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

Total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) are common orthopaedic procedures requiring postoperative radiographs to confirm implant positioning and identify complications. Artificial intelligence (AI)-based image analysis has the potential to automate this postoperative surveillance. The aim of this study was to prepare a scoping review to investigate how AI is being used in the analysis of radiographs following THA and TKA, and how accurate these tools are.

Aims

The primary aim was to assess the rate of postoperative COVID-19 following hip and knee arthroplasty performed in March 2020 in the UK. The secondary aims were to assess whether there were clinical factors associated with COVID-19 status, the mortality rate of patients with COVID-19, and the rate of potential COVID-19 in patients not presenting to healthcare services.

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.

As part of the government’s initiative to reduce waiting times for major joint surgery in Wales, the Cardiff and Vale NHS Trust sent 224 patients (258 knees) to the NHS Treatment Centre in Weston-Super-Mare for total knee replacement. The Kinemax total knee replacement system was used in all cases. The cumulative survival rate at three years was 79.2% (95% confidence interval (CI) 69.2 to 86.8) using re-operation for any cause as an endpoint and 85.3% (95% CI 75.9 to 91.8) using aseptic revision as an endpoint. This is significantly worse than that recorded in the published literature. These poor results have resulted in a significant impact on our service

Aims

To validate the English language Forgotten Joint Score-12 (FJS-12) as a tool to evaluate the outcome of hip and knee arthroplasty in a United Kingdom population.

In this systematic review, our aim was to explore whether or not patients are able to return to athletic activity following lower limb joint replacement. We also investigated any evidence as to whether participation in athletic activity post-joint replacement increases complications and reduces implant survival.

A PubMed, Embase and Sports Discus search was performed using the MeSH terms ‘Sport’, ‘Athletic’, ‘Athlete’, ‘Physical’, ‘Activity’, ‘Arthroplasty’, ‘Total Hip Replacement’, ‘Hip Resurfacing’, ‘Total Knee Replacement’, ‘Unicompartmental Knee Replacement’ and ‘Unicondylar Knee Replacement’. From this search, duplications were excluded, the remaining abstracts were reviewed and any unrelated to the search terms were excluded. The remaining abstracts had their full papers reviewed.

Following joint replacement, participation in sporting activity is common principally determined by pre-operative patient activity levels, BMI and patient age. The type of joint replaced is of less significance. Total time spent performing activity does not change but tends to be at a lower intensity. There is little evidence in the literature of an association between high activity levels and early implant failure.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:923–7.

A new generation of knee prostheses has been introduced with the intention of improving post-operative knee flexion. In order to evaluate whether this goal has been achieved we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. Systematic literature searches were conducted on MEDLINE and EMBASE from their inception to December 2007, and proceedings of scientific meetings were also searched. Only randomised, clinical trials were included in the meta-analysis. The mean difference in the maximum post-operative flexion between the ‘high-flex’ and conventional types of prosthesis was defined as the primary outcome measure. A total of five relevant articles was identified.

Analysis of these trials suggested that no clinically relevant or statistically significant improvement was obtained in flexion with the ‘high-flex’ prostheses. The weighted mean difference was 2.1° (95% confidence interval −0.2 to +4.3; p = 0.07).