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.

Older patients with multiple medical co-morbidities are increasingly being offered and undergoing total joint arthroplasty (TJA). These patients are more likely to require intensive care support, following surgery. We prospectively evaluated the need for intensive care admission and intervention in a consecutive series of 738 patients undergoing elective hip and knee arthroplasty procedures. The mean age was 60.6 years (18 to 91; 440 women, 298 men. Risk factors, correlating with the need for critical care intervention, according to published guidelines, were analysed to identify high-risk patients who would benefit from post-operative critical care monitoring. A total of 50 patients (6.7%) in our series required critical care level interventions during their hospital stay. Six independent multivariate clinical predictors were identified (p < 0.001) including a history of congestive heart failure (odds ratio (OR) 24.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) 9.51 to 61.91), estimated blood loss >  1000 mL (OR 17.36, 95% CI 5.36 to 56.19), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (13.90, 95% CI 4.78 to 40.36), intra-operative use of vasopressors (OR 8.10, 95% CI 3.23 to 20.27), revision hip arthroplasty (OR 2.71, 95% CI 1.04 to 7.04) and body mass index > 35 kg/m² (OR 2.70, 95% CI 123 to 5.94). The model was then validated against an independent, previously published data set of 1594 consecutive patients. The use of this risk stratification model can be helpful in predicting which high-risk patients would benefit from a higher level of monitoring and care after elective TJA and aid hospitals in allocating precious critical care resources.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1512–18.

We have developed a novel method of calculating the radiological magnification of the hip using two separate radio-opaque markers. We recruited 74 patients undergoing radiological assessment following total hip replacement. Both the new double marker and a conventional single marker were used by the radiographer at the time of x-ray. The predicted magnification according to each marker was calculated, as was the true radiological magnification of the components. The correlation between true and predicted magnification was good using the double marker (r = 0.90, n = 74, p < 0.001), but only moderate for the single marker (r = 0.50, n = 63, p < 0.001). The median error was significantly less for the double marker than for the single (1.1% vs 4.8%, p < 0.001). The double marker method demonstrated excellent validity (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.89), in contrast to the single marker (0.32).

The double marker method appears to be superior to the single marker method when used in the clinical environment.