Aims. Revision rates for ankle arthroplasties are higher than hip or knee arthroplasties. When a total ankle arthroplasty (TAA) fails, it can either undergo revision to another ankle replacement, revision of the TAA to ankle arthrodesis (fusion), or amputation. Currently there is a paucity of literature on the outcomes of these revisions. The aim of this meta-analysis is to assess the outcomes of revision TAA with respect to surgery type, functional outcomes, and reoperations. Methods. A systematic review was conducted using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed, Medline, Embase, Cinahl, and Cochrane reviews were searched for relevant papers. Papers analyzing surgical treatment for failed ankle arthroplasties were included. All papers were reviewed by two authors. Overall, 34 papers met the inclusion criteria. A meta-analysis of proportions was performed. Results. Six papers analyzed all-cause reoperations of revision ankle arthroplasties, and 14 papers analyzed failures of conversion of a TAA to fusion. It was found that 26.9% (95% confidence interval (CI) 15.4% to 40.1%) of revision ankle arthroplasties required further surgical intervention and 13.0% (95% CI 4.9% to 23.4%) of conversion to fusions; 14.4% (95% CI 8.4% to 21.4%) of revision ankle arthroplasties failed and 8% (95% CI 4% to 13%) of conversion to fusions failed. Conclusion. Revision of primary TAA can be an effective procedure with improved functional outcomes, but has considerable risks of failure and reoperation, especially in those with periprosthetic joint infection. In those who undergo conversion of TAA to fusion, there are high rates of nonunion. Further comparative studies are required to compare both operative techniques. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(7):596–606

Aims. Routine surveillance of primary hip and knee arthroplasties has traditionally been performed with office follow-up visits at one year postoperatively. The value of these visits is unclear. The present study aims to determine the utility and burden of routine clinical follow-up at one year after primary arthroplasty to patients and providers. Methods. All patients (473) who underwent primary total hip (280), hip resurfacing (eight), total knee (179), and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (six) over a nine-month period at a single institution were identified from an institutional registry. Patients were prompted to attend their routine one-year postoperative visit by a single telephone reminder. Patients and surgeons were given questionnaires at the one-year postoperative visit, defined as a clinical encounter occurring at nine to 15 months from the date of surgery, regarding value of the visit. Results. Compliance with routine follow-up at one year was 35%. The response rate was over 80% for all questions in the patient and clinician surveys. Overall, 75% of the visits were for routine surveillance. Patients reported high satisfaction with their visits despite the general time for attendance, including travel, being over four hours. Surgeons found the visits more worthwhile when issues were identified or problems were addressed. Conclusion. Patient compliance with follow-up at one year postoperatively after primary hip and knee is low. Routine visits of asymptomatic patients deliver little practical value and represent a large time and cost burden for patients and surgeons. Remote strategies should be considered for routine postoperative surveillance primary hip and knee arthroplasties beyond the acute postoperative period. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(7 Supple B):85–89

Aims. Our objective is to describe our early and mid-term results with the use of a new simple primary knee prosthesis as an articulating spacer in planned two-stage management for infected knee arthroplasty. As a second objective, we compared outcomes between the group with a retained first stage and those with a complete two-stage revision. Methods. We included 47 patients (48 knees) with positive criteria for infection, with a minimum two-year follow-up, in which a two-stage approach with an articulating spacer with new implants was used. Patients with infection control, and a stable and functional knee were allowed to retain the initial first-stage components. Outcomes recorded included: infection control rate, reoperations, final range of motion (ROM), and quality of life assessment (QoL) including Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Oxford Knee Score, 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey questionnaire, and University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) activity score and satisfaction score. These outcomes were evaluated and compared to additional cohorts of patients with retained first-stage interventions and those with a complete two-stage revision. Mean follow-up was 3.7 years (2.0 to 6.5). Results. Eight knees failed directly related to lack of infection control (16%), and two patients (two knees) died within the first year for causes not directly related, giving an initial success rate of 79% (38/48). Secondary success rate after a subsequent procedure was 91% (44/48 knees). From the initially retained spacers, four knees (22%) required a second-stage revision for continuous symptoms and one (5%) for an acute infection. There were no significant differences regarding the failure rate due to infection, ROM, and QoL assessment between patients with a retained first-stage procedure and those who underwent a second-stage operation. Conclusion. Our protocol of two-stage exchange for infected knee arthroplasties with an articulating spacer and using new primary knee implants achieves adequate infection control. Retained first-stage operations achieve comparable results in selected cases, with no difference in infection control, ROM, and QoL assessment in comparison to patients with completed two-stage revision surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(7):852–860

Aims. Metal allergy in knee arthroplasty patients is a controversial topic. We aimed to conduct a scoping review to clarify the management of metal allergy in primary and revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods. Studies were identified by searching electronic databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid MEDLINE, and Embase, from their inception to November 2020, for studies evaluating TKA patients with metal hypersensitivity/allergy. All studies reporting on diagnosing or managing metal hypersensitivity in TKA were included. Data were extracted and summarized based on study design, study population, interventions and outcomes. A practical guide is then formulated based on the available evidence. Results. We included 38 heterogeneous studies (two randomized controlled trials, six comparative studies, 19 case series, and 11 case reports). The evidence indicates that metal hypersensitivity is a rare complication with some histopathological features leading to pain and dissatisfaction with no reliable screening tests preoperatively. Hypoallergenic implants are viable alternatives for patients with self-reported/confirmed metal hypersensitivity if declared preoperatively; however, concerns remain over their long-term outcomes with ceramic implants outperforming titanium nitride-coated implants and informed consent is paramount. For patients presenting with painful TKA, metal hypersensitivity is a diagnosis of exclusion where patch skin testing, lymphocyte transformation test, and synovial biopsies are useful adjuncts before revision surgery is undertaken to hypoallergenic implants with shared decision-making and informed consent. Conclusion. Using the limited available evidence in the literature, we provide a practical approach to metal hypersensitivity in TKA patients. Future national/registry-based studies are needed to identify the scale of metal hypersensitivity, agreed diagnostic criteria, and management strategies. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(10):785–795

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

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are being used increasingly in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). We conducted a systematic review aimed at identifying psychometrically sound PROMs by appraising their measurement properties. Studies concerning the development and/or evaluation of the measurement properties of PROMs used in a TKA population were systematically retrieved via PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Scopus. Ratings for methodological quality and measurement properties were conducted according to updated COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methodology. Of the 155 articles on 34 instruments included, nine PROMs met the minimum requirements for psychometric validation and can be recommended to use as measures of TKA outcome: Oxford Knee Score (OKS); OKS–Activity and Participation Questionnaire (OKS-APQ); 12-item short form Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome (KOOS-12); KOOS Physical function Short form (KOOS-PS); Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index-Total Knee Replacement function short form (WOMAC-TKR); Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS); Forgotten Joint Score (FJS); Patient’s Knee Implant Performance (PKIP); and University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) activity score. The pain and function subscales in WOMAC, as well as the pain, function, and quality of life subscales in KOOS, were validated psychometrically as standalone subscales instead of as whole instruments. However, none of the included PROMs have been validated for all measurement properties. Thus, further studies are still warranted to evaluate those PROMs. Use of the other 25 scales and subscales should be tempered until further studies validate their measurement properties. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2021;10(3):203–217

Aims. The follow-up interval of a study represents an important aspect that is frequently mentioned in the title of the manuscript. Authors arbitrarily define whether the follow-up of their study is short-, mid-, or long-term. There is no clear consensus in that regard and definitions show a large range of variation. It was therefore the aim of this study to systematically identify clinical research published in high-impact orthopaedic journals in the last five years and extract follow-up information to deduce corresponding evidence-based definitions of short-, mid-, and long-term follow-up. Methods. A systematic literature search was performed to identify papers published in the six highest ranked orthopaedic journals during the years 2015 to 2019. Follow-up intervals were analyzed. Each article was assigned to a corresponding subspecialty field: sports traumatology, knee arthroplasty and reconstruction, hip-preserving surgery, hip arthroplasty, shoulder and elbow arthroplasty, hand and wrist, foot and ankle, paediatric orthopaedics, orthopaedic trauma, spine, and tumour. Mean follow-up data were tabulated for the corresponding subspecialty fields. Comparison between means was conducted using analysis of variance. Results. Of 16,161 published articles, 590 met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 321 were of level IV evidence, 176 level III, 53 level II, and 40 level I. Considering all included articles, a long-term study published in the included high impact journals had a mean follow-up of 151.6 months, a mid-term study of 63.5 months, and a short-term study of 30.0 months. Conclusion. The results of this study provide evidence-based definitions for orthopaedic follow-up intervals that should provide a citable standard for the planning of clinical studies. A minimum mean follow-up of a short-term study should be 30 months (2.5 years), while a mid-term study should aim for a mean follow-up of 60 months (five years), and a long-term study should aim for a mean of 150 months (12.5 years). Level of Evidence: Level I. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(5):344–350

Aims. Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) and bicompartmental knee arthroplasty (BCA) have been associated with improved functional outcomes compared to total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in suitable patients, although the reason is poorly understood. The aim of this study was to measure how the different arthroplasties affect knee extensor function. Methods. Extensor function was measured for 16 cadaveric knees and then retested following the different arthroplasties. Eight knees underwent medial UKA then BCA, then posterior-cruciate retaining TKA, and eight underwent the lateral equivalents then TKA. Extensor efficiency was calculated for ranges of knee flexion associated with common activities of daily living. Data were analyzed with repeated measures analysis of variance (α = 0.05). Results. Compared to native, there were no reductions in either extension moment or efficiency following UKA. Conversion to BCA resulted in a small decrease in extension moment between 70° and 90° flexion (p < 0.05), but when examined in the context of daily activity ranges of flexion, extensor efficiency was largely unaffected. Following TKA, large decreases in extension moment were measured at low knee flexion angles (p < 0.05), resulting in 12% to 43% reductions in extensor efficiency for the daily activity ranges. Conclusion. This cadaveric study found that TKA resulted in inferior extensor function compared to UKA and BCA. This may, in part, help explain the reported differences in function and satisfaction differences between partial and total knee arthroplasty. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2021;10(1):1–9

Aims. Histology is an established tool in diagnosing periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs). Different thresholds, using various infection definitions and histopathological criteria, have been described. This study determined the performance of different thresholds of polymorphonuclear neutrophils (≥ 5 PMN/HPF, ≥ 10 PMN/HPF, ≥ 23 PMN/10 HPF) , when using the European Bone and Joint Infection Society (EBJIS), Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), and the International Consensus Meeting (ICM) 2018 criteria for PJI. Methods. A total of 119 patients undergoing revision total hip (rTHA) or knee arthroplasty (rTKA) were included. Permanent histology sections of periprosthetic tissue were evaluated under high power (400× magnification) and neutrophils were counted per HPF. The mean neutrophil count in ten HPFs was calculated (PMN/HPF). Based on receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis and the z-test, thresholds were compared. Results. Using the EBJIS criteria, a cut-off of ≥ five PMN/HPF showed a sensitivity of 93% (95% confidence interval (CI) 81 to 98) and specificity of 84% (95% CI 74 to 91). The optimal threshold when applying the IDSA and ICM criteria was ≥ ten PMN/HPF with sensitivities of 94% (95% CI 79 to 99) and 90% (95% CI 76 to 97), and specificities of 86% (95% CI 77 to 92) and 92% (95% CI 84 to 97), respectively. In rTKA, a better performance of histopathological analysis was observed in comparison with rTHA when using the IDSA criteria (p < 0.001). Conclusion. With high accuracy, histopathological analysis can be supported as a confirmatory criterion in diagnosing periprosthetic joint infections. A threshold of ≥ five PMN/HPF can be recommended to distinguish between septic and aseptic loosening, with an increased possibility of detecting more infections caused by low-virulence organisms. However, neutrophil counts between one and five should be considered suggestive of infection and interpreted carefully in conjunction with other diagnostic test methods. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2021;10(8):536–547

Aims. The primary aim was to assess the rate of patient deferral of elective orthopaedic surgery and whether this changed with time during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The secondary aim was to explore the reasons why patients wanted to defer surgery and what measures/circumstances would enable them to go forward with surgery. Methods. Patients were randomly selected from elective orthopaedic waiting lists at three centres in the UK in April, June, August, and September 2020 and were contacted by telephone. Patients were asked whether they wanted to proceed or defer surgery. Patients who wished to defer were asked seven questions relating to potential barriers to proceeding with surgery and were asked whether there were measures/circumstances that would allow them to go forward with surgery. Results. There was a significant decline in the rate of deferral for surgery from April (n = 38/50, 76%), June (n = 68/233, 29%), to August (n = 6/50, 12%) and September (n = 5/100, 5%) (p < 0.001). Patients wishing to defer were older (68 years (SD 10.1) vs 65 (SD 11.9)), more likely to be female (65% (44/68) vs 53% (88/165)) and waiting for a knee arthroplasty (65% (44/68) vs 41% (67/165); p < 0.001). By September 2020, all patients that deferred in June at one centre had proceeded or wanted to proceed with surgery due to a perceived lower risk of acquiring COVID-19 perioperatively (68%, n = 15) or because their symptoms had progressed (32%, n = 7). The most common reason (n = 14/17, 82%) for patients deferring surgery in September was the perceived risk of acquiring COVID-19 while as an inpatient. When asked what measures or circumstances would enable them to proceed with surgery, the most common (n = 7, 41%) response was reassurance of a COVID-19 free hospital. Conclusion. The rate of deferral fell to 5% by September, which was due to a lower perceived risk of contracting COVID-19 perioperatively or worsening of symptoms while waiting. The potential of a COVID-19-free hospital and communication of mortality risk may improve a patient’s willingness to go forward with surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-10:663–668

Aims. Modern total knee arthroplasty (TKA) prostheses are designed to restore near normal kinematics including high flexion. Kneeling is a high flexion, kinematically demanding activity after TKA. The debate about design choice has not yet been informed by six-degrees-of-freedom in vivo kinematics. This prospective randomized clinical trial compared kneeling kinematics in three TKA designs. Methods. In total, 68 patients were randomized to either a posterior stabilized (PS-FB), cruciate-retaining (CR-FB), or rotating platform (CR-RP) design. Of these patients, 64 completed a minimum one year follow-up. Patients completed full-flexion kneeling while being imaged using single-plane fluoroscopy. Kinematics were calculated by registering the 3D implant models onto 2D-dynamic fluoroscopic images and exported for analysis. Results. CR-FB designs had significantly lower maximal flexion (mean 116° (SD 2.1°)) compared to CR-RP (123° (SD 1.6°)) and PS-FB (125° (SD 2.1°)). The PS-FB design displayed a more posteriorly positioned femur throughout flexion. Furthermore, the CR-RP femur was more externally rotated throughout kneeling. Finally, individual patient kinematics showed high degrees of variability within all designs. Conclusion. The increased maximal flexion found in the PS-FB and CR-RP designs were likely achieved in different ways. The PS-FB design uses a cam-post to hold the femur more posteriorly preventing posterior impingement. The external rotation within the CR-RP design was surprising and hasn’t previously been reported. It is likely due to the polyethylene bearing being decoupled from flexion. The findings of this study provide insights into the function of different knee arthroplasty designs in the context during deep kneeling and provide clinicians with a more kinematically informed choice for implant selection and may allow improved management of patients' functional expectations. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(1):105–112

Objectives. A patient-centred approach, usually achieved through shared decision making, has the potential to help improve decision making around knee arthroplasty surgery. However, such an approach requires an understanding of the factors involved in patient decision making. This review’s objective is to systematically examine the qualitative literature surrounding patients’ decision making in knee arthroplasty. Methods. A systematic literature review using Medline and Embase was conducted to identify qualitative studies that examined patients’ decision making around knee arthroplasty. An aggregated account of what is known about patients’ decision making in knee arthroplasties is provided. Results. Seven studies with 234 participants in interviews or focus groups are included. Ten themes are replicated across studies, namely: expectations of surgery; coping mechanisms; relationship with clinician; fear; pain; function; psychological implications; social network; previous experience of surgery; and conflict in opinions. Conclusions. This review is helpful in not only directing future research to areas that are not understood, or require confirmation, but also in highlighting areas that future interventions could address. These include those aimed at delivering information, which are likely to affect the satisfaction rate, demand, and use of knee arthroplasties. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2015;4;163–169

Aims. As the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic passes, the challenge shifts to safe resumption of routine medical services, including elective orthopaedic surgery. Protocols including pre-operative self-isolation, COVID-19 testing, and surgery at a non-COVID-19 site have been developed to minimize risk of transmission. Despite this, it is likely that many patients will want to delay surgery for fear of contracting COVID-19. The aim of this study is to identify the number of patients who still want to proceed with planned elective orthopaedic surgery in this current environment. Methods. This is a prospective, single surgeon study of 102 patients who were on the waiting list for an elective hip or knee procedure during the COVID-19 pandemic. Baseline characteristics including age, ASA grade, COVID-19 risk, procedure type, surgical priority, and admission type were recorded. The primary outcome was patient consent to continue with planned surgical care after resumption of elective orthopaedic services. Subgroup analysis was also performed to determine if any specific patient factors influenced the decision to proceed with surgery. Results. Overall, 58 patients (56.8%) wanted to continue with planned surgical care at the earliest possibility. Patients classified as ASA I and ASA II were more likely to agree to surgery (60.5% and 60.0%, respectively) compared to ASA III and ASA IV patients (44.4% and 0.0%, respectively) (p = 0.01). In addition, patients undergoing soft tissue knee surgery were more likely to consent to surgery (90.0%) compared to patients undergoing primary hip arthroplasty (68.6%), primary knee arthroplasty (48.7%), revision hip or knee arthroplasty (0.0%), or hip and knee injections (43.8%) (p = 0.03). Conclusion. Restarting elective orthopaedic services during the COVID-19 pandemic remains a significant challenge. Given the uncertain environment, it is unsurprising that only 56% of patients were prepared to continue with their planned surgical care upon resumption of elective services. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-6:267–271

Aims. The aims of this study were to validate the outcome of total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and to identify factors that affect the outcome. Methods. We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Cochrane Reviews, and Embase from between January 2003 and March 2019. The primary aim was to determine the implant failure rate, the mode of failure, and risk factors predisposing to failure. A secondary aim was to identify the overall complication rate, associated risk factors, and clinical performance. A meta-regression analysis was completed to identify the association between each parameter with the outcome. Results. A total of 38 studies including 2,118 TEAs were included in the study. The mean follow-up was 80.9 months (8.2 to 156). The implant failure and complication rates were 16.1% (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.128 to 0.200) and 24.5% (95% CI 0.203 to 0.293), respectively. Aseptic loosening was the most common mode of failure (9.5%; 95% CI 0.071 to 0.124). The mean postoperative ranges of motion (ROMs) were: flexion 131.5° (124.2° to 138.8°), extension 29.3° (26.8° to 31.9°), pronation 74.0° (67.8° to 80.2°), and supination 72.5° (69.5° to 75.5°), and the mean postoperative Mayo Elbow Performance Score (MEPS) was 89.3 (95% CI 86.9 to 91.6). The meta-regression analysis identified that younger patients and implants with an unlinked design correlated with higher failure rates. Younger patients were associated with increased complications, while female patients and an unlinked prosthesis were associated with aseptic loosening. Conclusion. TEA continues to provide satisfactory results for patients with RA. However, it is associated with a substantially higher implant failure and complication rates compared with hip and knee arthroplasties. The patient’s age, sex, and whether cemented fixation and unlinked prosthesis were used can influence the outcome. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(8):967–980

Aims. The extensive variation in axial rotation of tibial components can lead to coronal plane malalignment. We analyzed the change in coronal alignment induced by tray malrotation. Methods. We constructed a computer model of knee arthroplasty and used a virtual cutting guide to cut the tibia at 90° to the coronal plane. The virtual guide was rotated axially (15° medial to 15° lateral) and with posterior slopes (0° to 7°). To assess the effect of axial malrotation, we measured the coronal plane alignment of a tibial tray that was axially rotated (25° internal to 15° external), as viewed on a standard anteroposterior (AP) radiograph. Results. Axial rotation of the cutting guide induced a varus-valgus malalignment up to 1.8° (for 15° of axial rotation combined with 7° of posterior slope). Axial malrotation of tibial tray induced a substantially higher risk of coronal plane malalignment ranging from 1.9° valgus with 15° external rotation, to over 3° varus with 25° of internal rotation. Coronal alignment of the tibial cut changed by 0.07° per degree of axial rotation and 0.22° per degree of posterior slope (linear regression, R. 2. > 0.99). Conclusion. While the effect of axial malalignment has been studied, the impact on coronal alignment is not known. Our results indicate that the direction of the cutting guide and malalignment in axial rotation alter coronal plane alignment and can increase the incidence of outliers. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(6 Supple A):43–48

Aims

To evaluate mid-to long-term patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) of endoprosthetic reconstruction after resection of malignant tumours arising around the knee, and to investigate the risk factors for unfavourable PROMs.

Aims

This study investigates whether primary knee arthroplasty (KA) restores health-related quality of life (HRQoL) to levels expected in the general population.

Aims. To investigate whether elective joint arthroplasty performed at the weekend is associated with a different 30-day mortality versus that performed between Monday and Friday. Patients and Methods. We examined the 30-day cumulative mortality rate (Kaplan-Meier) for all elective hip and knee arthroplasties performed in England and Wales between 1st April 2003 and 31st December 2014, comprising 118 096 episodes undertaken at the weekend and 1 233 882 episodes performed on a weekday. We used Cox proportional-hazards regression models to assess for time-dependent variation and adjusted for identified risk factors for mortality. Results. The cumulative 30-day mortality for hip arthroplasty was 0.15% (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.12 to 0.19) for patients operated on at the weekend versus 0.20% (95% CI 0.19 to 0.21) for patients undergoing surgery during the normal working week. For knee arthroplasty, the cumulative 30-day mortality was 0.14% (95% CI 0.11 to 0.17) for weekend-operated patients versus 0.18% (95% CI 0.17 to 0.19) for weekday-operated patients. These differences were independent of any differences in patient age, gender, American Society of Anaesthesiologists grade, surgeon seniority, surgical and anaesthetic practices, and thromboprophylaxis choice in weekend versus weekday-operated patients. Conclusion. The 30-day mortality rate after elective joint arthroplasty is low. Surgery performed at the weekend is associated with lower post-operative mortality versus operations performed on a weekday. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:1618–28