Revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) and revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) are complex procedures with higher rates of re-revision, complications, and mortality compared to primary TKA and THA. We report the effects of the establishment of a revision arthroplasty network (the East Midlands Specialist Orthopaedic Network; EMSON) on outcomes of rTKA and rTHA. The revision arthroplasty network was established in January 2015 and covered five hospitals in the Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire areas of the East Midlands of England. This comprises a collaborative weekly multidisciplinary meeting where upcoming rTKA and rTHA procedures are discussed, and a plan agreed. Using the Hospital Episode Statistics database, revision procedures carried out between April 2011 and March 2018 (allowing two-year follow-up) from the five network hospitals were compared to all other hospitals in England. Age, sex, and mean Hospital Frailty Risk scores were used as covariates. The primary outcome was re-revision surgery within one year of the index revision. Secondary outcomes were re-revision surgery within two years, any complication within one and two years, and median length of hospital stay.Aims
Methods
Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a very successful and cost-effective operation, yet debate continues about the optimum fixation philosophy in different age groups. The concept of the 'cementless paradox' and the UK 'Getting it Right First Time' initiative encourage increased use of cemented fixation due to purported lower revision rates, especially in elderly patients, and decreased cost. In a high-volume, tertiary referral centre, we identified 10,112 THAs from a prospectively collected database, including 1,699 cemented THAs, 5,782 hybrid THAs, and 2,631 cementless THAs. The endpoint was revision for any reason. Secondary analysis included examination of implant survivorship in patients aged over 70 years, over 75 years, and over 80 years at primary THA.Aims
Methods
Single-stage revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) is gaining popularity in treating chronic periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs). We have introduced this approach to our clinical practice and sought to evaluate rates of reinfection and re-revision, along with predictors of failure of both single- and two-stage rTKA for chronic PJI. A retrospective comparative cohort study of all rTKAs for chronic PJI between 1 April 2003 and 31 December 2018 was undertaken using prospective databases. Patients with acute infections were excluded; rTKAs were classified as single-stage, stage 1, or stage 2 of two-stage revision. The primary outcome measure was failure to eradicate or recurrent infection. Variables evaluated for failure by regression analysis included age, BMI, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, infecting organisms, and the presence of a sinus. Patient survivorship was also compared between the groups.Aims
Methods
Infection following total hip or knee arthroplasty is a serious
complication. We noted an increase in post-operative infection in
cases carried out in temporary operating theatres. We therefore
compared those cases performed in standard and temporary operating
theatres and examined the deep periprosthetic infection rates. A total of 1223 primary hip and knee arthroplasties were performed
between August 2012 and June 2013. A total of 539 (44%) were performed
in temporary theatres. The two groups were matched for age, gender,
body mass index and American Society of Anesthesiologists grade.Aims
Patients and methods
Since the introduction of the National Institute
for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines on thromboprophylaxis
and the use of extended thromboprophylaxis with new oral agents,
there have been reports of complications arising as a result of
their use. We have looked at the incidence of wound complications
after the introduction of dabigatran for thromboprophylaxis in our
unit. We investigated the rate of venous thromboembolism and wound
leakage in 1728 patients undergoing primary joint replacement, both
before and after the introduction of dabigatran, and following its
subsequent withdrawal from our unit. We found that the use of dabigatran led to a significant increase
in post-operative wound leakage (20% with dabigatran, 5% with a
multimodal regimen; p <
0.001), which also resulted in an increased
duration of hospital stay. The rate of thromboembolism in patients
receiving dabigatran was higher (1.3%) than in those receiving the multimodal
thromboprophylaxis regimen, including low molecular weight heparin
as an inpatient and the extended use of aspirin (0.3%, p = 0.047).
We have ceased the use of dabigatran for thromboprophylaxis in these
patients. Cite this article:
