Objectives. The primary aim of this study was to assess the reproducibility of the recalled preoperative Oxford Hip Score (OHS) and Oxford Knee Score (OKS) one year following arthroplasty for a cohort of patients. The secondary aim was to assess the reliability of a patient’s recollection of their own preoperative OHS and OKS one year following surgery. Methods. A total of 335 patients (mean age 72.5; 22 to 92; 53.7% female) undergoing total hip arthroplasty (n = 178) and total knee arthroplasty (n = 157) were prospectively assessed. Patients undergoing hip and knee arthroplasty completed an OHS or OKS, respectively, preoperatively and were asked to recall their preoperative condition while completing the same score one year after surgery. Results. A mean difference of 0.04 points (95% confidence intervals (CI) -15.64 to 15.72, p = 0.97) between the actual and the recalled OHS was observed. The mean difference in the OKS was 1.59 points (95% CI -11.57 to 14.75, p = 0.10). There was excellent reliability for the ‘average measures’ intra-class correlation for both the OHS (r = 0.802) and the OKS (r = 0.772). However, this reliability was diminished for the individuals OHS (r = 0.670) and OKS (r = 0.629) using single measures intra-class correlation. Bland–Altman plots demonstrated wide variation in the individual patient’s ability to recall their preoperative score (95% CI ± 16 for OHS, 95% CI ± 13 for OKS). Conclusion. Prospective preoperative collection of OHS and OKS remains the benchmark. Using recalled scores one year following hip and knee arthroplasty is an alternative when used to assess a cohort of patients. However, the recall of an individual patient’s preoperative score should not be relied upon due to the diminished reliability and wide CI. Cite this article: T. F. M. Yeoman, N. D. Clement, D. Macdonald, M. Moran. Recall of preoperative Oxford Hip and Knee Scores one year after arthroplasty is an alternative and reliable technique when used for a cohort of patients. Bone Joint Res 2018;7:351–356. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.75.BJR-2017-0259.R1

Objectives. The diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is difficult and requires a battery of tests and clinical findings. The purpose of this review is to summarize all current evidence for common and new serum biomarkers utilized in the diagnosis of PJI. Methods. We searched two literature databases, using terms that encompass all hip and knee arthroplasty procedures, as well as PJI and statistical terms reflecting diagnostic parameters. The findings are summarized as a narrative review. Results. Erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) and C-reactive protein (CRP) were the two most commonly published serum biomarkers. Most evidence did not identify other serum biomarkers that are clearly superior to ESR and CRP. Other serum biomarkers have not demonstrated superior sensitivity and have failed to replace CRP and ESR as first-line screening tests. D-dimer appears to be a promising biomarker, but more research is necessary. Factors that influence serum biomarkers include temporal trends, stage of revision, and implant-related factors (metallosis). Conclusion. Our review helped to identify factors that can influence serum biomarkers’ level changes; the recognition of such factors can help improve their diagnostic utility. As such, we cannot rely on ESR and CRP alone for the diagnosis of PJI prior to second-stage reimplantation, or in metal-on-metal or corrosion cases. The future of serum biomarkers will likely shift towards using genomics and proteomics to identify proteins transcribed via messenger RNA in response to infection and sepsis. Cite this article: A. Saleh, J. George, M. Faour, A. K. Klika, C. A. Higuera. Serum biomarkers in periprosthetic joint infections. Bone Joint Res 2018;7:85–93. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.71.BJR-2017-0323

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