Aims. Periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) and fracture-related infections (FRIs) are associated with a significant risk of adverse events. However, there is a paucity of data on cardiac complications following revision surgery for PJI and FRI and how they impact overall mortality. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the risk of perioperative myocardial injury (PMI) and mortality in this patient cohort. Methods. We prospectively included consecutive patients at high cardiovascular risk (defined as age ≥ 45 years with pre-existing coronary, peripheral, or cerebrovascular artery disease, or any patient aged ≥ 65 years, plus a postoperative hospital stay of > 24 hours) undergoing septic or aseptic major orthopaedic surgery between July 2014 and October 2016. All patients received a systematic screening to reliably detect PMI, using serial measurements of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T. All-cause mortality was assessed at one year. Multivariable logistic regression models were applied to compare incidence of PMI and mortality between patients undergoing septic revision surgery for PJI or FRI, and patients receiving aseptic major bone and joint surgery. Results. In total, 911 consecutive patients were included. The overall perioperative myocardial injury (PMI) rate was 15.4% (n = 140). Septic revision surgery for PJI was associated with a significantly higher PMI rate (43.8% (14/32) vs 14.5% (57/393); p = 0.001) and one-year mortality rate (18.6% (6/32) vs 7.4% (29/393); p = 0.038) compared to aseptic revision or primary arthroplasty. The association with PMI persisted in multivariable analysis with an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 4.7 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.1 to 10.7; p < 0.001), but was not statistically significant for one-year mortality (aOR 1.9 (95% CI 0.7 to 5.4; p = 0.240). PMI rate (15.2% (5/33) vs 14.1% (64/453)) and one-year mortality (15.2% (5/33) vs 9.1% (41/453)) after FRI revision surgery were comparable to aseptic long-bone fracture surgery. Conclusion. Patients undergoing revision surgery for PJI were at a risk of PMI and death compared to those undergoing aseptic arthroplasty surgery. Screening for PMI and treatment in specialized multidisciplinary units should be considered in major bone and joint infections. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(6):696–702

Aims. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of depressive and anxiety disorders prior to total hip (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and to assess their impact on the rates of any infection, revision, or reoperation. Methods. Between January 2000 and March 2019, 21,469 primary and revision arthroplasties (10,011 THAs; 11,458 TKAs), which were undertaken in 15,504 patients at a single academic medical centre, were identified from a 27-county linked electronic medical record (EMR) system. Depressive and anxiety disorders were identified by diagnoses in the EMR or by using a natural language processing program with subsequent validation from review of the medical records. Patients with mental health diagnoses other than anxiety or depression were excluded. Results. Depressive and/or anxiety disorders were common before THA and TKA, with a prevalence of 30% in those who underwent primary THA, 33% in those who underwent revision THA, 32% in those who underwent primary TKA, and 35% in those who underwent revision TKA. The presence of depressive or anxiety disorders was associated with a significantly increased risk of any infection (primary THA, hazard ratio (HR) 1.5; revision THA, HR 1.9; primary TKA, HR 1.6; revision TKA, HR 1.8), revision (THA, HR 1.7; TKA, HR 1.6), re-revision (THA, HR 2.0; TKA, HR 1.6), and reoperation (primary THA, HR 1.6; revision THA, HR 2.2; primary TKA, HR 1.4; revision TKA, HR 1.9; p < 0.03 for all). Patients with preoperative depressive and/or anxiety disorders were significantly less likely to report “much better” joint function after primary THA (78% vs 87%) and primary TKA (86% vs 90%) compared with those without these disorders at two years postoperatively (p < 0.001 for all). Conclusion. The presence of depressive or anxiety disorders prior to primary or revision THA and TKA is common, and associated with a significantly higher risk of infection, revision, reoperation, and dissatisfaction. This topic deserves further study, and surgeons may consider mental health optimization to be of similar importance to preoperative variables such as diabetic control, prior to arthroplasty. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(5):526–533

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. Periprosthetic hip and knee infection remains one of the most severe complications following arthroplasty, with an incidence between 0.5% to 1%. This study compares the outcomes of revision surgery for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following hip and knee arthroplasty prior to and after implementation of a specialist PJI multidisciplinary team (MDT). Methods. Data was retrospectively analyzed from a single centre. In all, 29 consecutive joints prior to the implementation of an infection MDT in November 2016 were compared with 29 consecutive joints subsequent to the MDT conception. All individuals who underwent a debridement antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR) procedure, a one-stage revision, or a two-stage revision for an acute or chronic PJI in this time period were included. The definition of successfully treated PJI was based on the Delphi international multidisciplinary consensus. Results. There were no statistically significant differences in patient demographics or comorbidities between the groups. There was also no significant difference in length of overall hospital stay (p = 0.530). The time taken for formal microbiology advice was significantly shorter in the post MDT group (p = 0.0001). There was a significant difference in failure rates between the two groups (p = 0.001), with 12 individuals (41.38%) pre-MDT requiring further revision surgery compared with one individual (6.67%) post-MDT inception. Conclusion. Our standardized multidisciplinary approach for periprosthetic knee and hip joint infection shows a significant reduction in failure rates following revision surgery. Following implementation of our MDT, our success rate in treating PJI is 96.55%, higher than what current literature suggests. We advocate the role of a specialist infection MDT in the management of patients with a PJI to allow an individualized patient-centred approach and care plan, thereby reducing postoperative complications and failure rates. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(7):509–514

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. Methods. A comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify eligible studies reporting postoperative outcomes in IBD patients undergoing joint arthroplasty. The primary outcomes included postoperative complications, while the secondary outcomes included unplanned readmission, length of stay (LOS), joint reoperation/implant revision, and cost of care. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model when heterogeneity was substantial. Results. Eight retrospective studies involving 29,738 patients with IBD were included. Compared with non-IBD controls, patients with IBD were significantly more likely to have overall complications (OR 2.11 (95% CI 1.67 to 2.66), p < 0.001), medical complications (OR 2.15 (95% CI 1.73 to 2.68), p < 0.001), surgical complications (OR 1.43 (95% CI 1.21 to 1.70), p < 0.001), and 90-day readmissions (OR 1.42 (95% CI 1.23 to 1.65), p < 0.001). The presence of IBD was positively associated with the development of venous thromboembolism (OR 1.60 (95% CI 1.30 to 1.97), p < 0.001) and postoperative infection (OR 1.95 (95% CI 1.51 to 2.51), p < 0.001). In addition, patients with IBD tended to experience longer LOS and higher costs of care. Conclusion. The findings suggest that IBD is associated with an increased risk of postoperative complications and readmission after joint arthroplasty, resulting in longer hospital stay and greater financial burden. Surgeons should inform their patients of the possibility of adverse outcomes prior to surgery and make appropriate risk adjustments to minimize potential complications. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2023;12(6):362–371

Aims. We aim to evaluate the usefulness of postoperative blood tests by investigating the incidence of abnormal results following total joint replacement (TJR), as well as identifying preoperative risk factors for abnormal blood test results postoperatively, especially pertaining to anaemia and acute kidney injury (AKI). Methods. This is a retrospective cohort study of patients who had elective TJR between January and December 2019 at a tertiary centre. Data gathered included age at time of surgery, sex, BMI, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, preoperative and postoperative laboratory test results, haemoglobin (Hgb), white blood count (WBC), haematocrit (Hct), platelets (Plts), sodium (Na. +. ), potassium (K. +. ), creatinine (Cr), estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), and Ferritin (ug/l). Abnormal blood tests, AKI, electrolyte imbalance, anaemia, transfusion, reoperation, and readmission within one year were reported. Results. The study included 2,721 patients with a mean age of 69 years, of whom 1,266 (46.6%) were male. Abnormal postoperative bloods were identified in 444 (16.3%) patients. We identified age (≥ 65 years), female sex, and ASA grade ≥ III as risk factors for developing abnormal postoperative blood tests. Preoperative haemoglobin (≤ 127 g/dl) and packed cell volume (≤ 0.395 l/l) were noted to be significant risk factors for postoperative anaemia, and potassium (≤ 3.7 mmol/l) was noted to be a significant risk factor for AKI. Conclusion. The costs outweigh the benefits of ordering routine postoperative blood tests in TJR patients. Clinicians should risk-stratify their patients and have a lower threshold for ordering blood tests in patients with abnormal preoperative haemoglobin (≤ 127 g/l), blood loss > 300 ml, chronic kidney disease, ASA grade ≥ III, and clinical concern. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(11):899–905

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). Methods. In this retrospective diagnostic study, patients undergoing revision surgery after total hip or knee arthroplasty (n = 119) between January 2015 and July 2018 were included. Multiple specimens of the periprosthetic membrane and pseudocapsule were obtained for histopathological analysis at revision arthroplasty. Based on the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) 2013 criteria, the International Consensus Meeting (ICM) 2018 criteria, and the European Bone and Joint Infection Society (EBJIS) 2021 criteria, PJI was defined. Using a mixed effects logistic regression model, the sensitivity and specificity of the histological diagnosis were calculated. The optimal number of periprosthetic tissue specimens for histopathological analysis was determined by applying the Youden index. Results. Based on the EBJIS criteria (excluding histology), 46 (39%) patients were classified as infected. Four to six specimens showed the highest Youden index (four specimens: 0.631; five: 0.634; six: 0.632). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of five tissue specimens were 76.5% (95% confidence interval (CI) 67.6 to 81.4), 86.8% (95% CI 81.3 to 93.5), 66.0% (95% CI 53.2 to 78.7), and 84.3% (95% CI 79.4 to 89.3), respectively. The area under the curve (AUC) was calculated with 0.81 (as a function of the number of tissue specimens). Applying the ICM and IDSA criteria (excluding histology), 40 (34%) and 32 (27%) patients were categorized as septic. Three to five specimens had the highest Youden index (ICM 3: 0.648; 4: 0.651; 5: 0.649) (IDSA 3: 0.627; 4: 0.629; 5: 0.625). Conclusion. Three to six tissue specimens of the periprosthetic membrane and pseudocapsule should be collected at revision arthroplasty and analyzed by a pathologist experienced and skilled in interpreting periprosthetic tissue. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(2):158–165

Aims

Revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) and revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) are complex procedures with higher rates of re-revision, complications, and mortality compared to primary TKA and THA. We report the effects of the establishment of a revision arthroplasty network (the East Midlands Specialist Orthopaedic Network; EMSON) on outcomes of rTKA and rTHA.

Data of high quality are critical for the meaningful interpretation of registry information. The National Joint Registry (NJR) was established in 2002 as the result of an unexpectedly high failure rate of a cemented total hip arthroplasty. The NJR began data collection in 2003. In this study we report on the outcomes following the establishment of a formal data quality (DQ) audit process within the NJR, within which each patient episode entry is validated against the hospital unit’s Patient Administration System and vice-versa. This process enables bidirectional validation of every NJR entry and retrospective correction of any errors in the dataset. In 2014/15 baseline average compliance was 92.6% and this increased year-on-year with repeated audit cycles to 96.0% in 2018/19, with 76.4% of units achieving > 95% compliance. Following the closure of the audit cycle, an overall compliance rate of 97.9% was achieved for the 2018/19 period. An automated system was initiated in 2018 to reduce administrative burden and to integrate the DQ process into standard workflows. Our processes and quality improvement results demonstrate that DQ may be implemented successfully at national level, while minimizing the burden on hospitals.

Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(9):716–725.

Aims

Although readmission has historically been of primary interest, emergency department (ED) visits are increasingly a point of focus and can serve as a potentially unnecessary gateway to readmission. This study aims to analyze the difference between primary and revision total joint arthroplasty (TJA) cases in terms of the rate and reasons associated with 90-day ED visits.

Aims. Nonagenarians (aged 90 to 99 years) have experienced the fastest percent decile population growth in the USA recently, with a consequent increase in the prevalence of nonagenarians living with joint arthroplasties. As such, the number of revision total hip arthroplasties (THAs) and total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) in nonagenarians is expected to increase. We aimed to determine the mortality rate, implant survivorship, and complications of nonagenarians undergoing aseptic revision THAs and revision TKAs. Methods. Our institutional total joint registry was used to identify 96 nonagenarians who underwent 97 aseptic revisions (78 hips and 19 knees) between 1997 and 2018. The most common indications were aseptic loosening and periprosthetic fracture for both revision THAs and revision TKAs. Mean age at revision was 92 years (90 to 98), mean BMI was 27 kg/m. 2. (16 to 47), and 67% (n = 65) were female. Mean time between primary and revision was 18 years (SD 9). Kaplan-Meier survival was used for patient mortality, and compared to age- and sex-matched control populations. Reoperation risk was assessed using cumulative incidence with death as a competing risk. Mean follow-up was five years. Results. Mortality rates were 9%, 18%, 26%, and 62% at 90 days, one year, two years, and five years, respectively, but similar to control populations. There were 43 surgical complications and five reoperations, resulting in a cumulative incidence of reoperation of 4% at five years. Medical complications were common, with a cumulative incidence of 65% at 90 days. Revisions for periprosthetic fractures were associated with higher mortality and higher 90-day risk of medical complications compared to revisions for aseptic loosening. Conclusion. Contemporary revision THAs and TKAs appeared to be relatively safe in selected nonagenarians managed with multidisciplinary teams. Cause of revision affected morbidity and mortality risks. While early medical and surgical complications were frequent, they seldom resulted in reoperation. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(6):649–656

Aims. Breast cancer survivors have known risk factors that might influence the results of total hip arthroplasty (THA) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA). This study evaluated clinical outcomes of patients with breast cancer history after primary THA and TKA. Methods. Our total joint registry identified patients with breast cancer history undergoing primary THA (n = 423) and TKA (n = 540). Patients were matched 1:1 based upon age, sex, BMI, procedure (hip or knee), and surgical year to non-breast cancer controls. Mortality, implant survival, and complications were assessed via Kaplan-Meier methods. Clinical outcomes were evaluated via Harris Hip Scores (HHSs) or Knee Society Scores (KSSs). Mean follow-up was six years (2 to 15). Results. Breast cancer patient survival at five years was 92% (95% confidence interval (CI) 89% to 95%) after THA and 94% (95% CI 92% to 97%) after TKA. Breast and non-breast cancer patients had similar five-year implant survival free of any reoperation or revision after THA (p ≥ 0.412) and TKA (p ≥ 0.271). Breast cancer patients demonstrated significantly lower survival free of any complications after THA (91% vs 96%, respectively; hazard ratio = 2 (95% CI 1.1 to 3.4); p = 0.017). Specifically, the rate of intraoperative fracture was 2.4% vs 1.4%, and venous thromboembolism (VTE) was 1.4% and 0.5% for breast cancer and controls, respectively, after THA. No significant difference was noted in any complications after TKA (p ≥ 0.323). Both breast and non-breast cancer patients experienced similar improvements in HHSs (p = 0.514) and KSSs (p = 0.132). Conclusion. Breast cancer survivors did not have a significantly increased risk of mortality or reoperation after primary THA and TKA. However, there was a two-fold increased risk of complications after THA, including intraoperative fracture and VTE. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(4):365–371

Aims. National joint registries under-report revisions for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). We aimed to validate PJI reporting to the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Arthroplasty Registry (AOANJRR) and the factors associated with its accuracy. We then applied these data to refine estimates of the total national burden of PJI. Methods. A total of 561 Australian cases of confirmed PJI were captured by a large, prospective observational study, and matched to data available for the same patients through the AOANJRR. Results. In all, 501 (89.3%) cases of PJI recruited to the prospective observational study were successfully matched with the AOANJRR database. Of these, 376 (75.0%) were captured by the registry, while 125 (25.0%) did not have a revision or reoperation for PJI recorded. In a multivariate logistic regression analysis, early (within 30 days of implantation) PJIs were less likely to be reported (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.56; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34 to 0.93; p = 0.020), while two-stage revision procedures were more likely to be reported as a PJI to the registry (OR 5.3 (95% CI 2.37 to 14.0); p ≤ 0.001) than debridement and implant retention or other surgical procedures. Based on this data, the true estimate of the incidence of PJI in Australia is up to 3,900 cases per year. Conclusion. In Australia, infection was not recorded as the indication for revision or reoperation in one-quarter of those with confirmed PJI. This is better than in other registries, but suggests that registry-captured estimates of the total national burden of PJI are underestimated by at least one-third. Inconsistent PJI reporting is multifactorial but could be improved by developing a nested PJI registry embedded within the national arthroplasty registry. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(5):367–373

Aims. The aim of this study was to conduct a cross-sectional, observational cohort study of patients presenting for revision of a total hip, or total or unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, to understand current routes to revision surgery and explore differences in symptoms, healthcare use, reason for revision, and the revision surgery (surgical time, components, length of stay) between patients having regular follow-up and those without. Methods. Data were collected from participants and medical records for the 12 months prior to revision. Patients with previous revision, metal-on-metal articulations, or hip hemiarthroplasty were excluded. Participants were retrospectively classified as ‘Planned’ or ‘Unplanned’ revision. Multilevel regression and propensity score matching were used to compare the two groups. Results. Data were analyzed from 568 patients, recruited in 38 UK secondary care sites between October 2017 and October 2018 (43.5% male; mean (SD) age 71.86 years (9.93); 305 hips, 263 knees). No significant inclusion differences were identified between the two groups. For hip revision, time to revision > ten years (odds ratio (OR) 3.804, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.353 to 10.694), p = 0.011), periprosthetic fracture (OR 20.309, 95% CI (4.574 to 90.179), p < 0.001), and dislocation (OR 12.953, 95% CI (4.014 to 41.794), p < 0.001), were associated with unplanned revision. For knee, there were no associations with route to revision. Revision after ten years was more likely for those who were younger at primary surgery, regardless of route to revision. No significant differences in cost outcomes, length of surgery time, and access to a health professional in the year prior to revision were found between the two groups. When periprosthetic fractures, dislocations, and infections were excluded, healthcare use was significantly higher in the unplanned revision group. Conclusion. Differences between characteristics for patients presenting for planned and unplanned revision are minimal. Although there was greater healthcare use in those having unplanned revision, it appears unlikely that routine orthopaedic review would have detected many of these issues. It may be safe to disinvest in standard follow-up provided there is rapid access to orthopaedic review. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(1):59–67

Aims. Biopsy of the periprosthetic tissue is an important diagnostic tool for prosthetic joint infection (PJI) as it enables the detection of the responsible microorganism with its sensitivity to antibiotics. We aimed to investigate how often the bacteria identified in the tissue analysis differed between samples obtained from preoperative biopsy and intraoperative revision surgery in cases of late PJI; and whether there was a therapeutic consequence. Methods. A total of 508 patients who required revision surgery of total hip arthroplasty (THA) (n = 231) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA) (n = 277) because of component loosening underwent biopsy before revision surgery. The tissue samples collected at biopsy and during revision surgery were analyzed according to the criteria of the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS). Results. In total, 178 (113 THA, 65 TKA) were classified as infected. The biopsy procedure had a sensitivity of 93.8%, a specificity of 97.3%, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 94.9%, a negative predictive value (NPV) of 96.7%, and an accuracy of 96.1%. Of the 178 infected patients, 26 showed a difference in the detected bacteria from the biopsy and the revision surgery (14.6%). This difference required a change to antibiotic therapy in only two cases (1.1%). Conclusion. Biopsy is a useful tool to diagnose PJI, but there may be a difference in the detected bacteria between the biopsy and revision surgery. However, this did not affect the choice of antibiotic therapy in most cases, rendering the clinical relevance of this phenomenon as low. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(3):329–335

Aims. The Exeter V40 cemented femoral stem was first introduced in 2000. The largest single-centre analysis of this implant to date was published in 2018 by Westerman et al. Excellent results were reported at a minimum of ten years for the first 540 cases performed at the designer centre in the Exeter NHS Trust, with stem survivorship of 96.8%. The aim of this current study is to report long-term outcomes and survivorship for the Exeter V40 stem in a non-designer centre. Methods. All patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty using the Exeter V40 femoral stem between 1 January 2005 and 31 January 2010 were eligible for inclusion. Data were collected prospectively, with routine follow-up at six to 12 months, two years, five years, and ten years. Functional outcomes were assessed using Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) scores. Outcome measures included data on all components in situ beyond ten years, death occurring within ten years with components in situ, and all-cause revision surgery. Results. A total of 829 stems in 745 patients were included in the dataset; 155 patients (20.8%) died within ten years, and of the remaining 664 stems, 648 stems (97.6%) remained in situ beyond ten years. For the 21 patients (2.5%) undergoing revision surgery, 16 femoral stems (1.9%) were revised and 18 acetabular components (2.2%) were revised. Indications for revision in order of decreasing frequency were infection (n = 6), pain (n = 6), aseptic component loosening (n = 3), periprosthetic fracture (n = 3), recurrent dislocation (n = 2), and noise production (ceramic-on-ceramic squeak) (n = 1). One patient was revised for aseptic stem loosening. The mean preoperative WOMAC score was 61 (SD 15.9) with a mean postoperative score of 20.4 (SD 19.3) (n = 732; 88.3%). Conclusion. The Exeter V40 cemented femoral stem demonstrates excellent functional outcomes and survival when used in a high volume non-designer centre. Outcomes are comparable to those of its serially validated predecessor, the Exeter Universal stem. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2020;1-12:743–748

Aims

Total femoral arthroplasty (TFA) is a rare procedure used in cases of significant femoral bone loss, commonly from cancer, infection, and trauma. Low patient numbers have resulted in limited published work on long-term outcomes, and even less regarding TFA undertaken for non-oncological indications. The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term clinical outcomes of all TFAs in our unit.

Aims

This study aimed to investigate the estimated change in primary and revision arthroplasty rate in the Netherlands and Denmark for hips, knees, and shoulders during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 (COVID-period). Additional points of focus included the comparison of patient characteristics and hospital type (2019 vs COVID-period), and the estimated loss of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and impact on waiting lists.

Aims

The aim of this study was to estimate the 90-day periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) rates following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and total hip arthroplasty (THA) for osteoarthritis (OA).

Aims. The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the synovial alpha-defensin enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for the diagnosis of prosthetic joint infection (PJI) in the work-up prior to revision of total hip (THA) and knee arthroplasty (TKA). Patients and Methods. Inclusion criteria for this prospective cohort study were acute or chronic symptoms of the index joint without specific exclusion criteria. Synovial fluid aspirates of 202 patients were analyzed and semiquantitative laboratory alpha-defensin ELISA was performed. Final diagnosis of PJI was established by examination of samples obtained during revision surgery. Results. Sensitivity and specificity of the alpha-defensin ELISA for PJI were 78.2% (95% confidence interval (CI) 66.7 to 88.5) and 96.6% (95% CI 93.0 to 99.3). Positive and negative predictive values were 89.6% (95% CI 80.6 to 97.8) and 92.2% (95% CI 87.5 to 96.1). The test remained false-negative in 22% of septic revisions, most of which were due to coagulase-negative staphylococci all occurring in either late-chronic or early-postoperative PJI. Conclusion. The routine use of synovial fluid alpha-defensin laboratory ELISA in the preoperative evaluation of symptomatic THAs and TKAs is insufficient to accurately diagnose PJI. Particularly in cases involving low-virulence organisms, such as coagulase-negative staphylococci, there remains a need for tests with a higher sensitivity. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:970–977