Aims. This study aimed to describe the use of revision knee arthroplasty in Australia and examine changes in lifetime risk over a decade. Methods. De-identified individual-level data on all revision knee arthroplasties performed in Australia from 2007 to 2017 were obtained from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. Population data and life tables were obtained from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The lifetime risk of revision surgery was calculated for each year using a standardized formula. Separate calculations were undertaken for males and females. Results. In total, 43,188 revision knee arthroplasty procedures were performed in Australia during the study period, with a median age at surgery of 69 years (interquartile range (IQR) 62 to 76). In 2017, revision knee arthroplasty rates were highest for males aged 70 to 79 years (102.9 procedures per 100,000 population). Lifetime risk of revision knee arthroplasty for females increased slightly from 1.61% (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.53% to 1.69%) in 2007 to 2.22% (95% CI 2.13% to 2.31%) in 2017. A similar pattern was evident for males, with a lifetime risk of 1.43% (95% CI 1.36% to 1.51%) in 2007 and 2.02% (95% CI 1.93% to 2.11%) in 2017. A decline in procedures performed for loosening/lysis (from 41% in 2007 to 24% in 2017) and pain (from 14% to 9%) was evident, while infection became an increasingly common indication (from 19% in 2007 to 29% in 2017). Conclusion. Well-validated national registry data can help us understand the epidemiology of revision knee arthroplasty, including changing clinical indications. Despite a small increase over a decade, the lifetime risk of revision knee arthroplasty in Australia is low at one in 45 females and one in 50 males. These methods offer a population-level approach to quantifying revision burden that can be used for ongoing national surveillance and between-country comparisons. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(5):613–619

Aims. This study aimed to investigate patients’ attitudes towards day-case hip and knee arthroplasty and to describe patient characteristics associated with different attitudes, with the purpose of providing an insight into the information requirements for patients that surgeons should address when informing patients about day-case surgery. Methods. A total of 5,322 patients scheduled for hip or knee arthroplasty between 2016 and 2022 were included in the study. Preoperatively, patients were asked if they were interested in day-case surgery (‘Yes’, ‘Do not know’, ‘No’). Patient demographics including age, BMI, sex, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) such as the EuroQol five-dimension three-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L) were examined within each attitude group. Additionally, changes in attitude were assessed among patients who had completed the questionnaire in association with prior hip or knee arthroplasty. Results. Of the surveyed patients, 41.8% were interested in day-case surgery (n = 2,222), 20.8% responded ‘Do not know’ (n = 1,105), and 37.5% were not interested (n = 1,995). Patients who were not interested had a higher mean age (‘No’, 70.2 years (SD 10.0) vs ‘Yes’, 65.2 years (SD 10.7)), with a majority being female (‘No’, 71.9% female (n = 1,434) vs ‘Yes’, 48.6% female (n = 1,081)). Approximately 20% of patients responded ‘Do not know’ regardless of age, sex, and PROMs. Patients reporting anxiety/depression based on EQ-5D-3L more frequently answered ‘No’ (56.9%; 66/116) compared to those not experiencing anxiety/depression (34.9%; 1,356/3,890). Among patients who responded ‘Do not know’ before their first surgery, over 70% changed their attitude to either ‘Yes’ (29.9%; 38/127) or ‘No’ (40.9%; 52/127) at their subsequent surgery. Conclusion. From 2016 to 2022, 58.3% of hip and knee arthroplasty patients expressed uncertainty or no interest in day-case surgery. In connection with current initiatives to increase the number of day-case arthroplasty procedures, there should be a focus on informing patients to address the prevalent negative or uncertain attitude. Further research is needed to investigate what preoperative information patients consider crucial in their decision-making process regarding day-case surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(3 Supple A):3–9

Literature surrounding artificial intelligence (AI)-related applications for hip and knee arthroplasty has proliferated. However, meaningful advances that fundamentally transform the practice and delivery of joint arthroplasty are yet to be realized, despite the broad range of applications as we continue to search for meaningful and appropriate use of AI. AI literature in hip and knee arthroplasty between 2018 and 2021 regarding image-based analyses, value-based care, remote patient monitoring, and augmented reality was reviewed. Concerns surrounding meaningful use and appropriate methodological approaches of AI in joint arthroplasty research are summarized. Of the 233 AI-related orthopaedics articles published, 178 (76%) constituted original research, while the rest consisted of editorials or reviews. A total of 52% of original AI-related research concerns hip and knee arthroplasty (n = 92), and a narrative review is described. Three studies were externally validated. Pitfalls surrounding present-day research include conflating vernacular (“AI/machine learning”), repackaging limited registry data, prematurely releasing internally validated prediction models, appraising model architecture instead of inputted data, withholding code, and evaluating studies using antiquated regression-based guidelines. While AI has been applied to a variety of hip and knee arthroplasty applications with limited clinical impact, the future remains promising if the question is meaningful, the methodology is rigorous and transparent, the data are rich, and the model is externally validated. Simple checkpoints for meaningful AI adoption include ensuring applications focus on: administrative support over clinical evaluation and management; necessity of the advanced model; and the novelty of the question being answered. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(12):1292–1303

We obtained pre-operative and six-month post-operative Oxford hip (OHS) and knee scores (OKS) for 1523 patients who underwent total hip replacement and 1784 patients who underwent total knee replacement. They all also completed a six-month satisfaction question. . Scatter plots showed no relationship between pre-operative Oxford scores and six-month satisfaction scores. Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients were -0.04 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.09 to 0.01) between OHS and satisfaction and 0.04 (95% CI -0.01 to 0.08) between OKS and satisfaction. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to identify a cut-off point for the pre-operative OHS/OKS that identifies whether or not a patient is satisfied with surgery. We obtained an area under the ROC curve of 0.51 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.56) for hip replacement and 0.56 (95% CI 0.51 to 0.60) for knee replacement, indicating that pre-operative Oxford scores have no predictive accuracy in distinguishing satisfied from dissatisfied patients. In the NHS widespread attempts are being made to use patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) data for the purpose of prioritising patients for surgery. Oxford hip and knee scores have no predictive accuracy in relation to post-operative patient satisfaction. This evidence does not support their current use in prioritising access to care

Aims. Our main aim was to describe the trend in the comorbidities of patients undergoing elective total hip arthroplasties (THAs) and knee arthroplasties (KAs) between 1 January 2005 and 31 December 2018 in England. Methods. We combined data from the National Joint Registry (NJR) on primary elective hip and knee arthroplasties performed between 2005 and 2018 with pre-existing conditions recorded at the time of their primary operation from Hospital Episodes Statistics. We described the temporal trend in the number of comorbidities identified using the Charlson Comorbidity Index, and how this varied by age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, index of multiple deprivation, and type of KA. Results. We included 696,504 and 833,745 elective primary THAs and KAs respectively, performed for any indication. Between 2005 and 2018, the proportion of elective THA and KA patients with one or more comorbidity at the time of their operation increased substantially (THA: 20% to 38%, KA: 22% to 41%). This was driven by increases in four conditions: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (2018: ~17%), diabetes without complications (2018: THA 10%, KA 14%), myocardial infarction (2018: 4%), and renal disease (2018: ~8%). Notably, renal disease prevalence increased from < 1% in 2005 to ~8% in 2018. Conclusion. Between 2005 and 2018 there were significant changes in the number of comorbidities recorded in patients having elective primary THAs and KAs. Renal disease is now one of the most prevalent comorbidities in this patient population. Future research should explore whether this comorbidity trend has increased the burden on other medical specialities to optimize these patients before surgery and to provide additional postoperative care. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(9):1052–1059

Aims. Access to joint replacement is being restricted for patients with comorbidities in a number of high-income countries. However, there is little evidence on the impact of comorbidities on outcomes. The purpose of this study was to determine the safety and effectiveness of hip and knee arthroplasty in patients with and without comorbidities. Methods. In total, 312,079 hip arthroplasty and 328,753 knee arthroplasty patients were included. A total of 11 common comorbidities were identified in administrative hospital records. Safety risks were measured by assessing length of hospital stay (LOS) and 30-day emergency readmissions and mortality. Effectiveness outcomes were changes in Oxford Hip or Knee Scores (OHS/OKS) (scale from 0 (worst) to 48 (best)) and in health-related quality of life (EQ-5D) (scale from 0 (death) to 1 (full health)) from immediately before, to six months after, surgery. Regression analysis was used to estimate adjusted mean differences (LOS, change in OHS/OKS/EQ-5D) and risk differences (readmissions and mortality). Results. Patients with comorbidities had a longer LOS and higher readmission and mortality rates than patients without. In hip arthroplasty patients with heart disease, for example, LOS was 1.20 days (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.15 to 1.25) longer and readmission rate was 1.52% (95% CI 1.34% to 1.71%) and mortality 0.19% (95% CI 0.15% to 0.23%) higher. Similar patterns were observed for knee arthroplasty patients. Patients without comorbidities reported large improvements in function (mean improvement OHS 21.3 (SD 9.91) and OKS 15.9 (SD 10.0)). Patients with comorbidities reported only slightly smaller improvements. In patients with heart disease, mean improvement in OHS was 0.39 (95% CI 0.27 to 0.51) and in OKS 0.56 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.67) less than in patients without comorbidities. There were no significant differences in EQ-5D improvement. Conclusion. Comorbidities were associated with small increases in adverse safety risks but they have little impact on pain or function in patients undergoing hip or knee arthroplasty. These results do not support restricting access to hip and knee arthroplasty for patients with common comorbidities. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(1):56–64

Aims. To investigate whether chronic kidney disease (CKD) is associated with the risk of all-cause revision or revision due to a periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after primary hip or knee arthroplasty. Methods. This retrospective cohort study comprised 18,979 consecutive hip and knee arthroplasties from a single high-volume academic hospital. At a median of 5.6 years (interquartile range (IQR) 3.5 to 8.1), all deaths and revisions were counted. To overcome the competing risk of death, competing risk analysis using the cumulative incidence function (CIF) was applied to analyze the association between different stages of CKD and revisions. Confounding factors such as diabetes and BMI were considered using either a stratified CIF or the Fine and Gray model. Results. There were 2,111 deaths (11.1%) and 677 revisions (3.6%) during the follow-up period. PJI was the reason for revision in 162 cases (0.9%). For hip arthroplasty, 3.5% of patients with CKD stage 1 (i.e. normal kidney function, NKF), 3.8% with CKD stage 2, 4.2% with CKD stage 3, and 0% with CKD stage 4 to 5 had undergone revision within eight years. For knee arthroplasty, 4.7% with NKF, 2.7% with CKD stage 2, 2.4% with CKD stage 3, and 7% of CKD stage 4 to 5 had had undergone revision. With the exception of knee arthroplasty patients in whom normal kidney function was associated with a greater probability of all-cause revision, there were no major differences in the rates of all-cause revisions or revisions due to PJIs between different CKD stages. The results remained unchanged when diabetes and BMI were considered. Conclusion. We found no strong evidence that CKD was associated with an increased risk of all-cause or PJI-related revision. Selection bias probably explains the increased amount of all-cause revision operations in knee arthroplasty patients with normal kidney function. The effect of stage 4 to 5 CKD was difficult to evaluate because of the small number of patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(4):689–695

Aims. The aim of this study was to identify variables associated with time to revision, demographic details associated with revision indication, and type of prosthesis employed, and to describe the survival of hinge knee arthroplasty (HKA) when used for first-time knee revision surgery and factors that were associated with re-revision. Methods. Patient demographic details, BMI, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, indication for revision, surgical approach, surgeon grade, implant type (fixed and rotating), time of revision from primary implantation, and re-revision if undertaken were obtained from the National Joint Registry data for England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the Isle of Man over an 18-year period (2003 to 2021). Results. There were 3,855 patient episodes analyzed with a median age of 73 years (interquartile range (IQR) 66 to 80), and the majority were female (n = 2,480, 64.3%). The median time to revision from primary knee arthroplasty was 1,219 days (IQR 579 to 2,422). Younger age (p < 0.001), decreasing ASA grade (p < 0.001), and indications for revision of sepsis (p < 0.001), unexplained pain (p < 0.001), non-polyethylene wear (p < 0.001), and malalignment (p < 0.001) were all associated with an earlier time to revision from primary implantation. The median follow-up was 4.56 years (range 0.00 to 17.52), during which there were 410 re-revisions. The overall unadjusted probability of re-revision for all revision HKAs at one, five, and ten years after surgery were 2.7% (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.2 to 3.3), 10.7% (95% CI 9.6 to 11.9), and 16.2% (95% CI 14.5 to 17.9), respectively. Male sex (p < 0.001), younger age (p < 0.001), revision for septic indications (p < 0.001) or implant fracture (p = 0.010), a fixed hinge (p < 0.001), or surgery performed by a non-consultant grade (p = 0.023) were independently associated with an increased risk of re-revision. Conclusion. There were several factors associated with time to first revision. The re-revision rate was 16.2% at ten years; however, the risk factors associated with an increased risk of re-revision could be used to counsel patients regarding their outcome. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(1):47–55

Aims. The James Lind Alliance aims to bring patients, carers, and clinicians together to identify uncertainties regarding care. A Priority Setting Partnership was established by the British Association for Surgery of the Knee in conjunction with the James Lind Alliance to identify research priorities related to the assessment, management, and rehabilitation of patients with persistent symptoms after knee arthroplasty. Methods. The project was conducted using the James Lind Alliance protocol. A steering group was convened including patients, surgeons, anaesthetists, nurses, physiotherapists, and researchers. Partner organizations were recruited. A survey was conducted on a national scale through which patients, carers, and healthcare professionals submitted key unanswered questions relating to problematic knee arthroplasties. These were analyzed, aggregated, and synthesized into summary questions and the relevant evidence was checked. After confirming that these were not answered in the current literature, 32 questions were taken forward to an interim prioritization survey. Data from this survey informed a shortlist taken to a final consensus meeting. Results. A total of 769 questions were received during the initial survey with national reach across the UK. These were refined into 32 unique questions by an independent information specialist. The interim prioritization survey was completed by 201 respondents and 25 questions were taken to a final consensus group meeting between patients, carers, and healthcare professionals. Consensus was reached for ranking the top ten questions for publication and dissemination. Conclusions. The top ten research priorities focused on pain, infection, stiffness, health service configuration, surgical and non-surgical management strategies, and outcome measures. This list will guide funders and help focus research efforts within the knee arthroplasty community. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(9):1176–1182

Aims. To estimate the measurement properties for the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) in patients undergoing revision knee arthroplasty (responsiveness, minimal detectable change (MDC-90), minimal important change (MIC), minimal important difference (MID), internal consistency, construct validity, and interpretability). Methods. Secondary data analysis was performed for 10,727 patients undergoing revision knee arthroplasty between 2013 to 2019 using a UK national patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) dataset. Outcome data were collected before revision and at six months postoperatively, using the OKS and EuroQol five-dimension score (EQ-5D). Measurement properties were assessed according to COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines. Results. A total of 9,219 patients had complete outcome data. Mean preoperative OKS was 16.7 points (SD 8.1), mean postoperative OKS 29.1 (SD 11.4), and mean change in OKS + 12.5 (SD 10.7). Median preoperative EQ-5D index was 0.260 (interquartile range (IQR) 0.055 to 0.691), median postoperative EQ-5D index 0.691 (IQR 0.516 to 0.796), and median change in EQ-5D index + 0.240 (IQR 0.000 to 0.567). Internal consistency was good with Cronbach’s α 0.88 (baseline) and 0.94 (post-revision). Construct validity found a high correlation of OKS total score with EQ-5D index (r = 0.76 (baseline), r = 0.83 (post-revision), p < 0.001). The OKS was responsive with standardized effect size (SES) 1.54 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.51 to 1.57), compared to SES 0.83 (0.81 to 0.86) for the EQ-5D index. The MIC for the OKS was 7.5 points (95% CI 5.5 to 8.5) based on the optimal cut-off with specificity 0.72, sensitivity 0.60, and area under the curve 0.66. The MID for the OKS was 5.2 points. The MDC-90 was 3.9 points. The OKS did not demonstrate significant floor or ceiling effects. Conclusion. This study found that the OKS was a useful and valid instrument for assessment of outcome following revision knee arthroplasty. The OKS was responsive to change and demonstrated good measurement properties. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(4):627–634

Aims. The aim of this study was to report health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and joint-specific function in patients waiting for total hip or knee arthroplasty surgery (THA or TKA) in Northern Ireland, compared to published literature and a matched normal population. Secondary aims were to report emergency department (ED) and out-of-hours general practitioner (OOH GP) visits, new prescriptions of strong opioids, and new prescriptions of antidepressants while waiting. Methods. This was a cohort study of 991 patients on the waiting list for arthroplasty in a single Northern Ireland NHS trust: 497 on the waiting list for ≤ three months; and 494 waiting ≥ three years. Postal surveys included the EuroQol five-dimension five-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L), visual analogue scores (EQ-VAS), and Oxford Hip and Knee scores to assess HRQoL and joint-specific function. Electronic records determined prescriptions since addition to the waiting list and patient attendances at OOH GP/EDs. Results. Overall, 712/991 (71.8%) responded at ≤ three months for THA (n = 164) and TKA (n = 199), and ≥ three years for THA (n = 88) and TKA (n = 261). The median EQ-5D-5L score in those waiting ≤ three months was 0.155 (interquartile range (IQR) -0.118 to 0.375) and 0.189 (IQR -0.130 to 0.377) for ≥ three years. Matched controls had a median EQ-5D-5L 0.837 (IQR 0.728 to 1.000). Compared to matched controls, EQ-5D-5L scores were significantly lower in both waiting cohorts (p < 0.001) with significant differences found in every domain. Negative scores, indicating a state “worse than death”, were present in 40% at ≤ three months and 38% at ≥ three years. Patients waiting ≥ three years had significantly more opioid (28.4% vs 15.2%; p < 0.001) and antidepressant prescriptions (15.2% vs 9.9%; p = 0.034) and significantly more joint-related attendances at unscheduled care (11.7% vs 0% with ≥ one ED attendance (p < 0.001) and (25.5% vs 2.5% ≥ one OOH GP attendance (p < 0.001)). Conclusion. Patients on waiting lists in Northern Ireland are severely disabled with the worst HRQoL and functional scores studied. The lack of deterioration in EQ-5D-5L and joint-specific scores between patients waiting ≤ three months and ≥ three years likely reflects floor effects of these scores. Prolonged waits were associated with increased dependence on strong opiates, depression, and attendances at unscheduled care. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(7):783–794

Aims. Histology is widely used for diagnosis of persistent infection during reimplantation in two-stage revision hip and knee arthroplasty, although data on its utility remain scarce. Therefore, this study aims to assess the predictive value of permanent sections at reimplantation in relation to reinfection risk, and to compare results of permanent and frozen sections. Methods. We retrospectively collected data from 226 patients (90 hips, 136 knees) with periprosthetic joint infection who underwent two-stage revision between August 2011 and September 2021, with a minimum follow-up of one year. Histology was assessed via the SLIM classification. First, we analyzed whether patients with positive permanent sections at reimplantation had higher reinfection rates than patients with negative histology. Further, we compared permanent and frozen section results, and assessed the influence of anatomical regions (knee versus hip), low- versus high-grade infections, as well as first revision versus multiple prior revisions on the histological result at reimplantation. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), chi-squared tests, and Kaplan-Meier estimates were calculated. Results. Overall, the reinfection rate was 18%. A total of 14 out of 82 patients (17%) with positive permanent sections at reimplantation experienced reinfection, compared to 26 of 144 patients (18%) with negative results (p = 0.996). Neither permanent sections nor fresh frozen sections were significantly associated with reinfection, with a sensitivity of 0.35, specificity of 0.63, PPV of 0.17, NPV of 0.81, and accuracy of 58%. Histology was not significantly associated with reinfection or survival time for any of the analyzed sub-groups. Permanent and frozen section results were in agreement for 91% of cases. Conclusion. Permanent and fresh frozen sections at reimplantation in two-stage revision do not serve as a reliable predictor for reinfection. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(4):372–379

Aims. The purpose of this study was to develop a personalized outcome prediction tool, to be used with knee arthroplasty patients, that predicts outcomes (lengths of stay (LOS), 90 day readmission, and one-year patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) on an individual basis and allows for dynamic modifiable risk factors. Methods. Data were prospectively collected on all patients who underwent total or unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at a between July 2015 and June 2018. Cohort 1 (n = 5,958) was utilized to develop models for LOS and 90 day readmission. Cohort 2 (n = 2,391, surgery date 2015 to 2017) was utilized to develop models for one-year improvements in Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) pain score, KOOS function score, and KOOS quality of life (QOL) score. Model accuracies within the imputed data set were assessed through cross-validation with root mean square errors (RMSEs) and mean absolute errors (MAEs) for the LOS and PROMs models, and the index of prediction accuracy (IPA), and area under the curve (AUC) for the readmission models. Model accuracies in new patient data sets were assessed with AUC. Results. Within the imputed datasets, the LOS (RMSE 1.161) and PROMs models (RMSE 15.775, 11.056, 21.680 for KOOS pain, function, and QOL, respectively) demonstrated good accuracy. For all models, the accuracy of predicting outcomes in a new set of patients were consistent with the cross-validation accuracy overall. Upon validation with a new patient dataset, the LOS and readmission models demonstrated high accuracy (71.5% and 65.0%, respectively). Similarly, the one-year PROMs improvement models demonstrated high accuracy in predicting ten-point improvements in KOOS pain (72.1%), function (72.9%), and QOL (70.8%) scores. Conclusion. The data-driven models developed in this study offer scalable predictive tools that can accurately estimate the likelihood of improved pain, function, and quality of life one year after knee arthroplasty as well as LOS and 90 day readmission. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(9):1183–1193

Aims. Recent studies have suggested that corticosteroid injections into the knee may harm the joint resulting in cartilage loss and possibly accelerating the progression of osteoarthritis (OA). The aim of this study was to assess whether patients with, or at risk of developing, symptomatic osteoarthritis of the knee who receive intra-articular corticosteroid injections have an increased risk of requiring arthroplasty. Methods. We used data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI), a multicentre observational cohort study that followed 4,796 patients with, or at risk of developing, osteoarthritis of the knee on an annual basis with follow-up available up to nine years. Increased risk for symptomatic OA was defined as frequent knee symptoms (pain, aching, or stiffness) without radiological evidence of OA and two or more risk factors, while OA was defined by the presence of both femoral osteophytes and frequent symptoms in one or both knees. Missing data were imputed with multiple imputations using chained equations. Time-dependent propensity score matching was performed to match patients at the time of receving their first injection with controls. The effect of corticosteroid injections on the rate of subsequent (total and partial) knee arthroplasty was estimated using Cox proportional-hazards survival analyses. Results. After removing patients lost to follow-up, 3,822 patients remained in the study. A total of 249 (31.3%) of the 796 patients who received corticosteroid injections, and 152 (5.0%) of the 3,026 who did not, had knee arthroplasty. In the matched cohort, Cox proportional-hazards regression resulted in a hazard ratio of 1.57 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.37 to 1.81; p < 0.001) and each injection increased the absolute risk of arthroplasty by 9.4% at nine years’ follow-up compared with those who did not receive injections. Conclusion. Corticosteroid injections seem to be associated with an increased risk of knee arthroplasty in patients with, or at risk of developing, symptomatic OA of the knee. These findings suggest that a conservative approach regarding the treatment of these patients with corticosteroid injections should be recommended. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(5):586–592

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. Methods. A multicentre retrospective study was conducted of patients undergoing hip or knee arthroplasty during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic (1 March 2020 to 31 March 2020) with a minimum of 60 days follow-up. Patient demographics, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, procedure type, primary or revision, length of stay (LOS), COVID-19 test status, and postoperative mortality were recorded. A subgroup of patients (n = 211) who had not presented to healthcare services after discharge were contacted and questioned as to whether they had symptoms of COVID-19. Results. Five (0.5%) of 1,073 patients who underwent hip or knee arthroplasty tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 postoperatively. When adjusting for confounding factors, increasing LOS (p = 0.022) was the only significant factor associated with developing COVID-19 following surgery and a stay greater than three days was a reliable predictor with an area under the curve of 81% (p = 0.018). There were three (0.3%) deaths in the study cohort and the overall mortality rate attributable to COVID-19 was 0.09% (n = 1/1,073), with one (20%) of the five patients with COVID-19 dying postoperatively. Of the 211 patients contacted, two had symptoms within two to 14 days postoperatively with a positive predictive value of 31% and it was therefore estimated that one patient may have had undiagnosed COVID-19. Conclusion. The rate of postoperative COVID-19 was 0.5% and may have been as high as 1% when accounting for those patients not presenting to healthcare services, which was similar to the estimated population prevalence during the study period. The overall mortality rate secondary to COVID-19 was low (0.09%), however the mortality rate for those patients developing COVID-19 was 20%. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(4):681–688

Aims. To examine whether natural language processing (NLP) using a clinically based large language model (LLM) could be used to predict patient selection for total hip or total knee arthroplasty (THA/TKA) from routinely available free-text radiology reports. Methods. Data pre-processing and analyses were conducted according to the Artificial intelligence to Revolutionize the patient Care pathway in Hip and knEe aRthroplastY (ARCHERY) project protocol. This included use of de-identified Scottish regional clinical data of patients referred for consideration of THA/TKA, held in a secure data environment designed for artificial intelligence (AI) inference. Only preoperative radiology reports were included. NLP algorithms were based on the freely available GatorTron model, a LLM trained on over 82 billion words of de-identified clinical text. Two inference tasks were performed: assessment after model-fine tuning (50 Epochs and three cycles of k-fold cross validation), and external validation. Results. For THA, there were 5,558 patient radiology reports included, of which 4,137 were used for model training and testing, and 1,421 for external validation. Following training, model performance demonstrated average (mean across three folds) accuracy, F1 score, and area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) values of 0.850 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.833 to 0.867), 0.813 (95% CI 0.785 to 0.841), and 0.847 (95% CI 0.822 to 0.872), respectively. For TKA, 7,457 patient radiology reports were included, with 3,478 used for model training and testing, and 3,152 for external validation. Performance metrics included accuracy, F1 score, and AUROC values of 0.757 (95% CI 0.702 to 0.811), 0.543 (95% CI 0.479 to 0.607), and 0.717 (95% CI 0.657 to 0.778) respectively. There was a notable deterioration in performance on external validation in both cohorts. Conclusion. The use of routinely available preoperative radiology reports provides promising potential to help screen suitable candidates for THA, but not for TKA. The external validation results demonstrate the importance of further model testing and training when confronted with new clinical cohorts. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(7):688–695

Aims. The aim of this study was to determine the long-term risk of undergoing knee arthroplasty in a cohort of patients with meniscal tears who had undergone arthroscopic partial meniscectomy (APM). Patients and Methods. A retrospective national cohort of patients with a history of isolated APM was identified over a 20-year period. Patients with prior surgery to the same knee were excluded. The primary outcome was knee arthroplasty. Hazard ratios (HRs) were adjusted by patient age, sex, year of APM, Charlson comorbidity index, regional deprivation, rurality, and ethnicity. Risk of arthroplasty in the index knee was compared with the patient’s contralateral knee (with vs without a history of APM). A total of 834 393 patients were included (mean age 50 years; 37% female). Results. Of those with at least 15 years of follow-up, 13.49% (16 256/120 493; 95% confidence interval (CI) 13.30 to 13.69) underwent subsequent arthroplasty within this time. In women, 22.07% (95% CI 21.64 to 22.51) underwent arthroplasty within 15 years compared with 9.91% of men (95% CI 9.71 to 10.12), corresponding to a risk ratio (RR) of 2.23 (95% CI 2.16 to 2.29). Relative to the general population, patients with a history of APM were over ten times more likely (RR 10.27; 95% CI 10.07 to 10.47) to undergo arthroplasty rising to almost 40 times more likely (RR 39.62; 95% CI 27.68 to 56.70) at a younger age (30 to 39 years). In patients with a history of APM in only one knee, the risk of arthroplasty in that knee was greatly elevated in comparison with the contralateral knee (no APM; HR 2.99; 95% CI 2.95 to 3.02). Conclusion. Patients developing a meniscal tear undergoing APM are at greater risk of knee arthroplasty than the general population. This risk is three-times greater in the patient’s affected knee than in the contralateral knee. Women in the cohort were at double the risk of progressing to knee arthroplasty compared with men. These important new reference data will inform shared decision making and enhance approaches to treatment, prevention, and clinical surveillance. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:1071–1080

Aims. The aim of this study was to give estimates of the incidence of component incompatibility in hip and knee arthroplasty and to test the effect of an online, real-time compatibility check. Materials and Methods. Intraoperative barcode registration of arthroplasty implants was introduced in Denmark in 2013. We developed a compatibility database and, from May 2017, real-time compatibility checking was implemented and became part of the registration. We defined four classes of component incompatibility: A-I, A-II, B-I, and B-II, depending on an assessment of the level of risk to the patient (A/B), and on whether incompatibility was knowingly accepted (I/II). Results. A total of 26 524 arthroplasties were analyzed. From 12 307 procedures that were undertaken before implementation of the compatibility check, 21 class A incompatibilities were identified (real- or high-risk combinations; 0.17%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.11 to 0.26). From 5692 hip and 6615 knee procedures prior to implementation of the compatibility check, we found rates of class A-I incompatibility (real- or high-risk combinations unknowingly inserted) of 0.14% (95% CI 0.06 to 0.28) and 0.17% (95% CI 0.08 to 0.30), respectively. From 14 217 procedures after the introduction of compatibility checking (7187 hips and 7030 knees), eight class A incompatibilities (0.06%; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.11) were identified. This difference was statistically significant (p = 0.008). Conclusion. Our data presents validated estimates of the baseline incidence of incompatibility events for hip and knee arthroplasty procedures and shows that a significant reduction in class A incompatibility events is possible using a web-based recording system. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:960–969

Aims. The aim of this study was to determine the long-term mortality rate, and to identify factors associated with this, following primary and revision knee arthroplasty (KA). Methods. Data from the Scottish Arthroplasty Project (1998 to 2019) were retrospectively analyzed. Patient mortality data were linked from the National Records of Scotland. Analyses were performed separately for the primary and revised KA cohorts. The standardized mortality ratio (SMR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated for the population at risk. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards were used to identify predictors and estimate relative mortality risks. Results. At a median 7.4 years (interquartile range (IQR) 4.0 to 11.6) follow-up, 27.8% of primary (n = 27,474/98,778) and 31.3% of revision (n = 2,611/8,343) KA patients had died. Both primary and revision cohorts had lower mortality rates than the general population (SMR 0.74 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.74); p < 0.001; SMR 0.83 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.86); p < 0.001, respectively), which persisted for 12 and eighteight years after surgery, respectively. Factors associated with increased risk of mortality after primary KA included male sex (hazard ratio (HR) 1.40 (95% CI 1.36 to 1.45)), increasing socioeconomic deprivation (HR 1.43 (95% CI 1.36 to 1.50)), inflammatory polyarthropathy (HR 1.79 (95% CI 1.68 to 1.90)), greater number of comorbidities (HR 1.59 (95% CI 1.51 to 1.68)), and periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) requiring revision (HR 1.92 (95% CI 1.57 to 2.36)) when adjusting for age. Similarly, male sex (HR 1.36 (95% CI 1.24 to 1.49)), increasing socioeconomic deprivation (HR 1.31 (95% CI 1.12 to 1.52)), inflammatory polyarthropathy (HR 1.24 (95% CI 1.12 to 1.37)), greater number of comorbidities (HR 1.64 (95% CI 1.33 to 2.01)), and revision for PJI (HR 1.35 (95% 1.18 to 1.55)) were independently associated with an increased risk of mortality following revision KA when adjusting for age. Conclusion. The SMR of patients undergoing primary and revision KA was lower than that of the general population and remained so for several years post-surgery. However, approximately one in four patients undergoing primary and one in three patients undergoing revision KA died within tenten years of surgery. Several patient and surgical factors, including PJI, were associated with the risk of mortality within ten years of primary and revision surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(1):45–52

Aims. The aim of this study was to compare any differences in the primary outcome (biphasic flexion knee moment during gait) of robotic arm-assisted bi-unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (bi-UKA) with conventional mechanically aligned total knee arthroplasty (TKA) at one year post-surgery. Methods. A total of 76 patients (34 bi-UKA and 42 TKA patients) were analyzed in a prospective, single-centre, randomized controlled trial. Flat ground shod gait analysis was performed preoperatively and one year postoperatively. Knee flexion moment was calculated from motion capture markers and force plates. The same setup determined proprioception outcomes during a joint position sense test and one-leg standing. Surgery allocation, surgeon, and secondary outcomes were analyzed for prediction of the primary outcome from a binary regression model. Results. Both interventions were shown to be effective treatment options, with no significant differences shown between interventions for the primary outcome of this study (18/35 (51.4%) biphasic TKA patients vs 20/31 (64.5%) biphasic bi-UKA patients; p = 0.558). All outcomes were compared to an age-matched, healthy cohort that outperformed both groups, indicating residual deficits exists following surgery. Logistic regression analysis of primary outcome with secondary outcomes indicated that the most significant predictor of postoperative biphasic knee moments was preoperative knee moment profile and trochlear degradation (Outerbridge) (R. 2. = 0.381; p = 0.002, p = 0.046). A separate regression of alignment against primary outcome indicated significant bi-UKA femoral and tibial axial alignment (R. 2. = 0.352; p = 0.029), and TKA femoral sagittal alignment (R. 2. = 0.252; p = 0.016). The bi-UKA group showed a significant increased ability in the proprioceptive joint position test, but no difference was found in more dynamic testing of proprioception. Conclusion. Robotic arm-assisted bi-UKA demonstrated equivalence to TKA in achieving a biphasic gait pattern after surgery for osteoarthritis of the knee. Both treatments are successful at improving gait, but both leave the patients with a functional limitation that is not present in healthy age-matched controls. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;103-B(4):433–443