With an ageing population and an increasing number of primary arthroplasties performed, the revision burden is predicted to increase. The aims of this study were to 1. Determine the revision burden in an academic hospital over a 11-year period; 2. identify the direct hospital cost associated with the delivery of revision service and 3. ascertain factors associated with increased cost.

This is an IRB-approved, retrospective, single tertiary referral center, consecutive case series. Using the hospital data warehouse, all patients that underwent revision hip or knee arthroplasty surgery between 2008-2018 were identified. 1632 revisions were identified (1304 patients), consisting of 1061 hip and 571 knee revisions. The majority of revisions were performed for mechanical-related problems and aseptic loosening (n=903; 55.3%); followed by periprosthetic joint infection (n=553; 33.9%) and periprosthetic fractures (176; 10.8%). Cost and length of stay was determined for all patient. The direct in-hospital costs were converted to 2020 inflation-adjusted Canadian dollars. Several patients- (age; gender; HOMR- and ASA-scores; Hemoglobin level) and surgical- (indication for surgery; surgical site) factors were tested for possible associations.

The number of revisions increased by 210% in the study period (2008 vs. 2018: 83 vs. 174). Revision indications changed over study period; with prevalence of fracture increasing by 460% (5 in 2008 vs. 23 in 2018) with an accompanying reduction in mechanical-related reasons, whilst revisions for infection remained constant. The mean annual cost over the entire study period was 3.9 MMCAD (range:2.4–5.1 MMCAD). The cost raised 150% over the study period from 2.4 MMCAD in 2008 to 3.6 MMCAD. Revisions for fractured had the greatest length of stay, the highest mean age, HOMR-score, ASA and cost associated with treatment compared to other revision indications (p < 0 .001). Patient factors associated with cost and length of stay included ASA- and HOMR-scores, Charlson-Comorbidity score and age.

The revision burden increased 1.5-fold over the years and so has the direct cost of care delivery. The increased cost is primarily related to the prolonged hospital stay and increased surgical cost. For tertiary care units, these findings indicate a need to identify strategies on improving efficiencies whilst improving the quality of patient care (e.g. efficient ways of reducing acute hospital stay) and reducing the raise of the economic burden on a publicly funded health system.

It has been reported that 60-85% of patients who undergo PAO have concomitant intraarticular pathology that cannot be addressed with PAO alone. Currently, there are limited diagnostic tools to determine which patients would benefit from hip arthroscopy at the time of PAO to address intra-articular pathology. This study aims to see if preoperative PROMs scores measured by IHOT-33 scores have predictive value in whether intra-articular pathology is addressed during PAO + scope. The secondary aim is to see how often surgeons at high-volume hip preservation centers address intra-articular pathology if a scope is performed during the same anesthesia event.

A randomized, prospective Multicenter trial was performed on patients who underwent PAO and hip arthroscopy to treat hip dysplasia from 2019 to 2020. Preoperative PROMs and intraoperative findings and procedures were recorded and analyzed. A total of 75 patients, 84% Female, and 16% male, with an average age of 27 years old, were included in the study. Patients were randomized to have PAO alone 34 patients vs. PAO + arthroscopy 41 patients during the same anesthesia event. The procedures performed, including types of labral procedures and chondroplasty procedures, were recorded. Additionally, a two-sided student T-test was used to evaluate the difference in means of preoperative IHOT score among patients for whom a labral procedure was performed versus no labral procedure.

A total of 82% of patients had an intra-articular procedure performed at the time of hip arthroscopy. 68% of patients who had PAO + arthroscopy had a labral procedure performed. The most common labral procedure was a labral refixation which was performed in 78% of patients who had a labral procedure performed. Femoral head-neck junction chondroplasty was performed in 51% of patients who had an intra-articular procedure performed. The mean IHOT score was 29.3 in patients who had a labral procedure performed and 33.63 in those who did not have a labral procedure performed P- value=0.24.

Our findings demonstrate preoperative IHOT-33 scores were not predictive in determining whether intra-articular labral pathology was addressed at the time of surgery. Additionally, we found that if labral pathology was addressed, labral refixation was the most common repair performed. This study also provides valuable information on what procedures high-volume hip preservation centers are performing when performing PAO + arthroscopy.

Hip dysplasia has traditionally been classified based on the lateral centre edge angle (LCEA). A recent meta-analysis demonstrated no definite consensus and a significant heterogeneity in LCEA values used in various studies to define hip dysplasia and borderline dysplasia. To overcome the shortcomings of classifying hip dysplasia based on just LCEA, a comprehensive classification for adult acetabular dysplasia (CCAD) was proposed to classify symptomatic hips into three discrete prototypical patterns of hip instability, lateral/global, anterior, or posterior. The purpose of this study was to assess the reliability of this recently published CCAD.

One thirty four consecutive hips that underwent a PAO were categorized using a validated software (Hip2Norm) into four categories of normal, lateral/global, anterior or psosterior. Based on the prevalence of individual dysplasia and using KappaSize R package version 1.1, seventy four cases were necessary for reliability analysis: 44 dysplastic and 30 normal hips were randomly selected. Six blinded fellowship trained raters were then provided with the classification system and they looked at the x-rays (74 images) at two separate time points (minimum two weeks apart) to classify the hips using standard PACS measurements. Thereafter, a consensus meeting was held where a simplified flow diagram was devised before a third reading by four raters using a separate set of 74 radiographs took place.

Intra-rater results per surgeon between Time 1 and Time 2 showed substantial to almost perfect agreement amongst the raters. With respect to inter-rater reliability, at time 1 and time 2, there was substantial agreement overall between all surgeons (kappa of 0.619 for time 1 and 0,623 for time 2). Posterior and anterior rating categories had moderate and fair agreement at time 1 and time 2, respectively. At time 3, overall reliability (kappa of 0.687) and posterior and anterior rating improved from Time 1 and Time 2.

The comprehensive classification system provides a reliable way to identify three categories of acetabular dysplasia that are well-aligned with surgical management. The term borderline dysplasia should no longer be used.

The effectiveness of total hip replacement as a surgical intervention has revolutionized the care of degenerative conditions of the hip joint. However, the surgeon is still left with important decisions in regards to how best deliver that care with choice of surgical approach being one of them especially in regards to the short-term clinical outcome. It is however unclear if a particular surgical approach offers a long-term advantage. This study aims to determine the influence of the three main surgical approaches to the hip on patient reported outcomes and quality of life after 5 years post-surgery.

We extracted from our prospective database all the patients who underwent a Total Hip Replacement surgery for osteoarthritis or osteonecrosis between 2008 and 2012 by an anterior, posterior or lateral approach. All the pre-operative and post-operative HOOS (Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score) and WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index) scores were noted. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVAs) were used to study the relationship between amount of change in HOOS and WOMAC subscales (dependant variables) and approach used, by also including confounding factors of age, gender, ASA (American Society of Anaesthesiologists) score, Charnley score and Body Mass Index. A total of 1895 patients underwent a primary total hip arthroplasty during the considered period. Among them, 367 had pre-operative and ≥5 years post operative PROM scores (19.47%)

The mean follow-up for the study cohort was 5.3 years (range 5 to 7 years) with, 277 at 5 years, 63 at 6 years, and 27 at 7 years. In the posterior approach group we had 138 patients (37.60%), 104 in the lateral approach (28.34%) and 125 in the anterior approach (34.06%). There were no significant differences between the 3 groups concerning the Charnley classification, BMI, Gender, ASA score, side and pre-operative functional scores. We did not observe any significant difference in the amount of change in HOOS and WOMAC subscales between the 3 groups. There were no differences either in the post-operative scores in ultimate value.

Our monocentric observational study shows that these three approaches provide predictable and comparable outcomes on HRQL and PROMs at long-term follow-up both in terms of final outcome but also in percent improvement. This study has several limitations. We excluded patients who underwent revision surgery leaving the unanswered question of how choice of surgical approach could lead to different revision rates, which have an impact on the functional outcomes. Moreover, even if we controlled for the most important confounders by a multivariate analysis model, there is still some involved cofounders, which could potentially lead to a bias such as smoking, socio-economical status or femoral head diameter. But we do not have any reason to think that these parameters could be unequally distributed between the three groups. Finally, our study cohort represents of 19.47% of the complete cohort. The fact that not all patients have PROM's was pre-determined as eight years ago we instituted that only 1 in 5 patients that returned their pre-operative questionnaire would get their PROM's at follow-up. Despite this, our statistical power was sufficient.

The Spine Adverse Events Severity System (SAVES) and Orthopaedic Surgical Adverse Events Severity System (OrthoSAVES) are standardised assessment tools designed to record adverse events (AEs) in orthopaedic patients. The primary objective was to compare AEs recorded prospectively by orthopaedic surgeons compared to trained independent clinical reviewers. The secondary objective was to compare AEs following spine, hip, knee, and shoulder orthopaedic procedures.

Over a 10-week period, three orthopaedic spine surgeons recorded AEs following all elective procedures to the point of patient discharge. Three orthopaedic surgeons (hip, knee, and shoulder) also recorded AEs for their elective procedures. Two independent reviewers used SAVES and OrthoSAVES to record AEs after reviewing clinical notes by surgeons and other healthcare professionals (e.g. nurses, physiotherapists). At discharge, AEs recorded by the surgeons and independent reviewers were recorded in a database.

AE data for 164 patients were collected (48 spine, 52 hip, 33 knee, and 31 shoulder). Overall, 98 AEs were captured by the independent reviewers, compared to 14 captured by the surgeons. Independent reviewers recorded significantly more AEs than surgeons overall, as well as for each individual group (i.e. spine, hip, knee, shoulder) (p2), but surgeons failed to record minor events that were captured by the independent reviewers (e.g. urinary retention and cutaneous injuries; AEs Grade 0.05). AEs were reported in 21 (43.8%), 19 (36.5%), 12 (36.4%), and five (16.1%) spine, hip, knee, and shoulder patients, respectively. Nearly all reported AEs required only simple or minor treatment (e.g. antibiotic, foley catheter) and had no effect on outcome. Two patients experienced AEs that required invasive or complex treatment (e.g. surgery, monitored bed) that had a temporary effect on outcome.

Similar complication rates were reported in spine, hip, knee, and shoulder patients. Independent reviewers reported more AEs compared to surgeons. These findings suggest that independent reviewers are more effective at capturing AEs following orthopaedic surgery, and thus, could be recruited in order to capture more AEs, enhance patient safety and care, and maximise different complication diagnoses in alignment with proposed diagnosis-based funding models.