Aims

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a serious complication of total hip arthroplasty (THA). Different bearing surface materials have different surface properties and it has been suggested that the choice of bearing surface may influence the risk of PJI after THA. The objective of this meta-analysis was to compare the rate of PJI between metal-on-polyethylene (MoP), ceramic-on-polyethylene (CoP), and ceramic-on-ceramic (CoC) bearings.

The August 2015 Research Roundup360 looks at: Lightbulbs, bleeding and procedure durations; Infection and rheumatoid agents; Infection rates and ‘bundles of care’ revisited; ACI: new application for a proven technology?; Hydrogel coating given the thumbs up; Hydroxyapatite as a smart coating?

Following the publication in 2007 of the guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) for prophylaxis against venous thromboembolism (VTE) for patients undergoing surgery, concerns were raised by British orthopaedic surgeons as to the appropriateness of the recommendations for their clinical practice. In order to address these concerns NICE and the British Orthopaedic Association agreed to engage a representative panel of orthopaedic surgeons in the process of developing expanded VTE guidelines applicable to all patients admitted to hospital. The functions of this panel were to review the evidence and to consider the applicability and implications in orthopaedic practice in order to advise the main Guideline Development Group in framing recommendations.

The panel considered both direct and indirect evidence of the safety and efficacy, the cost-effectiveness of prophylaxis and its implication in clinical practice for orthopaedic patients. We describe the process of selection of the orthopaedic panel, the evidence considered and the contribution of the panel to the latest guidelines from NICE on the prophylaxis against VTE, published in January 2010.

We compared thromboembolic events, major haemorrhage and death after total hip replacement in patients receiving either aspirin or low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH). We analysed data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales linked to an administrative database of hospital admissions in the English National Health Service. A total of 108 584 patients operated on between April 2003 and September 2008 were included and followed up for 90 days. Multivariable risk modelling and propensity score matching were used to estimate odds ratios (OR) adjusted for baseline risk factors. An OR <  1 indicates that rates are lower with LMWH than with aspirin. In all, 21.1% of patients were prescribed aspirin and 78.9% LMWH. Without adjustment, we found no statistically significant differences. The rate of pulmonary embolism was 0.68% in both groups and 90-day mortality was 0.65% with aspirin and 0.61% with LMWH (OR 0.93; 95% CI 0.77 to 1.11). With risk adjustment, the difference in mortality increased (OR 0.84; 95% CI 0.69 to 1.01). With propensity score matching the mortality difference increased even further to 0.65% with aspirin and 0.51% with LMWH (OR 0.77; 95% CI 0.61 to 0.98). These results should be considered when the conflicting recommendations of existing guidelines for thromboprophylaxis after hip replacement are being addressed.