Aims. The aim of this study was to conduct a cross-sectional, observational cohort study of patients presenting for revision of a total hip, or total or unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, to understand current routes to revision surgery and explore differences in symptoms, healthcare use, reason for revision, and the revision surgery (surgical time, components, length of stay) between patients having regular follow-up and those without. Methods. Data were collected from participants and medical records for the 12 months prior to revision. Patients with previous revision, metal-on-metal articulations, or hip hemiarthroplasty were excluded. Participants were retrospectively classified as ‘Planned’ or ‘Unplanned’ revision. Multilevel regression and propensity score matching were used to compare the two groups. Results. Data were analyzed from 568 patients, recruited in 38 UK secondary care sites between October 2017 and October 2018 (43.5% male; mean (SD) age 71.86 years (9.93); 305 hips, 263 knees). No significant inclusion differences were identified between the two groups. For hip revision, time to revision > ten years (odds ratio (OR) 3.804, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.353 to 10.694), p = 0.011), periprosthetic fracture (OR 20.309, 95% CI (4.574 to 90.179), p < 0.001), and dislocation (OR 12.953, 95% CI (4.014 to 41.794), p < 0.001), were associated with unplanned revision. For knee, there were no associations with route to revision. Revision after ten years was more likely for those who were younger at primary surgery, regardless of route to revision. No significant differences in cost outcomes, length of surgery time, and access to a health professional in the year prior to revision were found between the two groups. When periprosthetic fractures, dislocations, and infections were excluded, healthcare use was significantly higher in the unplanned revision group. Conclusion. Differences between characteristics for patients presenting for planned and unplanned revision are minimal. Although there was greater healthcare use in those having unplanned revision, it appears unlikely that routine orthopaedic review would have detected many of these issues. It may be safe to disinvest in standard follow-up provided there is rapid access to orthopaedic review. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(1):59–67

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.

Balancing service provision and surgical training is a challenging issue that affects all healthcare systems. A multicentre prospective study of 1501 total hip replacements was undertaken to investigate whether there is an association between surgical outcome and the grade of the operating surgeon, and whether there is any difference in outcome if surgeons’ assistants assist with the operation, rather than orthopaedic trainees. The primary outcome measure was the change in the Oxford hip score (OHS) at five years. Secondary outcomes included the rate of revision and dislocation, operating time, and length of hospital stay.

There was no significant difference in ΔOHS or complication rates between operations undertaken by trainers and trainees, or those at which surgeons’ assistants and trainees were the assistant. However, there was a significant difference in the duration of surgery, with a mean reduction of 28 minutes in those in which a surgeons’ assistant was the assistant.

This study provides evidence that total hip replacements can be performed safely and effectively by appropriately trained surgeons in training, and that there are potential benefits of using surgeons’ assistants in orthopaedic surgery.

We wished to estimate the incidence of surgical-site infection (SSI) after total hip replacement (THR) and hemiarthroplasty and its strength of association with major risk factors. The SSI surveillance service prospectively gathered clinical, operative and infection data on inpatients from 102 hospitals in England during a four-year period.

The overall incidence of SSI was 2.23% for 16 291 THRs, 4.97% for 5769 hemiarthroplasty procedures, 3.68% for 2550 revision THRs and 7.6% for 198 revision hemiarthroplasties. Staphylococcus aureus was identified in 50% of SSIs; 59% of these isolates were methicillin-resistant (MRSA). In the single variable analysis of THRs, age, female gender, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, body mass index, trauma, duration of operation and pre-operative stay were significantly associated with the risk of SSI (p < 0.05). For hemiarthroplasty, the ASA score and age were significant factors. In revision THRs male gender, ASA score, trauma, wound class, duration of operation and pre-operative stay were significant risk factors. The median time to detection of SSI was eight days for superficial incisional, 11 days for deep incisional and 11 days for joint/bone infections. For each procedure the mean length of stay doubled for patients with SSI. The multivariate analysis identified age group, trauma, duration of operation and ASA score as significant, independent risk factors for SSI. There was significant interhospital variation in the rates of SSI. MRSA was the most common pathogen to cause SSI in hip arthroplasty, especially in patients undergoing hemiarthroplasty, but coagulase-negative Staph. aureus may be more important in deep infections involving the joint.