Rivaroxaban has been recommended for routine use as a thromboprophylactic agent in patients undergoing lower-limb arthroplasty. However, trials supporting its use have not fully evaluated the risks of wound complications. This study of 1048 total hip/knee replacements records the rates of return to theatre and infection before and after the change from a low molecular weight heparin (tinzaparin) to rivaroxaban as the agent of chemical thromboprophylaxis in patients undergoing lower-limb arthroplasty. During a period of 13 months, 489 consecutive patients undergoing lower-limb arthroplasty received tinzaparin and the next 559 consecutive patients received rivaroxaban as thromboprophylaxis.

Nine patients in the control (tinzaparin) group (1.8%, 95% confidence interval 0.9 to 3.5) returned to theatre with wound complications within 30 days, compared with 22 patients in the rivaroxaban group (3.94%, 95% confidence interval 2.6 to 5.9). This increase was statistically significant (p = 0.046). The proportion of patients who returned to theatre and became infected remained similar (p = 0.10).

Our study demonstrates the need for further randomised controlled clinical trials to be conducted to assess the safety and efficacy of rivaroxaban in clinical practice, focusing on the surgical complications as well as the potential prevention of venous thromboembolism.

We analysed data from the Oxford hip and knee questionnaires collected by the New Zealand Joint Registry at six months and five years after joint replacement, to determine if there was any relationship between the scores and the risk of early revision. Logistic regression of the six-month scores indicated that for every one-unit decrease in the Oxford score, the risk of revision within two years increased by 9.7% for total hip replacement (THR), 9.9% for total knee replacement (TKR) and 12.0% for unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR). Our findings showed that 70% of the revisions within two years for TKR and 67% for THR and UKR would have been captured by monitoring the lowest 22%, 28% and 28%, respectively, of the Oxford scores. When analysed using the Kalairajah classification a score of < 27 (poor) was associated with a risk of revision within two years of 7.6% for THR, 7.0% for TKR and 24.3% for UKR, compared with risks of 0.7%, 0.7% and 1.8%, respectively, for scores > 34 (good or excellent).

Our study confirms that the Oxford hip and knee scores at six months are useful predictors of early revision after THR and TKR and we recommend their use for the monitoring of the outcome and potential failure in these patients.