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

We report a systematic review and meta-analysis of the peer-reviewed literature focusing on metal sensitivity testing in patients undergoing total joint replacement (TJR). Our purpose was to assess the risk of developing metal hypersensitivity post-operatively and its relationship with outcome and to investigate the advantages of performing hypersensitivity testing. We undertook a comprehensive search of the citations quoted in PubMed and EMBASE: 22 articles (comprising 3634 patients) met the inclusion criteria. The frequency of positive tests increased after TJR, especially in patients with implant failure or a metal-on-metal coupling. The probability of developing a metal allergy was higher post-operatively (odds ratio (OR) 1.52 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.06 to 2.31)), and the risk was further increased when failed implants were compared with stable TJRs (OR 2.76 (95% CI 1.14 to 6.70)). Hypersensitivity testing was not able to discriminate between stable and failed TJRs, as its predictive value was not statistically proven. However, it is generally thought that hypersensitivity testing should be performed in patients with a history of metal allergy and in failed TJRs, especially with metal-on-metal implants and when the cause of the loosening is doubtful

Objectives

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is a potential treatment for isolated bone on bone osteoarthritis when limited to a single compartment. The risk for revision of UKA is three times higher than for total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The aim of this review was to discuss the different revision options after UKA failure.

Aims

Increasing demand for total hip and knee arthroplasty (THA/TKA) and associated follow-up has placed huge demands on orthopaedic services. Feasible follow-up mechanisms are therefore essential.

Infection is a leading indication for revision arthroplasty. Established criteria used to diagnose prosthetic joint infection (PJI) include a range of laboratory tests. Leucocyte esterase (LE) is widely used on a colorimetric reagent strip for the diagnosis of urinary tract infections. This inexpensive test may be used for the diagnosis or exclusion of PJI. Aspirates from 30 total hip arthroplasties (THAs) and 79 knee arthroplasties (KA) were analysed for LE activity. Semi-quantitative reagent strip readings of 15, 70, 125 and 500 white blood cells (WBC) were validated against a manual synovial white cell count (WCC). A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was constructed to determine the optimal cut-off point for the semi-quantitative results. Based on established criteria, six THAs and 15 KAs were classified as infected. The optimal cut-off point for the diagnosis of PJI was 97 WBC. The closest semi-quantitative reading for a positive result was 125 WBC, achieving a sensitivity of 81% and a specificity of 93%. The positive and negative predictive values of the LE test strip were 74% and 95% respectively.

The LE reagent strip had a high specificity and negative predictive value. A negative result may exclude PJI and negate the need for further diagnostic tests.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1232–6.