Aims

The primary aim was to assess change in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of patients as they waited from six to 12 months for a total hip (THA) or total or partial knee arthroplasty (KA). Secondary aims were to assess change in joint-specific function, mental health, quality of sleep, number living in a state worse than death (WTD), wellbeing, and patient satisfaction with their healthcare.

Aims

The primary aim of this prospective, multicentre study is to describe the rates of returning to golf following hip, knee, ankle, and shoulder arthroplasty in an active golfing population. Secondary aims will include determining the timing of return to golf, changes in ability, handicap, and mobility, and assessing joint-specific and health-related outcomes following surgery.

Aims. To review the evidence and reach consensus on recommendations for follow-up after total hip and knee arthroplasty. Methods. A programme of work was conducted, including: a systematic review of the clinical and cost-effectiveness literature; analysis of routine national datasets to identify pre-, peri-, and postoperative predictors of mid-to-late term revision; prospective data analyses from 560 patients to understand how patients present for revision surgery; qualitative interviews with NHS managers and orthopaedic surgeons; and health economic modelling. Finally, a consensus meeting considered all the work and agreed the final recommendations and research areas. Results. The UK poSt Arthroplasty Follow-up rEcommendations (UK SAFE) recommendations apply to post-primary hip and knee arthroplasty follow-up. The ten-year time point is based on a lack of robust evidence beyond ten years. The term 'complex cases' refers to individual patient and surgical factors that may increase the risk for arthroplasty failure. For Orthopaedic Data Evaluation Panel (ODEP) 10A* minimum implants, it is safe to disinvest in routine follow-up from one to ten years post-non-complex hip and knee arthroplasty provided there is rapid access to orthopaedic review. For ODEP 10A* minimum implants in complex cases, or non-ODEP 10A* minimum implants, periodic follow-up post-hip and knee arthroplasty may be required from one to ten years. At ten years post-hip and knee arthroplasty, clinical and radiological evaluation is recommended. After ten years post-hip and knee arthroplasty, frequency of further follow-up should be based on the ten-year assessment; ongoing rapid access to orthopaedic review is still required. Conclusion. Complex cases, implants not meeting the ODEP 10A* criteria, and follow-up after revision surgery are not covered by this recommendation. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(2):72–78

Aims

The aim of this study was to evaluate the optimal deep tissue specimen sample number for histopathological analysis in the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI).

Aims

The extended wait that most patients are now experiencing for hip and knee arthroplasty has raised questions about whether reliance on waiting time as the primary driver for prioritization is ethical, and if other additional factors should be included in determining surgical priority. Our Prioritization of THose aWaiting hip and knee ArthroplastY (PATHWAY) project will explore which perioperative factors are important to consider when prioritizing those on the waiting list for hip and knee arthroplasty, and how these factors should be weighted. The final product will include a weighted benefit score that can be used to aid in surgical prioritization for those awaiting elective primary hip and knee arthroplasty.

Aims

This study aimed to evaluate whether an enhanced recovery protocol (ERP) for arthroplasty established during the COVID-19 pandemic at a safety net hospital can be associated with a decrease in hospital length of stay (LOS) and an increase in same-day discharges (SDDs) without increasing acute adverse events.

Aims

The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of α defensin (AD) lateral flow assay (LFA) and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) tests for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in comparison to conventional synovial white blood cell (WBC) count and polymorphonuclear neutrophil percentage (PMN%) analysis.

Aims

Surgical costs are a major component of healthcare expenditures in the USA. Intraoperative communication is a key factor contributing to patient outcomes. However, the effectiveness of communication is only partially determined by the surgeon, and understanding how non-surgeon personnel affect intraoperative communication is critical for the development of safe and cost-effective staffing guidelines. Operative efficiency is also dependent on high-functioning teams and can offer a proxy for effective communication in highly standardized procedures like primary total hip and knee arthroplasty. We aimed to evaluate how the composition and dynamics of surgical teams impact operative efficiency during arthroplasty.

Aims

The diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) can be difficult. All current diagnostic tests have problems with accuracy and interpretation of results. Many new tests have been proposed, but there is no consensus on the place of many of these in the diagnostic pathway. Previous attempts to develop a definition of PJI have not been universally accepted and there remains no reference standard definition.

Aims

To investigate the experience and emotional impact of prosthetic joint infection (PJI) on orthopaedic surgeons and identify holistic strategies to improve the management of PJI and protect surgeons’ wellbeing.

Aims

To establish the utility of adding the laboratory-based synovial alpha-defensin immunoassay to the traditional diagnostic work-up of a prosthetic joint infection (PJI).

Aims

The aim of this study was to conduct the largest low contact stress (LCS) retrieval study to elucidate the failure mechanisms of the Porocoat and Duofix femoral component. The latter design was voluntarily recalled by the manufacturer.

Aims. α-defensin is a biomarker which has been described as having a high degree of accuracy in the diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Current meta-analyses are based on the α-defensin laboratory-based immunoassay rather than the quick on-table lateral flow test kit. This study is the first meta-analysis to compare the accuracy of the α-defensin laboratory-based immunoassay and the lateral flow test kit for the diagnosis of PJI. Materials and Methods. A systematic review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Inclusion criteria were all clinical studies where the diagnosis of PJI was uncertain. All studies selected used the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) or modified MSIS criteria. Two independent reviewers reviewed the studies and extracted data. A meta-analysis of results was carried out: pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratio, heterogeneity and areas under curves are reported. Results. Ten studies (759 patients) were included. Of these, seven studies (640 patients) evaluated the laboratory-based α-defensin immunoassay and three (119 patients) the lateral flow test. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of the qualitative α-defensin laboratory immunoassay was 0.953 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87 to 0.984) and 0.965 (95% CI 0.943 to 0.979) respectively. The pooled positive likelihood ratio (PLR) and negative likelihood ratio (NLR) were 34.86 (95% CI 19.34 to 62.85) and 0.02 (95% CI 0.00 to 0.11). The pooled sensitivity and specificity of the lateral flow test were 0.774 (95% CI 0.637 to 0.870) and 0.913 (95% CI 0.828 to 0.958), respectively. The pooled PLR and NLR were 8.675 (95% CI 4.229 to 17.794) and 0.248 (95% CI 0.147 to 0.418), respectively. Conclusion. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of the lateral flow test were lower than those of the α-defensin laboratory-based immunoassay test. Hence, care must be taken with interpretation of the lateral flow test when relying on its results for the intra-operative diagnosis of PJI. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:66–72

Aims

To validate the English language Forgotten Joint Score-12 (FJS-12) as a tool to evaluate the outcome of hip and knee arthroplasty in a United Kingdom population.

Aims. The diagnosis of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) remains demanding due to limitations of all the available diagnostic tests. The synovial fluid marker, α-defensin, is a promising adjunct for the assessment of potential PJI. The purpose of this study was to investigate the qualitative assessment of α-defensin, using Synovasure to detect or exclude periprosthetic infection in total joint arthroplasty. Patients and Methods. We studied 50 patients (28 women, 22 men, mean age 65 years; 20 to 89) with a clinical indication for revision arthroplasty who met the inclusion criteria of this prospective diagnostic study. The presence of α-defensin was determined using the qualitative Synovasure test and compared with standard diagnostic methods for PJI. Based on modified Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria, 13 cases were categorised as septic and 36 as aseptic revisions. One test was inconclusive. Results. The Synovasure test achieved a sensitivity of 69% and a specificity of 94%. The positive and negative likelihood ratios were 12.46 and 0.33, respectively. A good diagnostic accuracy for PJI, with an area under the curve of 0.82, was demonstrated. Adjusted p-values using the method of Hochberg showed that Synovasure is as good at diagnosing PJI as histology (p = 0.0042) and bacteriology with one positive culture (p = 0.0327). Conclusion. With its ease of use and rapid results after approximately ten minutes, Synovasure may be a useful adjunct in the diagnosis of PJI. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:66–72

In our department we use an enhanced recovery protocol for joint replacement of the lower limb. This incorporates the use of intravenous tranexamic acid (IVTA; 15 mg/kg) at the induction of anaesthesia. Recently there was a national shortage of IVTA for 18 weeks; during this period all patients received an oral preparation of tranexamic acid (OTA; 25 mg/kg). This retrospective study compares the safety (surgical and medical complications) and efficacy (reduction of transfusion requirements) of OTA and IVTA. During the study period a total of 2698 patients received IVTA and 302 received OTA. After adjusting for a range of patient and surgical factors, the odds ratio (OR) of receiving a blood transfusion was significantly higher with IVTA than with OTA (OR 0.48 (95% confidence interval 0.26 to 0.89), p = 0.019), whereas the safety profile was similar, based on length of stay, rate of readmission, return to theatre, deep infection, stroke, gastrointestinal bleeding, myocardial infarction, pneumonia, deep-vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. The financial benefit of OTA is £2.04 for a 70 kg patient; this is amplified when the cost saving associated with significantly fewer blood transfusions is considered.

Although the number of patients in the study is modest, this work supports the use of OTA, and we recommend that a randomised trial be undertaken to compare the different methods of administering tranexamic acid.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:1556–61.

A new generation of knee prostheses has been introduced with the intention of improving post-operative knee flexion. In order to evaluate whether this goal has been achieved we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. Systematic literature searches were conducted on MEDLINE and EMBASE from their inception to December 2007, and proceedings of scientific meetings were also searched. Only randomised, clinical trials were included in the meta-analysis. The mean difference in the maximum post-operative flexion between the ‘high-flex’ and conventional types of prosthesis was defined as the primary outcome measure. A total of five relevant articles was identified.

Analysis of these trials suggested that no clinically relevant or statistically significant improvement was obtained in flexion with the ‘high-flex’ prostheses. The weighted mean difference was 2.1° (95% confidence interval −0.2 to +4.3; p = 0.07).