Periprosthetic hip and knee infection remains one of the most severe complications following arthroplasty, with an incidence between 0.5% to 1%. This study compares the outcomes of revision surgery for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following hip and knee arthroplasty prior to and after implementation of a specialist PJI multidisciplinary team (MDT). Data was retrospectively analyzed from a single centre. In all, 29 consecutive joints prior to the implementation of an infection MDT in November 2016 were compared with 29 consecutive joints subsequent to the MDT conception. All individuals who underwent a debridement antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR) procedure, a one-stage revision, or a two-stage revision for an acute or chronic PJI in this time period were included. The definition of successfully treated PJI was based on the Delphi international multidisciplinary consensus.Aims
Methods
This study aims to describe the pre- and postoperative self-reported health and quality of life from a national cohort of patients undergoing elective total conventional hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in Australia. For context, these data will be compared with patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) data from other international nation-wide registries. Between 2018 to 2020, and nested within a nationwide arthroplasty registry, preoperative and six-month postoperative PROMs were electronically collected from patients before and after elective THA and TKA. There were 5,228 THA and 8,299 TKA preoperative procedures as well as 3,215 THA and 4,982 TKA postoperative procedures available for analysis. Validated PROMs included the EuroQol five-dimension five-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L; range 0 to 100; scored worst-best health), Oxford Hip/Knee Scores (OHS/OKS; range 0 to 48; scored worst-best hip/knee function) and the 12-item Hip/Knee disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS-12/KOOS-12; range 0 to 100; scored best-worst hip/knee health). Additional items included preoperative expectations, patient-perceived improvement, and postoperative satisfaction. Descriptive analyses were undertaken.Aims
Methods
