to surgical technique and waiting many years to record low numbers of very late presenting problems. We suggest that registries should regard infections documented within three years of surgery as treatment complications. For any figures or tables, please contact the authors directly

The rising prevalence of osteoarthritis, associated with an ageing population, is expected to deliver increasing demand across Scotland for arthroplasty services in the future. Understanding the scale of potential change to operative workflow is essential to ensure adequate provision of services and prevent prolonged waiting times that can cause patient harm. This future service demand for primary and revision hip arthroplasty across Scotland, and the rest of the U.K., is hitherto unknown. We set out to provide projections of future primary & revision hip arthroplasty out to 2038 utilising historical trend data (2008–2018) from the Scottish Arthroplasty Project. All analyses were performed using the Holt's exponential smoothing projection method with the forecast package in R statistics. Results were adjusted for projected future population estimates provided by National Records of Scotland. Independent age & sex group predictions were also performed. All results are presented per 100,000 population at-risk per year (/100k/year). The predicted rise of primary hip arthroplasty for all ages is from 120/100k/year in 2018 to 152/100k/year in 2038, a 27% increase. Based on a static 3 day length of stay average this would see 4280 additional patient bed days required for primary hip arthroplasty patients per annum. The number of revision hip arthroplasty procedures for all ages is projected to fall from 14/100k/year to 4/100k/year based on historical trend data. This does not however take into account the suspect increase in primary arthroplasty numbers that is likely to influence future revision rates. Anticipated future demand for primary hip arthroplasty will require significant additional resource and funding to prevent deterioration in quality of care and an increase in patient wait times. Demand for revision arthroplasty is set to decrease, likely on account of improved implant materials, technique, and understanding of best practice to minimise complication risk. This doesn't however take into account the impact of the complex interaction between an increasing primary arthroplasty rate and revision risk. Understanding presented projections of changes to arthroplasty demand is key to future service delivery

This large UK multicentre study evaluates clinical outcomes and identifies factors associated with local complication following PFR for non-oncological conditions. 132 patients across four UK centres underwent PFR from 01/08/2004-28/03/2023 with median follow-up of 1.9 (Q10.5-Q34.2) years. 75 (56.8%) patients were female and the mean age was 74.0 (SD 11.7) years. 103 (78%) patients had Charleston Comorbidity Index ≥3. ASA class was III or IV in 66.6%. Indications were infected revision (39, 29.5%), periprosthetic fracture (36, 27.3%), acute trauma (30, 22.7%), aseptic revision (17, 12.9%), failed trauma (nine, 6.8%) and complex primary arthroplasty (one, 0.8%). The primary outcome was the local complication rate. Secondary outcomes were systemic complications, reoperation and mortality rates. Comparisons were made with t-tests and Chi2 tests to investigate patient and surgical factors associated with local complication. Statistical significance was p<0.05. There were 37(28.0%) local complications. These were 18 (13.6%) dislocations, eight (6.1%) prosthetic joint infections, four (3.0%) haematomas, three (2.3%) superficial infections, one (0.8%) wound dehiscence, one (0.8%) sciatic nerve palsy and one (0.8%) femoral perforation. Dislocation mostly occurred in conventional articulations (12, 9.1%) followed by dual-mobility cups (three, 2.3%), constrained cups (two, 1.5%) and hemiarthroplasty (one, 0.8%). Median time to local complication was 30 (Q14-Q3 133) days. Seven (5.3%) patients developed a systemic complication. Thirty-three (25.0%) patients underwent reoperation. Thirty-day and one-year mortality rates were 3.8% and 12.1%, respectively. Longer surgical waiting times (7.9 \[SD 16.9) versus 2.6 \[SD 4.4\] days, p<0.001) and longer operating times (212.5 \[SD 71.8\] versus 189.4 \[SD 59.3\] mins, p=0.0450) were associated with local complication. Due to its high complication rate, PFR should be a salvage option when performed for non-oncological indications. Conventional articulations should be avoided. PFR should be delivered in a timely manner and ideally as dual-consultant cases to reduce operating time

Total hip replacement (THR) for end-stage osteoarthritis is a commonly performed cost-effective procedure, which provides patients with significant clinical improvement. Estimating the future demand for joint replacement is important to identify the healthcare resources needed. We estimated the number of primary THRs that will need to be performed up to the year 2060. We used data from The National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man on the current volume of primary THR (n=94,936) performed in 2018. We projected future numbers of THR using a static estimated rate from 2018 applied to population growth forecast data from the UK Office for National Statistics up to 2060. By 2060, primary THR volume would increase from 2018 levels by an estimated 37.7% (n=130,766). For both males and females demand for surgery was also higher for patients aged 70 and over, with older patients having the biggest relative increase in volume over time: 70–79 years (144.6% males, 141.2% females); 80–89 years (212.4% males, 185.6% females); 90 years and older (448.0% males, 298.2% females). By 2060 demand for THR is estimated to increase by almost 40%. Demand will be greatest in older patients (70 years+), which will have significant implications for the health service that requires forward planning given morbidity and resource use is higher in this population. There is a backlog of current demand with cancellation of elective surgery due to seasonal flu pressures in 2017 and now Covid-19 in 2020. Orthopaedics already has the largest waiting list of any speciality. These issues will negatively impact the health services ability to deliver timely joint replacement to many patients for a number of years and require urgent planning

Hip fractures in elderly patients are managed at both major trauma centers (MTC) and trauma units (TU). Previous evidence has demonstrated the importance of early surgery to reduce the morbidity and mortality related to the injury. The aim of this study is to compare the ‘time to theatre' and ‘30 day mortality' in TUs versus MTC in UK. A retrospective review of prospectively collected data on NHFD was performed. The average ‘time to theatre' in hours and ‘30 day mortality' of all hospitals were analysed between January and December 2018. Further subgroup analysis was done to check for any regional variations; in each instance a Shapiro-Wilk test was used to check for normal distribution, followed by a one-way ANOVA with a Tukey's post hoc test. Data from 158 hospitals in England (ENG), Wales (WAL) and Northern Ireland (NI) were used; 18 of which were MTC. There were 57,936 operative cases in TUs and 8606 in MTC's. The mean time (hours) to surgery from presentation was 32.51 and 32.64 for TUs and MTC respectively (p=0.513). There was no significant difference in ‘30 day mortality' (p=0.635) between TUs (6%) and 5.7% MTC's (5.7%), MTC's and TUs in ENG, WAL and NI (p=0.555), and MTC and WAL, NI and the different regions of ENG (p=0.209). A significant difference was observed, between the regional practice for TUs versus MTC's in ENG, WAL and NI (p=0.001) and between MTC's and TUs in WAL, NI and the different regions of ENG (p=0.001), with patients waiting significantly longer in NI for their procedure (mean=60.25 hours, p=0.001). There was no significant difference in time to surgery or 30 day mortality between TUs and MTC's, demonstrating comparable hip fracture care, despite MTCs need to prioritise more serious injuries

Background. Delay in access to primary total hip (THA) arthroplasty continues to pose a substantial burden to patients and society in publicly funded healthcare systems. The majority of strategies to decrease wait times have focused on the time from surgical consult to surgery, however a large proportion of total wait time for these patients is the time from primary care referral to surgical consultation. Prioritization scoring tools and patient reported outcome measures are being used in an attempt to ration limited resources in the face of increasing demand. However, to our knowledge, no study has investigated whether a referral Oxford Hip Score (OHS) could be used to triage non-surgical referrals appropriately, in an effort to increase timely access to specialists for patients that are candidates for total joint replacement (TJR). Purpose. 1) To determine if a referral OHS has the predictive ability to discriminate when a hip patient will be deemed surgical versus conservative by the surgeon during their first consultation 2) To identify an OHS cut-off point that can be used to accurately predict when a primary THA referral will be deemed conservative by the consultant surgeon during the first consultation. Methods. We retrospectively reviewed all consecutive THA consultations from a single surgeon's tertiary, high volume practice over a 3-year period. Patients with a pre-consultation OHS, BMI <41, and no absolute contraindication to TJR were included. Consultation were categorized into two groups based on surgeon's decision, those that were offered THR during their first consultation (operative) versus those that were not (conservative). Baseline demographic data and OHS were abstracted. Variables of interest were compared between cohorts using the exact chi-square test and Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Spearman's rank correlation coefficients were used to measure association between pre-consult OHS and the surgeon's decision. A receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to calculate the area under the curve (AUC) and to identify a cut-off point for the pre-operative OHS that identified whether or not a referral was deemed conservative. Results. The study 478 hips (388 patients) with a median OHS of 22 (IQR 16–29). Median pre-consultation OHS demonstrated clinically and statistically significant differences between the surgical versus conservative cohorts (p<0.001). Spearman's rank correlation coefficient between OHS and a patient being deemed surgical or conservative was strong for the OHS at −0.62 (95% CI −0.67 to −0.56). The ROC AUC values for hip consults (0.87, 95% CI 0.84–0.91) was good, indicating that pre-consult OHS has predictive ability to discriminate a surgeon's decision of surgical versus conservative. One plausible conservative threshold that optimized sensitivity and NPV for hips is OHS >34 (sensitivity=0.997 NPV=0.978). ROC analysis identified severable potential lower, depending on weight of prioritization of sensitivity, specificity, and NPV. Conclusion. Referral OHS demonstrate good ability to discriminate when a knee or hip TJR referral will be deemed non-surgical versus surgical at their first consultation in a single surgeon's practice. Multiple potential OHS thresholds can be applied as a tool to decrease wait times for primary THR. However, a cost analysis would aid in identifying the optimal cut-off score, and these findings need to be validated with multi-surgeon/center studies before they can be broadly applied

Between December 2004 and June 2006, 136 patients (156 total hip replacements), were sent from the waiting list of the Cardiff Vale NHS Trust to the NHS Treatment Centre, Weston-super-Mare, in an attempt to reduce the waiting time for total hip replacement. Because of concerns about their outcome, each patient was contacted and invited to attend a review appointment with a consultant specialising in hip and revision hip replacement. A total of 98 patients (113 hips) were reviewed after a mean of 23 months (11 to 30). There were 104 cemented hips, seven hybrid and two cementless. An acetabular inclination of > 55° was seen in 18 (16%). Radiolucent lines around the acetabular component were seen in 76 (67%). The femoral component was in more than 4° of varus in 47 (42%). The medial floor had been breached in 13 (12%) and there was a leg-length discrepancy of more than 1 cm in ten (9%). There were three dislocations, one femoral fracture, one pulmonary embolus, one deep infection and two superficial wound infections. To date, 13% (15 hips) have been revised and a further 4% (five hips) await revision, mostly for a painful loose acetabular component. The revision rate far exceeds the 0.5% five-year failure rate reported in the Swedish Registry for the components used. This initiative and the consequent need for correction of the problems created, has significantly increased the workload of our unit

Aims

Our primary aim was to assess reoperation-free survival at one year after the index injury in patients aged ≥ 75 years treated with internal fixation (IF) or arthroplasty for undisplaced femoral neck fractures (uFNFs). Secondary outcomes were reoperations and mortality analyzed separately.

Aims

The duration of systemic antibiotic treatment following first-stage revision surgery for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after total hip arthroplasty (THA) is contentious. Our philosophy is to perform an aggressive debridement, and to use a high local concentration of targeted antibiotics in cement beads and systemic prophylactic antibiotics alone. The aim of this study was to assess the success of this philosophy in the management of PJI of the hip using our two-stage protocol.

Aims

To identify factors influencing clinicians’ decisions to undertake a nonoperative hip fracture management approach among older people, and to determine whether there is global heterogeneity regarding these factors between clinicians from high-income countries (HIC) and low- and middle-income countries (LMIC).

Aims

This study evaluates the association between consultant and hospital volume and the risk of re-revision and 90-day mortality following first-time revision of primary hip arthroplasty for aseptic loosening.

Aims

The aims of this study were to evaluate the incidence of reoperation (all cause and specifically for periprosthetic femoral fracture (PFF)) and mortality, and associated risk factors, following a hemiarthroplasty incorporating a cemented collarless polished taper slip stem (PTS) for management of an intracapsular hip fracture.

Aims

Our objective was describing an algorithm to identify and prevent vascular injury in patients with intrapelvic components.