Postoperative complication rates remain relatively high after adult spinal deformity (ASD) surgery. The extent to which modifiable patient-related factors influence complication rates in patients with ASD has not been effectively evaluated. The aim of this retrospective cohort study was to evaluate the association between modifiable patient-related factors and complications after corrective surgery for ASD. ASD patients with two-year data were included. Complications were categorized as follows: any complication, major, medical, surgical, major mechanical, major radiological, and reoperation. Modifiable risk factors included smoking, obesity, osteoporosis, alcohol use, depression, psychiatric diagnosis, and hypertension. Patients were stratified by the degree of baseline deformity (low degree of deformity (LowDef)/high degree of deformity (HighDef): below or above 20°) and age (Older/Younger: above or below 65 years). Complication rates were compared for modifiable risk factors in each age/deformity group, using multivariable logistic regression analysis to adjust for confounders.Aims
Methods
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. 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.Aims
Methods
Femoral cement-in-cement revision is a well described technique to reduce morbidity and complications in hip revision surgery. Traditional techniques for septic revision of hip arthroplasty necessitate removal of all bone cement from the femur. In our two centres, we have been using a cement-in-cement technique, leaving the distal femoral bone cement in selected patients for septic hip revision surgery, both for single and the first of two-stage revision procedures. A prerequisite for adoption of this technique is that the surgeon considers the cement mantle to be intimately fixed to bone without an intervening membrane between cement and host bone. We aim to report our experience for this technique. We have analyzed patients undergoing this cement-in-cement technique for femoral revision in infection, and present a consecutive series of 89 patients. Follow-up was undertaken at a mean of 56.5 months (24.0 to 134.7) for the surviving cases.Aims
Methods
This study aimed to answer two questions: what are the best diagnostic methods for diagnosing bacterial arthritis of a native joint?; and what are the most commonly used definitions for bacterial arthritis of a native joint? We performed a search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane libraries for relevant studies published between January 1980 and April 2020. Of 3,209 identified studies, we included 27 after full screening. Sensitivity, specificity, area under the curve, and Youden index of diagnostic tests were extracted from included studies. We grouped test characteristics per diagnostic modality. We extracted the definitions used to establish a definitive diagnosis of bacterial arthritis of a native joint per study.Aims
Methods
The aim of this study was to determine whether national standards of best practice are associated with improved health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes in hip fracture patients. This was a multicentre cohort study conducted in 20 acute UK NHS hospitals treating hip fracture patients. Patients aged ≥ 60 years treated operatively for a hip fracture were eligible for inclusion. Regression models were fitted to each of the “Best Practice Tariff” indicators and overall attainment. The impact of attainment on HRQoL was assessed by quantifying improvement in EuroQol five-dimension five-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) from estimated regression model coefficients.Aims
Methods
Patients receiving cemented hemiarthroplasties after hip fracture have a significant risk of deep surgical site infection (SSI). Standard UK practice to minimize the risk of SSI includes the use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement with no consensus regarding type, dose, or antibiotic content of the cement. This is the protocol for a randomized clinical trial to investigate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of high dose dual antibiotic-loaded cement in comparison to low dose single antibiotic-loaded cement in patients 60 years and over receiving a cemented hemiarthroplasty for an intracapsular hip fracture. The WHiTE 8 Copal Or Palacos Antibiotic Loaded bone cement trial (WHiTE 8 COPAL) is a multicentre, multi-surgeon, parallel, two-arm, randomized clinical trial. The pragmatic study will be embedded in the World Hip Trauma Evaluation (WHiTE) (ISRCTN 63982700). Participants, including those that lack capacity, will be allocated on a 1:1 basis stratified by recruitment centre to either a low dose single antibiotic-loaded bone cement or a high dose dual antibiotic-loaded bone cement. The primary analysis will compare the differences in deep SSI rate as defined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention within 90 days of surgery via medical record review and patient self-reported questionnaires. Secondary outcomes include UK Core Outcome Set for hip fractures, complications, rate of antibiotic prescription, resistance patterns of deep SSI, and resource use (more specifically, cost-effectiveness) up to four months post-randomization. A minimum of 4,920 patients will be recruited to obtain 90% power to detect an absolute difference of 1.5% in the rate of deep SSI at 90 days for the expected 3% deep SSI rate in the control group.Aims
Methods
There is widespread variation in the management of rare orthopaedic disease, in a large part owing to uncertainty. No individual surgeon or hospital is typically equipped to amass sufficient numbers of cases to draw robust conclusions from the information available to them. The programme of research will establish the British Orthopaedic Surgery Surveillance (BOSS) Study; a nationwide reporting structure for rare disease in orthopaedic surgery. The BOSS Study is a series of nationwide observational cohort studies of pre-specified orthopaedic disease. All relevant hospitals treating the disease are invited to contribute anonymised case details. Data will be collected digitally through REDCap, with an additional bespoke software solution used to regularly confirm case ascertainment, prompt follow-up reminders and identify potential missing cases from external sources of information (i.e. national administrative data). With their consent, patients will be invited to enrich the data collected by supplementing anonymised case data with patient reported outcomes. The study will primarily seek to calculate the incidence of the rare diseases under investigation, with 95% confidence intervals. Descriptive statistics will be used to describe the case mix, treatment variations and outcomes. Inferential statistical analysis may be used to analyze associations between presentation factors and outcomes. Types of analyses will be contingent on the disease under investigation.Introduction
Methods
Slipped capital femoral epiphysis (SCFE) is one of the most common hip diseases of adolescence that can cause marked disability, yet there is little robust evidence to guide treatment. Fundamental aspects of the disease, such as frequency, are unknown and consequently the desire of clinicians to undertake robust intervention studies is somewhat prohibited by a lack of fundamental knowledge. The study is an anonymized nationwide comprehensive cohort study with nested consented within the mechanism of the British Orthopaedic Surgery Surveillance (BOSS) Study. All relevant hospitals treating SCFE in England, Scotland, and Wales will contribute anonymized case details. Potential missing cases will be cross-checked against two independent external sources of data (the national administrative data and independent trainee data). Patients will be invited to enrich the data collected by supplementing anonymized case data with patient-reported outcome measures. In line with recommendations of the IDEAL Collaboration, the study will primarily seek to determine incidence, describe case mix and variations in surgical interventions, and explore the relationships between baseline factors (patients and types of interventions) and two-year outcomes.Aims
Methods
Hip fractures are associated with high morbidity, mortality, and costs. One strategy for improving outcomes is to incentivize hospitals to provide better quality of care. We aimed to determine whether a pay-for-performance initiative affected hip fracture outcomes in England by using Scotland, which did not participate in the scheme, as a control. We undertook an interrupted time series study with data from all patients aged more than 60 years with a hip fracture in England (2000 to 2018) using the Hospital Episode Statistics Admitted Patient Care (HES APC) data set linked to national death registrations. Difference-in-differences (DID) analysis incorporating equivalent data from the Scottish Morbidity Record was used to control for secular trends. The outcomes were 30-day and 365-day mortality, 30-day re-admission, time to operation, and acute length of stay.Aims
Materials and Methods
We compared a new fixation system, the Targon
Femoral Neck (TFN) hip screw, with the current standard treatment of
cannulated screw fixation. This was a single-centre, participant-blinded,
randomised controlled trial. Patients aged 65 years and over with
either a displaced or undisplaced intracapsular fracture of the
hip were eligible. The primary outcome was the risk of revision
surgery within one year of fixation. A total of 174 participants were included in the trial. The absolute
reduction in risk of revision was of 4.7% (95% CI 14.2 to 22.5)
in favour of the TFN hip screw (chi-squared test, p = 0.741), which
was less than the pre-specified level of minimum clinically important
difference. There were no significant differences in any of the
secondary outcome measures. We found no evidence of a clinical difference in the risk of
revision surgery between the TFN hip screw and cannulated screw
fixation for patients with an intracapsular fracture of the hip. Cite this article:
