Aims. The optimal choice of management for proximal humerus fractures (PHFs) has been increasingly discussed in the literature, and this work aimed to answer the following questions: 1) what are the incidence rates of PHF in the geriatric population in the USA; 2) what is the mortality rate after PHF in the elderly population, specifically for distinct treatment procedures; and 3) what factors influence the mortality rate?. Methods. PHFs occurring between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2019 were identified from the Medicare physician service records. Incidence rates were determined, mortality rates were calculated, and semiparametric Cox regression was applied, incorporating 23 demographic, clinical, and socioeconomic covariates, to compare the mortality risk between treatments. Results. From 2009 to 2019, the incidence decreased by 11.85% from 300.4 cases/100,000 enrollees to 266.3 cases/100,000 enrollees, although this was not statistically significant (z = -1.47, p = 0.142). In comparison to matched Medicare patients without a PHF, but of the same five-year age group and sex, a mean survival difference of -17.3% was observed. The one-year mortality rate was higher after nonoperative treatment with 16.4% compared to surgical treatment with 9.3% (hazard ratio (HR) = 1.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.23 to 1.36; p < 0.001) and to shoulder arthroplasty with 7.4% (HR = 1.45, 95% CI 1.33 to 1.58; p < 0.001). Statistically significant mortality risk factors after operative treatment included age older than 75 years, male sex, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), cerebrovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, a concomitant fracture, congestive heart failure, and osteoporotic fracture. Conclusion. Mortality risk factors for distinct treatment modes after PHF in elderly patients could be identified, which may guide clinical decision-making. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2023;12(2):103–112

Aims. To develop and validate patient-centred algorithms that estimate individual risk of death over the first year after elective joint arthroplasty surgery for osteoarthritis. Methods. A total of 763,213 hip and knee joint arthroplasty episodes recorded in the National Joint Registry for England and Wales (NJR) and 105,407 episodes from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register were used to model individual mortality risk over the first year after surgery using flexible parametric survival regression. Results. The one-year mortality rates in the NJR were 10.8 and 8.9 per 1,000 patient-years after hip and knee arthroplasty, respectively. The Norwegian mortality rates were 9.1 and 6.0 per 1,000 patient-years, respectively. The strongest predictors of death in the final models were age, sex, body mass index, and American Society of Anesthesiologists grade. Exposure variables related to the intervention, with the exception of knee arthroplasty type, did not add discrimination over patient factors alone. Discrimination was good in both cohorts, with c-indices above 0.76 for the hip and above 0.70 for the knee. Time-dependent Brier scores indicated appropriate estimation of the mortality rate (≤ 0.01, all models). Conclusion. Simple demographic and clinical information may be used to calculate an individualized estimation for one-year mortality risk after hip or knee arthroplasty (. https://jointcalc.shef.ac.uk. ). These models may be used to provide patients with an estimate of the risk of mortality after joint arthroplasty. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2020;9(11):808–820

Aims. The aims of this meta-analysis were to assess: 1) the prevalence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in hip fracture patients; 2) the associated mortality rate and risk associated with COVID-19; 3) the patient demographics associated with COVID-19; 4) time of diagnosis; and 5) length of follow-up after diagnosis of COVID-19. Methods. Searches of PubMed, Medline, and Google Scholar were performed in October 2020 in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. Search terms included “hip”, “fracture”, and “COVID-19”. The criteria for inclusion were published clinical articles reporting the mortality rate associated with COVID-19 in hip fracture patients. In total, 53 articles were identified and following full text screening 28 articles satisfied the inclusion criteria. Results. A total of 28 studies reported the mortality of COVID-19-positive patients, of which 21 studies reported the prevalence of COVID-19-positive patients and compared the mortality rate to COVID-19-negative patients. The prevalence of COVID-19 was 13% (95% confidence interval (CI) 11% to 16%) and was associated with a crude mortality rate of 35% (95% CI 32% to 39%), which was a significantly increased risk compared to those patients without COVID-19 (odds ratio (OR) 7.11, 95% CI 5.04 to 10.04; p < 0.001). COVID-19-positive patients were more likely to be male (OR 1.51, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.96; p = 0.002). The duration of follow-up was reported in 20 (71.4%) studies. A total of 17 studies reported whether a patient presented with COVID-19 (n = 108 patients, 35.1%) or developed COVID-19 following admission (n = 200, 64.9%), of which six studies reported a mean time to diagnosis of post-admission COVID-19 at 15 days (2 to 25). Conclusion. The prevalence of COVID-19 was 13%, of which approximately one-third of patients were diagnosed on admission, and was associated with male sex. COVID-19-positive patients had a crude mortality rate of 35%, being seven times greater than those without COVID-19. Due to the heterogenicity of the reported data minimum reporting standards of outcomes associated with COVID-19 are suggested. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2020;9(12):873–883

Total hip replacement causes a short-term increase in the risk of mortality. It is important to quantify this and to identify modifiable risk factors so that the risk of post-operative mortality can be minimised. We performed a systematic review and critical evaluation of the current literature on the topic. We identified 32 studies published over the last 10 years which provide either 30-day or 90-day mortality data. We estimate the pooled incidence of mortality during the first 30 and 90 days following hip replacement to be 0.30% (95% CI 0.22 to 0.38) and 0.65% (95% CI 0.50 to 0.81), respectively. We found strong evidence of a temporal trend towards reducing mortality rates despite increasingly co-morbid patients. The risk factors for early mortality most commonly identified are increasing age, male gender and co-morbid conditions, particularly cardiovascular disease. Cardiovascular complications appear to have overtaken fatal pulmonary emboli as the leading cause of death after hip replacement. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2014;3:175–82

Objectives. The National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) publishes hospital-level risk-adjusted mortality rates following hip fracture surgery in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The performance of the risk model used by the NHFD was compared with the widely-used Nottingham Hip Fracture Score. Methods. Data from 94 hospitals on patients aged 60 to 110 who had hip fracture surgery between May 2013 and July 2013 were analysed. Data were linked to the Office for National Statistics (ONS) death register to calculate the 30-day mortality rate. Risk of death was predicted for each patient using the NHFD and Nottingham models in a development dataset using logistic regression to define the models’ coefficients. This was followed by testing the performance of these refined models in a second validation dataset. Results. The 30-day mortality rate was 5.36% in the validation dataset (n = 3861), slightly lower than the 6.40% in the development dataset (n = 4044). The NHFD and Nottingham models showed a slightly lower discrimination in the validation dataset compared with the development dataset, but both still displayed moderate discriminative power (c-statistic for NHFD = 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67 to 0.74; Nottingham model = 0.70, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.75). Both models defined similar ranges of predicted mortality risk (1% to 18%) in assessment of calibration. Conclusions. Both models have limitations in predicting mortality for individual patients after hip fracture surgery, but the NHFD risk adjustment model performed as well as the widely-used Nottingham prognostic tool and is therefore a reasonable alternative for risk adjustment in the United Kingdom hip fracture population. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2017;6:550–556

Aims. We compared the risks of re-revision and mortality between two-stage and single-stage revision surgeries among patients with infected primary hip arthroplasty. Methods. Patients with a periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of their primary arthroplasty revised with single-stage or two-stage procedure in England and Wales between 2003 and 2014 were identified from the National Joint Registry. We used Poisson regression with restricted cubic splines to compute hazard ratios (HRs) at different postoperative periods. The total number of revisions and re-revisions undergone by patients was compared between the two strategies. Results. In total, 535 primary hip arthroplasties were revised with single-stage procedure (1,525 person-years) and 1,605 with two-stage procedure (5,885 person-years). All-cause re-revision was higher following single-stage revision, especially in the first three months (HR at 3 months = 1.98 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.14 to 3.43), p = 0.009). The risks were comparable thereafter. Re-revision for PJI was higher in the first three postoperative months for single-stage revision and waned with time (HR at 3 months = 1.81 (95% CI 1.22 to 2.68), p = 0.003; HR at 6 months = 1.25 (95% CI 0.71 to 2.21), p = 0.441; HR at 12 months = 0.94 (95% CI 0.54 to 1.63), p = 0.819). Patients initially managed with a single-stage revision received fewer revision operations (mean 1.3 (SD 0.7) vs 2.2 (SD 0.6), p < 0.001). Mortality rates were comparable between these two procedures (29/10,000 person-years vs 33/10,000). Conclusion. The risk of unplanned re-revision was lower following two-stage revision, but only in the early postoperative period. The lower overall number of revision procedures associated with a single-stage revision strategy and the equivalent mortality rates to two-stage revision are reassuring. With appropriate counselling, single-stage revision is a viable option for the treatment of hip PJI. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2023;12(5):321–330

Aims. We compared the risks of re-revision and mortality between two-stage revision surgery and single-stage revision surgery among patients with infected primary knee arthroplasty. Methods. Patients with a periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of their primary knee arthroplasty, initially revised with a single-stage or a two-stage procedure in England and Wales between 2003 and 2014, were identified from the National Joint Registry. We used Poisson regression with restricted cubic splines to compute hazard ratios (HR) at different postoperative periods. The total number of revisions and re-revisions undergone by patients was compared between the two strategies. Results. A total of 489 primary knee arthroplasties were revised with single-stage procedure (1,390 person-years) and 2,377 with two-stage procedure (8,349 person-years). The adjusted incidence rates of all-cause re-revision and for infection were comparable between these strategies (HR overall five years, 1.15 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87 to 1.52), p = 0.308; HR overall five years, 0.99 (95% CI 0.70 to 1.39), p = 0.949, respectively). Patients initially managed with single-stage revision received fewer revision procedures overall than after two-stage revision (1.2 vs 2.2, p < 0.001). Mortality was lower for single-stage revision between six and 18 months postoperative (HR at six months, 0.51 (95% CI 0.25 to 1.00), p = 0.049 HR at 18 months, 0.33 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.99), p = 0.048) and comparable at other timepoints. Conclusion. The risk of re-revision was similar between single- and two-stage revision for infected primary knee arthroplasty. Single-stage group required fewer revisions overall, with lower or comparable mortality at specific postoperative periods. The single-stage revision is a safe and effective strategy to treat infected knee arthroplasties. There is potential for increased use to reduce the burden of knee PJI for patients, and for the healthcare system. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2022;11(10):690–699

Objectives. To determine the morbidity and mortality outcomes of patients presenting with a fractured neck of femur in an Australian context. Peri-operative variables related to unfavourable outcomes were identified to allow planning of intervention strategies for improving peri-operative care. Methods. We performed a retrospective observational study of 185 consecutive adult patients admitted to an Australian metropolitan teaching hospital with fractured neck of femur between 2009 and 2010. The main outcome measures were 30-day and one-year mortality rates, major complications and factors influencing mortality. . Results. The majority of patients were elderly, female and had multiple comorbidities. Multiple peri-operative medical complications were observed, including pre-operative hypoxia (17%), post-operative delirium (25%), anaemia requiring blood transfusion (28%), representation within 30 days of discharge (18%), congestive cardiac failure (14%), acute renal impairment (12%) and myocardial infarction (4%). Mortality rates were 8.1% at 30 days and 21.6% at one year. Factors predictive of one-year mortality were American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score (odds ratio (OR) 4.2 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.5 to 12.2)), general anaesthesia (OR 3.1 (95% CI 1.1 to 8.5)), age > 90 years (OR 4.5 (95% CI 1.5 to 13.1)) and post-operative oliguria (OR 3.6 (95% CI 1.1 to 11.7)). Conclusions. Results from an Australian metropolitan teaching hospital confirm the persistently high morbidity and mortality in patients presenting with a fractured neck of femur. Efforts should be aimed at medically optimising patients pre-operatively and correction of pre-operative hypoxia. This study provides planning data for future interventional studies. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2013;2:162–8

Objectives. Few studies have assessed outcomes following non-metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty (non-MoMHA) revision surgery performed for adverse reactions to metal debris (ARMD). We assessed outcomes following non-MoMHA revision surgery performed for ARMD, and identified predictors of re-revision. Methods. We performed a retrospective observational study using data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. All non-MoMHAs undergoing revision surgery for ARMD between 2008 and 2014 were included (185 hips in 185 patients). Outcome measures following ARMD revision were intra-operative complications, mortality and re-revision surgery. Predictors of re-revision were identified using Cox regression. Results. Intra-operative complications occurred in 6.0% (n = 11) of the 185 cases. The cumulative four-year patient survival rate was 98.2% (95% CI 92.9 to 99.5). Re-revision surgery was performed in 13.5% (n = 25) of hips at a mean time of 1.2 years (0.1 to 3.1 years) following ARMD revision. Infection (32%; n = 8), dislocation/subluxation (24%; n = 6), and aseptic loosening (24%; n = 6) were the most common re-revision indications. The cumulative four-year implant survival rate was 83.8% (95% CI 76.7 to 88.9). Multivariable analysis identified three predictors of re-revision: multiple revision indications (hazard ratio (HR) = 2.78; 95% CI 1.03 to 7.49; p = 0.043); selective component revisions (HR = 5.76; 95% CI 1.28 to 25.9; p = 0.022); and ceramic-on-polyethylene revision bearings (HR = 3.08; 95% CI 1.01 to 9.36; p = 0.047). Conclusions. Non-MoMHAs revised for ARMD have a high short-term risk of re-revision, with important predictors of future re-revision including selective component revision, multiple revision indications, and ceramic-on-polyethylene revision bearings. Our findings may help counsel patients about the risks of ARMD revision, and guide reconstructive decisions. Future studies attempting to validate the predictors identified should also assess the effects of implant design (metallurgy and modularity), given that this was an important study limitation potentially influencing the reported prognostic factors. Cite this article: G. S. Matharu, A. Judge, D. W. Murray, H. G. Pandit. Outcomes following revision surgery performed for adverse reactions to metal debris in non-metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty patients: Analysis of 185 revisions from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. Bone Joint Res 2017;6:405–413. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.67.BJR-2017-0017.R2

The use of artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly growing across many domains, of which the medical field is no exception. AI is an umbrella term defining the practical application of algorithms to generate useful output, without the need of human cognition. Owing to the expanding volume of patient information collected, known as ‘big data’, AI is showing promise as a useful tool in healthcare research and across all aspects of patient care pathways. Practical applications in orthopaedic surgery include: diagnostics, such as fracture recognition and tumour detection; predictive models of clinical and patient-reported outcome measures, such as calculating mortality rates and length of hospital stay; and real-time rehabilitation monitoring and surgical training. However, clinicians should remain cognizant of AI’s limitations, as the development of robust reporting and validation frameworks is of paramount importance to prevent avoidable errors and biases. The aim of this review article is to provide a comprehensive understanding of AI and its subfields, as well as to delineate its existing clinical applications in trauma and orthopaedic surgery. Furthermore, this narrative review expands upon the limitations of AI and future direction. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2023;12(7):447–454

Objectives. The objective of this study was to assess all evidence comparing the Thompson monoblock hemiarthroplasty with modular unipolar implants for patients requiring hemiarthroplasty of the hip with respect to mortality and complications. Methods. A literature search was performed to identify all relevant literature. The population consisted of patients undergoing hemiarthroplasty of the hip for fracture. The intervention was hemiarthroplasty of the hip with a comparison between Thompson and modular unipolar prostheses. Pubmed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, PROSPERO and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. The study designs included were randomised controlled trials (RCTs), well designed case control studies and retrospective or prospective cohort studies. Studies available in any language, published at any time until September 2015 were considered. Studies were included if they contained mortality or complications. Results. The initial literature search identified 4757 items for examination. Four papers were included in the final review. The pooled odds ratio for mortality was 1.3 (95% confidence Interval 0.78 to 2.46) favouring modular designs. The pooled odds ratio for post-operative complications was 1.1 (95% CI 0.79 to 1.55) favouring modular designs. Outcomes were reported at 12 or six months. These papers all contained potential sources of bias and significant clinical heterogeneity. Conclusion. The current evidence comparing monoblock versus modular implants in patients undergoing hemiarthroplasty is weak. Confidence intervals around the pooled odds ratios are broad and incorporate a value of one. Direct comparison of outcomes from these papers is fraught with difficulty and, as such, may well be misleading. A well designed randomised controlled trial would be helpful to inform evidence-based implant selection. Cite this article: A. L. Sims, A. J. Farrier, M. R. Reed, T. A. Sheldon. Thompson hemiarthroplasty versus modular unipolar implants for patients requiring hemiarthroplasty of the hip: A systematic review of the evidence. Bone Joint Res 2017;6:–513. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.68.BJR-2016-0256.R1

Aims. Patients with metabolic syndrome (MetS) are known to be at increased risk of postoperative complications, but it is unclear whether MetS is also associated with complications after total hip arthroplasty (THA) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Here, we perform a systematic review and meta-analysis linking MetS to postoperative complications in THA and TKA. Methods. The PubMed, OVID, and ScienceDirect databases were comprehensively searched and studies were selected and analyzed according to the guidelines of the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE). We assessed the methodological quality of each study using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), and we evaluated the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). Data were extracted and meta-analyzed or qualitatively synthesized for several outcomes. Results. Ten cohort studies involving 1,352,685 patients were included. Qualitative analysis suggested that MetS was associated with a higher incidence of cardiovascular events, and meta-analysis showed that MetS increased the risk of all-cause complications (risk ratio (RR) 1.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.28 to 1.89), surgical site infection (SSI; RR 2.99, 95% CI 1.30 to 6.90), urinary tract infection (UTI; RR 2.58, 95% CI 1.03 to 6.43), and 30-day readmission (RR 1.45, 95% CI 1.33 to 1.59). There was insufficient evidence for assessing an association between MetS and venous thromboembolism events, pulmonary or gastrointestinal complications, or mortality. Conclusion. Patients with MetS undergoing THA and TKA are at increased risk of all-cause complications, cardiovascular complications, SSI, UTI, and 30-day readmission. Surgeons should be aware of the increased risk of these complications in MetS, and presurgical protocols for these complications should give special consideration to MetS patients. Cite this article:Bone Joint Res. 2020;9(3):120–129

Aims

The present study aimed to investigate whether patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) undergoing joint arthroplasty have a higher incidence of adverse outcomes than those without IBD.

Aims

This study aimed to evaluate the clinical application of the PJI-TNM classification for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) by determining intraobserver and interobserver reliability. To facilitate its use in clinical practice, an educational app was subsequently developed and evaluated.

Aims

Glucose-insulin-potassium (GIK) is protective following cardiac myocyte ischaemia-reperfusion (IR) injury, however the role of GIK in protecting skeletal muscle from IR injury has not been evaluated. Given the similar mechanisms by which cardiac and skeletal muscle sustain an IR injury, we hypothesized that GIK would similarly protect skeletal muscle viability.

Aims

Open lower limb fracture is a life-changing injury affecting 11.5 per 100,000 adults each year, and causes significant morbidity and resource demand on trauma infrastructures. This study aims to identify what, and how, outcomes have been reported for people following open lower limb fracture over ten years.

Aims

The aim of this investigation was to compare risk of infection in both cemented and uncemented hemiarthroplasty (HA) as well as in total hip arthroplasty (THA) following femoral neck fracture.

Aims

This study aimed to assess the risk of acute kidney injury (AKI) associated with combined intravenous (IV) and topical antibiotic therapy in patients undergoing treatment for periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) following total knee arthroplasty (TKA), utilizing the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) criteria for classification.

Aims

The mechanism by which synovial fluid (SF) kills bacteria has not yet been elucidated, and a better understanding is needed. We sought to analyze the antimicrobial properties of exogenous copper in human SF against Staphylococcus aureus.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2023;12(4):256–258.