Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 3 of 3
Results per page:
The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 102-B, Issue 6 | Pages 683 - 692
1 Jun 2020
Arnold N Anis H Barsoum WK Bloomfield MR Brooks PJ Higuera CA Kamath AF Klika A Krebs VE Mesko NW Molloy RM Mont MA Murray TG Patel PD Strnad G Stearns KL Warren J Zajichek A Piuzzi NS

Aims. Thresholds for operative eligibility based on body mass index (BMI) alone may restrict patient access to the benefits of arthroplasty. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between BMI and improvements in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and to determine how many patients would have been denied improvements in PROMs if BMI cut-offs were to be implemented. Methods. A prospective cohort of 3,449 primary total hip arthroplasties (THAs) performed between 2015 and 2018 were analyzed. The following one-year PROMs were evaluated: hip injury and osteoarthritis outcome score (HOOS) pain, HOOS Physical Function Shortform (PS), University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) activity, Veterans Rand-12 Physical Component Score (VR-12 PCS), and VR-12 Mental Component Score (VR-12 MCS). Positive predictive values for failure to improve and the number of patients denied surgery in order to avoid a failed improvement were calculated for each PROM at different BMI cut-offs. Results. There was a trend to improved outcomes in terms of pain and function improvements with higher BMI. Patients with BMI ≥ 40 kg/m. 2. had median (Q1, Q3) HOOS pain improvements of 58 points (interquartile range (IQR) 41 to 70) and those with BMI 35 to 40 kg/m. 2. had median improvements of 55 (IQR 40 to 68). With a BMI cut-off of 30 kg/m. 2. , 21 patients would have been denied a meaningful improvement in HOOS pain score in order to avoid one failed improvement. At a 35 kg/m. 2. cut-off, 18 patients would be denied improvement, at a 40 kg/m. 2. cut-off 21 patients would be denied improvement, and at a 45 kg/m. 2. cut-off 21 patients would be denied improvement. Similar findings were observed for HOOS-PS, UCLA, and VR-12 scores. Conclusion. Patients with higher BMIs show greater improvements in PROMs. Using BMI alone to determine eligibility criteria did not improve the rate of clinically meaningful improvements. BMI thresholds prevent patients who may benefit the most from surgery from undergoing THA. Surgeons should consider PROMs improvements in determining eligibility for THA while balancing traditional metrics of preoperative risk stratification. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(6):683–692


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 106-B, Issue 6 | Pages 565 - 572
1 Jun 2024
Resl M Becker L Steinbrück A Wu Y Perka C

Aims

This study compares the re-revision rate and mortality following septic and aseptic revision hip arthroplasty (rTHA) in registry data, and compares the outcomes to previously reported data.

Methods

This is an observational cohort study using data from the German Arthroplasty Registry (EPRD). A total of 17,842 rTHAs were included, and the rates and cumulative incidence of hip re-revision and mortality following septic and aseptic rTHA were analyzed with seven-year follow-up. The Kaplan-Meier estimates were used to determine the re-revision rate and cumulative probability of mortality following rTHA.


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 102-B, Issue 7 Supple B | Pages 52 - 56
1 Jul 2020
Elkins JM Dennis DA Kleeman-Forsthuber L Yang CC Miner TM Jennings JM

Aims

Of growing concern in arthroplasty is the emergence of atypical infections, particularly Cutibacterium (formerly Propionibacterium) sp. infections. Currently, the dermal colonization rate of Cutibacterium about the hip is unknown. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate colonization rates of Cutibacterium sp. at locations approximating anterior and posterolateral approaches to the hip joint.

Methods

For this non-randomized non-blinded study, 101 adult patients scheduled for hip or knee surgery were recruited. For each, four 3 mm dermal punch biopsies were collected after administration of anaesthesia, but prior to antibiotics. Prebiopsy skin preparation consisted of a standardized preoperative 2% chlorhexidine skin cleansing protocol and an additional 70% isopropyl alcohol mechanical skin scrub immediately prior to biopsy collection. Two skin samples 10 cm apart were collected from a location approximating a standard direct anterior skin incision, and two samples 10 cm apart were collected from a lateral skin incision (suitable for posterior, direct-lateral, or anterolateral approaches). Samples were cultured for two weeks using a protocol optimized for Cutibacterium.