Aims. The aim of this study was to determine satisfaction rates after hip and knee arthroplasty in patients who did not respond to postoperative patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), characteristics of non-responders, and contact preferences to maximize response rates. Methods. A prospective cohort study of patients planned to undergo hip arthroplasty (n = 713) and knee arthroplasty (n = 737) at a UK university teaching hospital who had completed preoperative PROMs questionnaires, including the EuroQol five-dimension health-related quality of life score, and Oxford Hip Score (OHS) and Oxford Knee Score (OKS). Follow-up questionnaires were sent by post at one year, including satisfaction scoring. Attempts were made to contact patients who did not initially respond. Univariate, logistic regression, and receiver operator curve analysis was performed. Results. At one year, 667 hip patients (93.5%) and 685 knee patients (92.9%) had undergone surgery and were alive. No response was received from 151/667 hip patients (22.6%), 83 (55.0%) of whom were ultimately contacted); or from 108/685 knee patients (15.8%), 91 (84.3%) of whom were ultimately contacted. There was no difference in satisfaction after arthroplasty between initial non-responders and responders for hips (74/81 satisfied vs 476/516 satisfied; p = 0.847) or knees (81/93 satisfied vs 470/561 satisfied; p = 0.480). Initial non-response and persistent non-response was associated with younger age, higher BMIs, and worse preoperative PROMs for both hip and knee patients (p < 0.050). Being in employment was associated with persistent non-response for hip patients (p = 0.047). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that younger age (p < 0.038), higher BMI (p = 0.018), and poorer preoperative OHS (p = 0.031) were independently associated with persistent non-response to hip PROMs. No independent associations were identified for knees. Using a threshold of > 66.4 years predicted a preference for contact by post (area under the curve 0.723 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.647 to 0.799; p < 0.001, though this CI crosses the 0.7 limit considered reliable). Conclusion. The majority of initial non-responders were ultimately contactable with effort. Satisfaction rates were not inferior in patients who did not initially respond to PROMs. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(4):275–283

Aims. To investigate whether chronic kidney disease (CKD) is associated with the risk of all-cause revision or revision due to a periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after primary hip or knee arthroplasty. Methods. This retrospective cohort study comprised 18,979 consecutive hip and knee arthroplasties from a single high-volume academic hospital. At a median of 5.6 years (interquartile range (IQR) 3.5 to 8.1), all deaths and revisions were counted. To overcome the competing risk of death, competing risk analysis using the cumulative incidence function (CIF) was applied to analyze the association between different stages of CKD and revisions. Confounding factors such as diabetes and BMI were considered using either a stratified CIF or the Fine and Gray model. Results. There were 2,111 deaths (11.1%) and 677 revisions (3.6%) during the follow-up period. PJI was the reason for revision in 162 cases (0.9%). For hip arthroplasty, 3.5% of patients with CKD stage 1 (i.e. normal kidney function, NKF), 3.8% with CKD stage 2, 4.2% with CKD stage 3, and 0% with CKD stage 4 to 5 had undergone revision within eight years. For knee arthroplasty, 4.7% with NKF, 2.7% with CKD stage 2, 2.4% with CKD stage 3, and 7% of CKD stage 4 to 5 had had undergone revision. With the exception of knee arthroplasty patients in whom normal kidney function was associated with a greater probability of all-cause revision, there were no major differences in the rates of all-cause revisions or revisions due to PJIs between different CKD stages. The results remained unchanged when diabetes and BMI were considered. Conclusion. We found no strong evidence that CKD was associated with an increased risk of all-cause or PJI-related revision. Selection bias probably explains the increased amount of all-cause revision operations in knee arthroplasty patients with normal kidney function. The effect of stage 4 to 5 CKD was difficult to evaluate because of the small number of patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(4):689–695

Aims. To map the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and High Activity Arthroplasty Score (HAAS) items to a common scale, and to investigate the psychometric properties of this new scale for the measurement of knee health. Methods. Patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) data measuring knee health were obtained from the NHS PROMs dataset and Total or Partial Knee Arthroplasty Trial (TOPKAT). Assumptions for common scale modelling were tested. A graded response model (fitted to OKS item responses in the NHS PROMs dataset) was used as an anchor to calibrate paired HAAS items from the TOPKAT dataset. Information curves for the combined OKS-HAAS model were plotted. Bland-Altman analysis was used to compare common scale scores derived from OKS and HAAS items. A conversion table was developed to map between HAAS, OKS, and the common scale. Results. We included 3,329 response sets from 528 patients undergoing knee arthroplasty. These generally met the assumptions of unidimensionality, monotonicity, local independence, and measurement invariance. The HAAS items provided more information than OKS items at high levels of knee health. Combining both instruments resulted in higher test-level information than either instrument alone. The mean error between common scale scores derived from the OKS and HAAS was 0.29 logits. Conclusion. The common scale allowed more precise measurement of knee health than use of either the OKS or HAAS individually. These techniques for mapping PROM instruments may be useful for the standardization of outcome reporting, and pooling results across studies that use either PROM in individual-patient meta-analysis. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2023;12(10):624–635

Aims. The James Lind Alliance aims to bring patients, carers, and clinicians together to identify uncertainties regarding care. A Priority Setting Partnership was established by the British Association for Surgery of the Knee in conjunction with the James Lind Alliance to identify research priorities related to the assessment, management, and rehabilitation of patients with persistent symptoms after knee arthroplasty. Methods. The project was conducted using the James Lind Alliance protocol. A steering group was convened including patients, surgeons, anaesthetists, nurses, physiotherapists, and researchers. Partner organizations were recruited. A survey was conducted on a national scale through which patients, carers, and healthcare professionals submitted key unanswered questions relating to problematic knee arthroplasties. These were analyzed, aggregated, and synthesized into summary questions and the relevant evidence was checked. After confirming that these were not answered in the current literature, 32 questions were taken forward to an interim prioritization survey. Data from this survey informed a shortlist taken to a final consensus meeting. Results. A total of 769 questions were received during the initial survey with national reach across the UK. These were refined into 32 unique questions by an independent information specialist. The interim prioritization survey was completed by 201 respondents and 25 questions were taken to a final consensus group meeting between patients, carers, and healthcare professionals. Consensus was reached for ranking the top ten questions for publication and dissemination. Conclusions. The top ten research priorities focused on pain, infection, stiffness, health service configuration, surgical and non-surgical management strategies, and outcome measures. This list will guide funders and help focus research efforts within the knee arthroplasty community. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(9):1176–1182

Aims. The aim of this study was to report health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and joint-specific function in patients waiting for total hip or knee arthroplasty surgery (THA or TKA) in Northern Ireland, compared to published literature and a matched normal population. Secondary aims were to report emergency department (ED) and out-of-hours general practitioner (OOH GP) visits, new prescriptions of strong opioids, and new prescriptions of antidepressants while waiting. Methods. This was a cohort study of 991 patients on the waiting list for arthroplasty in a single Northern Ireland NHS trust: 497 on the waiting list for ≤ three months; and 494 waiting ≥ three years. Postal surveys included the EuroQol five-dimension five-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L), visual analogue scores (EQ-VAS), and Oxford Hip and Knee scores to assess HRQoL and joint-specific function. Electronic records determined prescriptions since addition to the waiting list and patient attendances at OOH GP/EDs. Results. Overall, 712/991 (71.8%) responded at ≤ three months for THA (n = 164) and TKA (n = 199), and ≥ three years for THA (n = 88) and TKA (n = 261). The median EQ-5D-5L score in those waiting ≤ three months was 0.155 (interquartile range (IQR) -0.118 to 0.375) and 0.189 (IQR -0.130 to 0.377) for ≥ three years. Matched controls had a median EQ-5D-5L 0.837 (IQR 0.728 to 1.000). Compared to matched controls, EQ-5D-5L scores were significantly lower in both waiting cohorts (p < 0.001) with significant differences found in every domain. Negative scores, indicating a state “worse than death”, were present in 40% at ≤ three months and 38% at ≥ three years. Patients waiting ≥ three years had significantly more opioid (28.4% vs 15.2%; p < 0.001) and antidepressant prescriptions (15.2% vs 9.9%; p = 0.034) and significantly more joint-related attendances at unscheduled care (11.7% vs 0% with ≥ one ED attendance (p < 0.001) and (25.5% vs 2.5% ≥ one OOH GP attendance (p < 0.001)). Conclusion. Patients on waiting lists in Northern Ireland are severely disabled with the worst HRQoL and functional scores studied. The lack of deterioration in EQ-5D-5L and joint-specific scores between patients waiting ≤ three months and ≥ three years likely reflects floor effects of these scores. Prolonged waits were associated with increased dependence on strong opiates, depression, and attendances at unscheduled care. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(7):783–794

Aims. Histology is widely used for diagnosis of persistent infection during reimplantation in two-stage revision hip and knee arthroplasty, although data on its utility remain scarce. Therefore, this study aims to assess the predictive value of permanent sections at reimplantation in relation to reinfection risk, and to compare results of permanent and frozen sections. Methods. We retrospectively collected data from 226 patients (90 hips, 136 knees) with periprosthetic joint infection who underwent two-stage revision between August 2011 and September 2021, with a minimum follow-up of one year. Histology was assessed via the SLIM classification. First, we analyzed whether patients with positive permanent sections at reimplantation had higher reinfection rates than patients with negative histology. Further, we compared permanent and frozen section results, and assessed the influence of anatomical regions (knee versus hip), low- versus high-grade infections, as well as first revision versus multiple prior revisions on the histological result at reimplantation. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), chi-squared tests, and Kaplan-Meier estimates were calculated. Results. Overall, the reinfection rate was 18%. A total of 14 out of 82 patients (17%) with positive permanent sections at reimplantation experienced reinfection, compared to 26 of 144 patients (18%) with negative results (p = 0.996). Neither permanent sections nor fresh frozen sections were significantly associated with reinfection, with a sensitivity of 0.35, specificity of 0.63, PPV of 0.17, NPV of 0.81, and accuracy of 58%. Histology was not significantly associated with reinfection or survival time for any of the analyzed sub-groups. Permanent and frozen section results were in agreement for 91% of cases. Conclusion. Permanent and fresh frozen sections at reimplantation in two-stage revision do not serve as a reliable predictor for reinfection. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(4):372–379

Aims. A substantial fraction of patients undergoing knee arthroplasty (KA) or hip arthroplasty (HA) do not achieve an improvement as high as the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), i.e. do not achieve a meaningful improvement. Using three patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), our aim was: 1) to assess machine learning (ML), the simple pre-surgery PROM score, and logistic-regression (LR)-derived performance in their prediction of whether patients undergoing HA or KA achieve an improvement as high or higher than a calculated MCID; and 2) to test whether ML is able to outperform LR or pre-surgery PROM scores in predictive performance. Methods. MCIDs were derived using the change difference method in a sample of 1,843 HA and 1,546 KA patients. An artificial neural network, a gradient boosting machine, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression, ridge regression, elastic net, random forest, LR, and pre-surgery PROM scores were applied to predict MCID for the following PROMs: EuroQol five-dimension, five-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L), EQ visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS), Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Physical Function Short-form (HOOS-PS), and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Physical Function Short-form (KOOS-PS). Results. Predictive performance of the best models per outcome ranged from 0.71 for HOOS-PS to 0.84 for EQ-VAS (HA sample). ML statistically significantly outperformed LR and pre-surgery PROM scores in two out of six cases. Conclusion. MCIDs can be predicted with reasonable performance. ML was able to outperform traditional methods, although only in a minority of cases. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2023;12(9):512–521

Aims. The efficacy and safety of intrawound vancomycin for preventing surgical site infection in primary hip and knee arthroplasty is uncertain. Methods. A systematic review of the literature was conducted, indexed from inception to March 2020 in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, and Google Scholar databases. All studies evaluating the efficacy and/or safety of intrawound vancomycin in patients who underwent primary hip and knee arthroplasty were included. Incidence of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), superficial infection, aseptic wound complications, acute kidney injury, anaphylactic reaction, and ototoxicity were meta-analyzed. Results were reported as odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The quality of included studies was assessed using the risk of bias in non-randomized studies of interventions (ROBINS-I) assessment tool. Results. Nine studies involving 4,607 patients were included. Intrawound vancomycin was associated with lower incidence of PJI (30 patients (1.20%) vs 58 control patients (2.75%); OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.69) and simultaneous acute kidney injury (four patients (0.28%) vs four control patients (0.35%), OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.19 to 2.55). However, it did not reduce risk of superficial infection (four patients (0.67%) vs six control patients (1.60%), OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.17 to 2.12) and was associated with higher incidence of aseptic wound complications (23 patients (2.15%) vs eight in control patients (0.96%), OR 2.39, 95% CI 1.09 to 5.23). Four studies reported no anaphylactic reactions and three studies reported no ototoxicity in any patient group. Conclusion. The current literature suggests that intrawound vancomycin used in primary hip and knee arthroplasty may reduce incidence of PJI, but it may also increase risk of aseptic wound complications. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2020;9(11):778–788

Aims. To estimate the measurement properties for the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) in patients undergoing revision knee arthroplasty (responsiveness, minimal detectable change (MDC-90), minimal important change (MIC), minimal important difference (MID), internal consistency, construct validity, and interpretability). Methods. Secondary data analysis was performed for 10,727 patients undergoing revision knee arthroplasty between 2013 to 2019 using a UK national patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) dataset. Outcome data were collected before revision and at six months postoperatively, using the OKS and EuroQol five-dimension score (EQ-5D). Measurement properties were assessed according to COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines. Results. A total of 9,219 patients had complete outcome data. Mean preoperative OKS was 16.7 points (SD 8.1), mean postoperative OKS 29.1 (SD 11.4), and mean change in OKS + 12.5 (SD 10.7). Median preoperative EQ-5D index was 0.260 (interquartile range (IQR) 0.055 to 0.691), median postoperative EQ-5D index 0.691 (IQR 0.516 to 0.796), and median change in EQ-5D index + 0.240 (IQR 0.000 to 0.567). Internal consistency was good with Cronbach’s α 0.88 (baseline) and 0.94 (post-revision). Construct validity found a high correlation of OKS total score with EQ-5D index (r = 0.76 (baseline), r = 0.83 (post-revision), p < 0.001). The OKS was responsive with standardized effect size (SES) 1.54 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.51 to 1.57), compared to SES 0.83 (0.81 to 0.86) for the EQ-5D index. The MIC for the OKS was 7.5 points (95% CI 5.5 to 8.5) based on the optimal cut-off with specificity 0.72, sensitivity 0.60, and area under the curve 0.66. The MID for the OKS was 5.2 points. The MDC-90 was 3.9 points. The OKS did not demonstrate significant floor or ceiling effects. Conclusion. This study found that the OKS was a useful and valid instrument for assessment of outcome following revision knee arthroplasty. The OKS was responsive to change and demonstrated good measurement properties. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(4):627–634

Aims. The aim of this meta-analysis was to determine the pooled incidence of postoperative urinary retention (POUR) following total hip and knee arthroplasty (total joint replacement (TJR)) and to evaluate the risk factors and complications associated with POUR. Methods. Two authors conducted searches in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus on TJR and urinary retention. Eligible studies that reported the rate of POUR and associated risk factors for patients undergoing TJR were included in the analysis. Patient demographic details, medical comorbidities, and postoperative outcomes and complications were separately analyzed. The effect estimates for continuous and categorical data were reported as standardized mean differences (SMDs) and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs, respectively. Results. A total of 31 studies were included in the systematic review. Of these, 29 studies entered our meta-analysis, which included 3,273 patients diagnosed with POUR and 11,583 patients without POUR following TJR. The pooled incidence of POUR was 28.06%. Demographic risk factors included male sex (OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.26 to 2.59), increasing age (SMD 0.16, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.27), and American Society of Anesthesiologists grade 3 to 4 (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.77). Patients with a history of benign prostatic hyperplasia (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.41 to 2.83) and retention (OR 3.10, 95% CI 1.58 to 6.06) were more likely to develop POUR. Surgery-related risk factors included spinal anaesthesia (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.74) and postoperative epidural analgesia (OR 2.82, 95% CI 1.65 to 4.82). Total hip arthroplasty was associated with higher odds of POUR compared to total knee arthroplasty (OR 1.10, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.20). Postoperatively, POUR was associated with a longer length of stay (SMD 0.21, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.39). Conclusion. Our meta-analysis demonstrated key risk variables for POUR following TJR, which may assist in identifying at-risk patients and direct patient-centered pathways to minimize this postoperative complication. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(7):601–611

Aims. While internet search engines have been the primary information source for patients’ questions, artificial intelligence large language models like ChatGPT are trending towards becoming the new primary source. The purpose of this study was to determine if ChatGPT can answer patient questions about total hip (THA) and knee arthroplasty (TKA) with consistent accuracy, comprehensiveness, and easy readability. Methods. We posed the 20 most Google-searched questions about THA and TKA, plus ten additional postoperative questions, to ChatGPT. Each question was asked twice to evaluate for consistency in quality. Following each response, we responded with, “Please explain so it is easier to understand,” to evaluate ChatGPT’s ability to reduce response reading grade level, measured as Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL). Five resident physicians rated the 120 responses on 1 to 5 accuracy and comprehensiveness scales. Additionally, they answered a “yes” or “no” question regarding acceptability. Mean scores were calculated for each question, and responses were deemed acceptable if ≥ four raters answered “yes.”. Results. The mean accuracy and comprehensiveness scores were 4.26 (95% confidence interval (CI) 4.19 to 4.33) and 3.79 (95% CI 3.69 to 3.89), respectively. Out of all the responses, 59.2% (71/120; 95% CI 50.0% to 67.7%) were acceptable. ChatGPT was consistent when asked the same question twice, giving no significant difference in accuracy (t = 0.821; p = 0.415), comprehensiveness (t = 1.387; p = 0.171), acceptability (χ. 2. = 1.832; p = 0.176), and FKGL (t = 0.264; p = 0.793). There was a significantly lower FKGL (t = 2.204; p = 0.029) for easier responses (11.14; 95% CI 10.57 to 11.71) than original responses (12.15; 95% CI 11.45 to 12.85). Conclusion. ChatGPT answered THA and TKA patient questions with accuracy comparable to previous reports of websites, with adequate comprehensiveness, but with limited acceptability as the sole information source. ChatGPT has potential for answering patient questions about THA and TKA, but needs improvement. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(2):139–146

Aims. Hereditary haemochromatosis is a genetic disorder that is caused by several known mutations in the human homeostatic iron regulator protein (HFE) gene. Abnormal accumulation of iron causes a joint disease that resembles osteoarthritis (OA), but appears at a relatively younger age and is accompanied by cirrhosis, diabetes, and injury to other organs. Increased serum transferrin saturation and ferritin levels are known markers of haemochromatosis with high positive predictive values. Methods. We have retrospectively analyzed the iron studies of a cohort of 2,035 patients undergoing knee joint arthroplasty due to OA. Results. No patients had HFE gene C282Y, S65C, or H63D mutations testing. In total, 18 patients (2.96%) of the male cohort and 51 (3.58%) of the female cohort had pathologically increased ferritin levels that may be indicative of haemochromatosis. Seven patients (0.34%) had serum transferrin saturation above 45%. Conclusion. The awareness for the diagnosis of this disorder in Orthopaedics is low and needs improvement. Osteoarthritic patients undergoing knee arthroplasty should be routinely screened for haemochromatosis by iron studies and referred to genetic testing when needed. Level of evidence: Level III - Retrospective cohort study. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(12):1062–1066

Aims. Elective orthopaedic services have had to adapt to significant system-wide pressures since the emergence of COVID-19 in December 2019. Length of stay is often recognized as a key marker of quality of care in patients undergoing arthroplasty. Expeditious discharge is key in establishing early rehabilitation and in reducing infection risk, both procedure-related and from COVID-19. The primary aim was to determine the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic length of stay following hip and knee arthroplasty at a high-volume, elective orthopaedic centre. Methods. A retrospective cohort study was performed. Patients undergoing primary or revision hip or knee arthroplasty over a six-month period, from 1 July to 31 December 2020, were compared to the same period in 2019 before the COVID-19 pandemic. Demographic data, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, wait to surgery, COVID-19 status, and length of hospital stay were recorded. Results. A total of 1,311 patients underwent hip or knee arthroplasty in the six-month period following recommencement of elective services in 2020 compared to 1,527 patients the year before. Waiting time to surgery increased in post-COVID-19 group (137 days vs 78; p < 0.001). Length of stay also significantly increased (0.49 days; p < 0.001) despite no difference in age or ASA grade. There were no cases of postoperative COVID-19 infection. Conclusion. Time to surgery and length of hospital stay were significantly higher following recommencement of elective orthopaedic services in the latter part of 2020 in comparison to a similar patient cohort from the year before. Longer waiting times may have contributed to the clinical and radiological deterioration of arthritis and general musculoskeletal conditioning, which may in turn have affected immediate postoperative rehabilitation and mobilization, as well as increasing hospital stay. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(8):655–660

Aims. To develop and validate patient-centred algorithms that estimate individual risk of death over the first year after elective joint arthroplasty surgery for osteoarthritis. Methods. A total of 763,213 hip and knee joint arthroplasty episodes recorded in the National Joint Registry for England and Wales (NJR) and 105,407 episodes from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register were used to model individual mortality risk over the first year after surgery using flexible parametric survival regression. Results. The one-year mortality rates in the NJR were 10.8 and 8.9 per 1,000 patient-years after hip and knee arthroplasty, respectively. The Norwegian mortality rates were 9.1 and 6.0 per 1,000 patient-years, respectively. The strongest predictors of death in the final models were age, sex, body mass index, and American Society of Anesthesiologists grade. Exposure variables related to the intervention, with the exception of knee arthroplasty type, did not add discrimination over patient factors alone. Discrimination was good in both cohorts, with c-indices above 0.76 for the hip and above 0.70 for the knee. Time-dependent Brier scores indicated appropriate estimation of the mortality rate (≤ 0.01, all models). Conclusion. Simple demographic and clinical information may be used to calculate an individualized estimation for one-year mortality risk after hip or knee arthroplasty (. https://jointcalc.shef.ac.uk. ). These models may be used to provide patients with an estimate of the risk of mortality after joint arthroplasty. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2020;9(11):808–820

The results of hip and knee replacement surgery are generally regarded as positive for patients. Nonetheless, they are both major operations and have recognised complications. We present a review of relevant claims made to the National Health Service Litigation Authority. Between 1995 and 2010 there were 1004 claims to a value of £41.5 million following hip replacement surgery and 523 claims to a value of £21 million for knee replacement. The most common complaint after hip surgery was related to residual neurological deficit, whereas after knee replacement it was related to infection. Vascular complications resulted in the highest costs per case in each group. Although there has been a large increase in the number of operations performed, there has not been a corresponding relative increase in litigation. The reasons for litigation have remained largely unchanged over time after hip replacement. In the case of knee replacement, although there has been a reduction in claims for infection, there has been an increase in claims for technical errors. There has also been a rise in claims for non-specified dissatisfaction. This information is of value to surgeons and can be used to minimise the potential mismatch between patient expectation, informed consent and outcome. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:122–6

Aims. The purpose of this study was to develop a personalized outcome prediction tool, to be used with knee arthroplasty patients, that predicts outcomes (lengths of stay (LOS), 90 day readmission, and one-year patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) on an individual basis and allows for dynamic modifiable risk factors. Methods. Data were prospectively collected on all patients who underwent total or unicompartmental knee arthroplasty at a between July 2015 and June 2018. Cohort 1 (n = 5,958) was utilized to develop models for LOS and 90 day readmission. Cohort 2 (n = 2,391, surgery date 2015 to 2017) was utilized to develop models for one-year improvements in Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) pain score, KOOS function score, and KOOS quality of life (QOL) score. Model accuracies within the imputed data set were assessed through cross-validation with root mean square errors (RMSEs) and mean absolute errors (MAEs) for the LOS and PROMs models, and the index of prediction accuracy (IPA), and area under the curve (AUC) for the readmission models. Model accuracies in new patient data sets were assessed with AUC. Results. Within the imputed datasets, the LOS (RMSE 1.161) and PROMs models (RMSE 15.775, 11.056, 21.680 for KOOS pain, function, and QOL, respectively) demonstrated good accuracy. For all models, the accuracy of predicting outcomes in a new set of patients were consistent with the cross-validation accuracy overall. Upon validation with a new patient dataset, the LOS and readmission models demonstrated high accuracy (71.5% and 65.0%, respectively). Similarly, the one-year PROMs improvement models demonstrated high accuracy in predicting ten-point improvements in KOOS pain (72.1%), function (72.9%), and QOL (70.8%) scores. Conclusion. The data-driven models developed in this study offer scalable predictive tools that can accurately estimate the likelihood of improved pain, function, and quality of life one year after knee arthroplasty as well as LOS and 90 day readmission. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(9):1183–1193

Aims. Recent studies have suggested that corticosteroid injections into the knee may harm the joint resulting in cartilage loss and possibly accelerating the progression of osteoarthritis (OA). The aim of this study was to assess whether patients with, or at risk of developing, symptomatic osteoarthritis of the knee who receive intra-articular corticosteroid injections have an increased risk of requiring arthroplasty. Methods. We used data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI), a multicentre observational cohort study that followed 4,796 patients with, or at risk of developing, osteoarthritis of the knee on an annual basis with follow-up available up to nine years. Increased risk for symptomatic OA was defined as frequent knee symptoms (pain, aching, or stiffness) without radiological evidence of OA and two or more risk factors, while OA was defined by the presence of both femoral osteophytes and frequent symptoms in one or both knees. Missing data were imputed with multiple imputations using chained equations. Time-dependent propensity score matching was performed to match patients at the time of receving their first injection with controls. The effect of corticosteroid injections on the rate of subsequent (total and partial) knee arthroplasty was estimated using Cox proportional-hazards survival analyses. Results. After removing patients lost to follow-up, 3,822 patients remained in the study. A total of 249 (31.3%) of the 796 patients who received corticosteroid injections, and 152 (5.0%) of the 3,026 who did not, had knee arthroplasty. In the matched cohort, Cox proportional-hazards regression resulted in a hazard ratio of 1.57 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.37 to 1.81; p < 0.001) and each injection increased the absolute risk of arthroplasty by 9.4% at nine years’ follow-up compared with those who did not receive injections. Conclusion. Corticosteroid injections seem to be associated with an increased risk of knee arthroplasty in patients with, or at risk of developing, symptomatic OA of the knee. These findings suggest that a conservative approach regarding the treatment of these patients with corticosteroid injections should be recommended. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(5):586–592

Aims. The primary aim was to assess whether preoperative health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was associated with postoperative mortality following total hip arthroplasty (THA) and knee arthroplasty (KA). Secondary aims were to assess whether patient demographics/comorbidities and/or joint-specific function were associated with postoperative mortality. Methods. Patients undergoing THA (n = 717) and KA (n = 742) during a one-year period were identified retrospectively from an arthroplasty register. Patient demographics, comorbidities, Oxford score, and EuroQol five-dimension (EQ-5D) were recorded preoperatively. Patients were followed up for a minimum of seven years and their mortality status was obtained. Cox regression analysis was used to adjust for confounding. Results. During the study period, 111 patients (15.5%) undergoing THA and 135 patients (18.2%) undergoing KA had died at a mean follow-up of 7.5 years (7 to 8). When adjusting for confounding, the preoperative EQ-5D was associated with postoperative mortality, and for each 0.1 difference in the utility there was an associated change in mortality risk of 6.7% (p = 0.048) after THA, and 6.8% (p = 0.047) after KA. Comorbidities of connective tissue disease (p ≤ 0.026) and diabetes (p ≤ 0.028) were associated with mortality after THA, whereas MI (p ≤ 0.041), diabetes (p ≤ 0.009), and pain in other joints (p ≤ 0.050) were associated with mortality following KA. The preoperative Oxford score was associated with mortality, and for each one-point change in the score there was an associated change in mortality risk of 2.7% (p = 0.025) after THA and 4.3% (p = 0.003) after KA. Conclusion. Worse preoperative HRQoL and joint specific function were associated with an increased risk of postoperative mortality. Both HRQoL and joint-specific function decline with longer waiting times to surgery for THA and KA and therefore may result in an increased postoperative mortality risk than would have been expected if surgery had been undertaken earlier. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(12):933–940

Aims. The aims were to assess whether preoperative joint-specific function (JSF) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) were associated with level of clinical frailty in patients waiting for a primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) or knee arthroplasty (KA). Methods. Patients waiting for a THA (n = 100) or KA (n = 100) for more than six months were prospectively recruited from the study centre. Overall,162 patients responded to the questionnaire (81 THA; 81 KA). Patient demographics, Oxford score, EuroQol five-dimension (EQ-5D) score, EuroQol visual analogue score (EQ-VAS), Rockwood Clinical Frailty Score (CFS), and time spent on the waiting list were collected. Results. There was a significant correlation between CFS and the Oxford score (THA r = −0.838; p < 0.001, KA r = −0.867; p < 0.001), EQ-5D index (THA r = −0.663, p =< 0.001; KA r = −0.681; p =< 0.001), and EQ-VAS (THA r = −0.414; p < 0.001, KA r = −0.386; p < 0.001). Confounding variables (demographics and waiting time) where adjusted for using multiple regression analysis. For each 8.5 (THA, 95% CI 7.1 to 10.0; p < 0.001) and 9.9 (KA, 95% CI 8.4 to 11.4; p < 0.001) point change in the Oxford score, there was an associated change in level of the CFS. For each 0.16 (THA, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.22; p < 0.001) and 0.20 (KA, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.27; p < 0.001) utility change in EQ-5D, there was an associated change in level of the CFS. EQ-VAS (THA, B = −11.5; p < 0.001, KA B = −7.9; p = 0.005) was also associated with CFS. Conclusion. JSF and HRQoL in patients awaiting THA or KA for more than six months, were independently associated with level of clinical frailty. With further prospective studies, clinical frailty may prove to be a useful metric to assist in the prioritization of arthroplasty waiting lists. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(4):241–249

Aims. The primary aim was to assess the rate of postoperative COVID-19 following hip and knee arthroplasty performed in March 2020 in the UK. The secondary aims were to assess whether there were clinical factors associated with COVID-19 status, the mortality rate of patients with COVID-19, and the rate of potential COVID-19 in patients not presenting to healthcare services. Methods. A multicentre retrospective study was conducted of patients undergoing hip or knee arthroplasty during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic (1 March 2020 to 31 March 2020) with a minimum of 60 days follow-up. Patient demographics, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, procedure type, primary or revision, length of stay (LOS), COVID-19 test status, and postoperative mortality were recorded. A subgroup of patients (n = 211) who had not presented to healthcare services after discharge were contacted and questioned as to whether they had symptoms of COVID-19. Results. Five (0.5%) of 1,073 patients who underwent hip or knee arthroplasty tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 postoperatively. When adjusting for confounding factors, increasing LOS (p = 0.022) was the only significant factor associated with developing COVID-19 following surgery and a stay greater than three days was a reliable predictor with an area under the curve of 81% (p = 0.018). There were three (0.3%) deaths in the study cohort and the overall mortality rate attributable to COVID-19 was 0.09% (n = 1/1,073), with one (20%) of the five patients with COVID-19 dying postoperatively. Of the 211 patients contacted, two had symptoms within two to 14 days postoperatively with a positive predictive value of 31% and it was therefore estimated that one patient may have had undiagnosed COVID-19. Conclusion. The rate of postoperative COVID-19 was 0.5% and may have been as high as 1% when accounting for those patients not presenting to healthcare services, which was similar to the estimated population prevalence during the study period. The overall mortality rate secondary to COVID-19 was low (0.09%), however the mortality rate for those patients developing COVID-19 was 20%. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(4):681–688