Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 3 of 3
Results per page:
The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 99-B, Issue 7 | Pages 921 - 926
1 Jul 2017
Märdian S Perka C Schaser K Gruner J Scheel F Schwabe P

Aims. Periprosthetic fracture is a significant complication of total hip and knee arthroplasty. This study aimed to describe the survival of patients sustaining periprosthetic femoral fractures and compare this with that of the general population, as well as to identify the factors that influence survival. Patients and Methods. A total of 151 patients (women: men 116:35, mean age 74.6 years, standard deviation 11.5) that sustained a periprosthetic fracture between January 2005 and October 2012 were retrospectively analysed. Epidemiological data, comorbidities, type of surgical management, type of implant, and mortality data were studied. Results. The mean survival time was 77 months (95% confidence interval 71 to 84; numbers at risk: 73) and was lower than that of the general population. The risk analyses showed that previous cardiac disease, particularly ischaemic heart disease, cardiac arrhythmias, and heart failure, age over 75 years and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores above 3 were associated with a significantly higher mortality. Conclusions. Periprosthetic fractures carry a high risk of post-operative mortality. Our data demonstrate that advanced age (> 75 years) and previous cardiac disease are associated with a significantly higher risk of mortality. The ASA score is an appropriate instrument for risk stratification. Pre-operative cardiac status should be optimised before surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:921–6


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 102-B, Issue 12 | Pages 1682 - 1688
1 Dec 2020
Corona PS Vicente M Carrera L Rodríguez-Pardo D Corró S

Aims. The success rates of two-stage revision arthroplasty for infection have evolved since their early description. The implementation of internationally accepted outcome criteria led to the readjustment of such rates. However, patients who do not undergo reimplantation are usually set aside from these calculations. The aim of this study was to investigate the outcomes of two-stage revision arthroplasty when considering those who do not undergo reimplantation, and to investigate the characteristics of this subgroup. Methods. A retrospective cohort study was conducted. Patients with chronic hip or knee periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) treated with two-stage revision between January 2010 and October 2018, with a minimum follow-up of one year, were included. Variables including demography, morbidity, microbiology, and outcome were collected. The primary endpoint was the eradication of infection. Patients who did not undergo reimplantation were analyzed in order to characterize this subgroup better. Results. A total of 162 chronic PJIs were included in the study. After a mean follow-up of 57.3 months (12.1 to 115.7), 18 patients (11.1%) did not undergo reimplantation, due either to medical issues (10), the patient’s choice (4), or death (4). When only considering those who underwent reimplantation, the success rate was 80.6%. However, when those who did not undergo reimplantation were included, the success rate dropped to 71.6%. Advanced age, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade ≥ III, McPherson’s C host, and Gram-negative related PJI were independent risk factors for retention of the spacer. The mortality was higher in the non-reimplanted group. Conclusion. The real success rate of two-stage revision may not be as high as previously reported. The exclusion of patients who do not undergo reimplantation resulted in a 9% overestimation of the success rate in this series. Many comorbidity-related risk factors for retention of the spacer were identified, as well as higher death rates in this group. Efforts should be made to optimize these patients medically in order to increase reimplantation and success rates, while decreasing mortality. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(12):1682–1688


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 98-B, Issue 6 | Pages 799 - 805
1 Jun 2016
McIsaac DI Beaulé PE Bryson GL Van Walraven C

Aims. Total joint arthroplasty (TJA) is commonly performed in elderly patients. Frailty, an aggregate expression of vulnerability, becomes increasingly common with advanced age, and independently predicts adverse outcomes and the use of resources after a variety of non-cardiac surgical procedures. Our aim was to assess the impact of frailty on outcomes after TJA. Patients and Methods. We analysed the impact of pre-operative frailty on death and the use of resources after elective TJA in a population-based cohort study using linked administrative data from Ontario, Canada. Results. Of 125 163 patients aged > 65 years having elective TJA, 3023 (2.4%) were frail according to the Johns Hopkins ACG frailty-defining diagnoses indicator. One year follow-up was complete for all patients. Frail patients had a higher adjusted one year risk of mortality (hazard ratio 3.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.62 to 3.51), a higher rate of admission to intensive care (odds ratio (OR) 2.52, 95% CI 2.21 to 2.89), increased length of stay (incidence rate ratio 1.62, 95% CI 1.59 to 1.65), a higher rate of discharge to institutional care (OR 2.09, 95% CI 1.93 to 2.25), a higher rate of re-admission (OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.66) and increased costs at 30, 90 and 365 days post-operatively. Frailty affected outcomes after total hip arthroplasty more than after total knee arthroplasty. Take home message: Frailty is an important risk factor for death after elective TJA, and increases post-operative resource utilisation across many metrics. Processes to optimise the outcomes and efficiency of TJA in frail patients are needed. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:799–805