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. Arthroplasty is being increasingly used for the management of distal humeral fractures (DHFs) in elderly patients. Arthroplasty options include total elbow arthroplasty (TEA) and hemiarthroplasty (HA); both have unique complications and there is not yet a consensus on which implant is superior. This systematic review asked: in patients aged over 65 years with unreconstructable DHFs, what differences are there in outcomes, as measured by patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), range of motion (ROM), and complications, between distal humeral HA and TEA?. Methods. A systematic review of the literature was performed via a search of MEDLINE and Embase. Two reviewers extracted data on PROMs, ROM, and complications. PROMs and ROM results were reported descriptively and a meta-analysis of complications was conducted. Quality of methodology was assessed using Wylde’s non-summative four-point system. The study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021228329). Results. A total of 29 studies met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The mean Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (DASH) score was 19.6 (SD 7.5) for HA and 38 (SD 11.9) for TEA and the mean abbreviated version of DASH was 17.2 (SD 13.2) for HA and 24.9 (SD 4.8) for TEA. The Mayo Elbow Performance Score was the most commonly reported PROM across included studies, with a mean of 87 (SD 5.3) in HA and 88.3 (SD 5) in TEA. High complication rates were seen in both HA (22% (95% confidence interval (CI) 5 to 44)) and TEA (21% (95% CI 13 to 30), but no statistically significant difference identified. Conclusion. This systematic review has indicated PROMs and ROM mostly favouring HA, but with a similarly high complication rate in the two procedures. However, due to the small sample size and heterogeneity between studies, strength of evidence for these findings is low. We propose further research in the form of a national randomized controlled trial. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(5):559–566

Aims. To compare rates of serious adverse events in patients undergoing revision knee arthroplasty with consideration of the indication for revision (urgent versus elective indications), and compare these with primary arthroplasty and re-revision arthroplasty. Methods. Patients undergoing primary knee arthroplasty were identified in the national Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) between 1 April 1997 to 31 March 2017. Subsequent revision and re-revision arthroplasty procedures in the same patients and same knee were identified. The primary outcome was 90-day mortality and a logistic regression model was used to investigate factors associated with 90-day mortality and secondary adverse outcomes, including infection (undergoing surgery), pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, and stroke. Urgent indications for revision arthroplasty were defined as infection or fracture, and all other indications (e.g. loosening, instability, wear) were included in the elective indications cohort. Results. A total of 939,021 primary knee arthroplasty procedures were included (939,021 patients), of which 40,854 underwent subsequent revision arthroplasty, and 9,100 underwent re-revision arthroplasty. Revision surgery for elective indications was associated with a 90-day rate of mortality of 0.44% (135/30,826; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37 to 0.52) which was comparable to primary knee arthroplasty (0.46%; 4,292/939,021; 95% CI 0.44 to 0.47). Revision arthroplasty for infection was associated with a much higher mortality of 2.04% (184/9037; 95% CI 1.75 to 2.35; odds ratio (OR) 3.54; 95% CI 2.81 to 4.46), as was revision for periprosthetic fracture at 5.25% (52/991; 95% CI 3.94 to 6.82; OR 6.23; 95% CI 4.39 to 8.85). Higher rates of pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, and stroke were also observed in the infection and fracture cohort. Conclusion. Patients undergoing revision arthroplasty for urgent indications (infection or fracture) are at higher risk of mortality and serious adverse events in comparison to primary knee arthroplasty and revision arthroplasty for elective indications. These findings will be important for patient consent and shared decision-making and should inform service design for this patient cohort. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(10):1578–1585

The June 2024 Foot & Ankle Roundup. 360. looks at: First MTPJ fusion in young versus old patients; Minimally invasive calcaneum Zadek osteotomy and the effect of sequential burr passes; Comparison between Achilles tendon reinsertion and dorsal closing wedge calcaneal osteotomy for the treatment of insertional Achilles tendinopathy; Revision ankle arthroplasty – is it worthwhile?; Tibiotalocalcaneal arthrodesis or below-knee amputation – salvage or sacrifice?; Fusion or replacement for hallux rigidus?

The June 2023 Hip & Pelvis Roundup. 360. looks at: Machine learning to identify surgical candidates for hip and knee arthroplasty: a viable option?; Poor outcome after debridement and implant retention; Can you cement polyethylene liners into well-fixed acetabular shells in hip revision?; Revision stem in primary arthroplasties: the Exeter 44/0 125 mm stem; Depression and anxiety: could they be linked to infection?; Does where you live affect your outcomes after hip and knee arthroplasties?; Racial disparities in outcomes after total hip arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty are substantially mediated by socioeconomic disadvantage both in black and white patients

The December 2023 Research Roundup. 360. looks at: Tissue integration and chondroprotective potential of acetabular labral augmentation with autograft tendon: study of a porcine model; The Irish National Orthopaedic Register under cyberattack: what happened, and what were the consequences?; An overview of machine learning in orthopaedic surgery: an educational paper; Beware of the fungus…; New evidence for COVID-19 in patients undergoing joint replacement surgery

This edition of Cochrane Corner looks at some of the work published by the Cochrane Collaboration, covering pharmacological interventions for the prevention of bleeding in people undergoing definitive fixation or joint replacement for hip, pelvic, and long bone fractures; interventions for reducing red blood cell transfusion in adults undergoing hip fracture surgery: an overview of systematic reviews; and pharmacological treatments for low back pain in adults: an overview of Cochrane Reviews

Recent publications have drawn attention to the fact that some brands of joint replacement may contain variants which perform significantly worse (or better) than their ‘siblings’. As a result, the National Joint Registry has performed much more detailed analysis on the larger families of knee arthroplasties in order to identify exactly where these differences may be present and may hitherto have remained hidden. The analysis of the Nexgen knee arthroplasty brand identified that some posterior-stabilized combinations have particularly high revision rates for aseptic loosening of the tibia, and consequently a medical device recall has been issued for the Nexgen ‘option’ tibial component which was implicated. More elaborate signal detection is required in order to identify such variation in results in a routine fashion if patients are to be protected from such variation in outcomes between closely related implant types. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(3):221–226

Aims. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the influence of patellar resurfacing following cruciate-retaining (CR) and posterior-stabilized (PS) total knee arthroplasty (TKA) on the incidence of anterior knee pain, knee-specific patient-reported outcome measures, complication rates, and reoperation rates. Methods. A systematic review of MEDLINE, PubMed, and Google Scholar was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) according to search criteria. Search terms used included: arthroplasty, replacement, knee (Mesh), TKA, prosthesis, patella, patellar resurfacing, and patellar retaining. RCTs that compared patellar resurfacing versus unresurfaced in primary TKA were included for further analysis. Studies were evaluated using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network assessment tool for quality and minimization of bias. Data were synthesized and meta-analysis performed. Results. There were 4,135 TKAs (2,068 resurfaced and 2,027 unresurfaced) identified in 35 separate cohorts from 33 peer-reviewed studies. Anterior knee pain rates were significantly higher in unresurfaced knees overall (odds ratio (OR) 1.84; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.20 to 2.83; p = 0.006) but more specifically associated with CR implants (OR 1.95; 95% CI 1.0 to 3.52; p = 0.030). There was a significantly better Knee Society function score (mean difference (MD) -1.98; 95% CI -1.1 to -2.84; p < 0.001) and Oxford Knee Score (MD -2.24; 95% CI -0.07 to -4.41; p = 0.040) for PS implants when patellar resurfacing was performed, but these differences did not exceed the minimal clinically important difference for these scores. There were no significant differences in complication rates or infection rates according to implant design. There was an overall significantly higher reoperation rate for unresurfaced TKA (OR 1.46 (95% CI 1.04 to 2.06); p = 0.030) but there was no difference between PS or CR TKA. Conclusion. Patellar resurfacing, when performed with CR implants, resulted in lower rates of anterior knee pain and, when used with a PS implant, yielded better knee-specific functional outcomes. Patellar resurfacing was associated with a lower risk of reoperation overall, but implant type did not influence this. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(6):622–634

The June 2023 Knee Roundup. 360. looks at: Cementless total knee arthroplasty is associated with early aseptic loosening in a large national database; Is cementless total knee arthroplasty safe in females aged over 75 years?; Could novel radiological findings help identify aseptic tibial loosening?; The Attune cementless versus LCS arthroplasty at introduction; Return to work following total knee arthroplasty and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty; Complications and downsides of the robotic total knee arthroplasty; Mid-flexion instability in kinematic alignment better with posterior-stabilized and medial-stabilized implants?; Patellar resurfacing does not improve outcomes in modern knees

The February 2023 Research Roundup. 360. looks at: Clinical and epidemiological features of scaphoid fracture nonunion; Routine sterile glove and instrument change at the time of abdominal wound closure to prevent surgical site infection (ChEETAh); Characterization of genetic risk of end-stage knee osteoarthritis treated with total knee arthroplasty; Platelet-rich plasma or autologous blood injection for plantar fasciitis; Volume and outcomes of joint arthroplasty; The hazards of absolute belief in the p-value laid bare

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). Methods. This was a data linkage study using the New South Wales (NSW) Admitted Patient Data Collection (APDC) and the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR), which collect data from all public and private hospitals in NSW, Australia. Patients who underwent a TKA or THA for OA between 1 January 2002 and 31 December 2017 were included. The main outcome measures were 90-day incidence rates of hospital readmission for: revision arthroplasty for PJI as recorded in the AOANJRR; conservative definition of PJI, defined by T84.5, the PJI diagnosis code in the APDC; and extended definition of PJI, defined by the presence of either T84.5, or combinations of diagnosis and procedure code groups derived from recursive binary partitioning in the APDC. Results. The mean 90-day revision rate for infection was 0.1% (0.1% to 0.2%) for TKA and 0.3% (0.1% to 0.5%) for THA. The mean 90-day PJI rates defined by T84.5 were 1.3% (1.1% to 1.7%) for TKA and 1.1% (0.8% to 1.3%) for THA. The mean 90-day PJI rates using the extended definition were 1.9% (1.5% to 2.2%) and 1.5% (1.3% to 1.7%) following TKA and THA, respectively. Conclusion. When reporting the revision arthroplasty for infection, the AOANJRR substantially underestimates the rate of PJI at 90 days. Using combinations of infection codes and PJI-related surgical procedure codes in linked hospital administrative databases could be an alternative way to monitor PJI rates. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(9):1060–1066

Aims. It is unclear whether mortality outcomes differ for patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA) surgery who are readmitted to the index hospital where their surgery was performed, or to another hospital. Methods. We analyzed linked hospital and death records for residents of New South Wales, Australia, aged ≥ 18 years who had an emergency readmission within 90 days following THA or TKA surgery between 2003 and 2022. Multivariable modelling was used to identify factors associated with non-index readmission and to evaluate associations of readmission destination (non-index vs index) with 90-day and one-year mortality. Results. Of 394,248 joint arthroplasty patients (THA = 149,456; TKA = 244,792), 9.5% (n = 37,431) were readmitted within 90 days, and 53.7% of these were admitted to a non-index hospital. Non-index readmission was more prevalent among patients who underwent surgery in private hospitals (60%). Patients who were readmitted for non-orthopaedic conditions (62.8%), were more likely to return to a non-index hospital compared to those readmitted for orthopaedic complications (39.5%). Factors associated with non-index readmission included older age, higher socioeconomic status, private health insurance, and residence in a rural or remote area. Non-index readmission was significantly associated with 90 day (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.69; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.39 to 2.05) and one-year mortality (aOR 1.31; 95% CI 1.16 to 1.47). Associations between non-index readmission and mortality were similar for patients readmitted with orthopaedic and non-orthopaedic complications (90-day mortality aOR 1.61; 95% CI 0.98 to 2.64, and aOR 1.67; 95% CI 1.35 to 2.06, respectively). Conclusion. Non-index readmission was associated with increased mortality, irrespective of whether the readmission was for orthopaedic complications or other conditions. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(1):60–68

Aims. The metabolic equivalent of task (MET) score examines patient performance in relation to energy expenditure before and after knee arthroplasty. This study assesses its use in a knee arthroplasty population in comparison with the widely used Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and EuroQol five-dimension index (EQ-5D), which are reported to be limited by ceiling effects. Methods. A total of 116 patients with OKS, EQ-5D, and MET scores before, and at least six months following, unilateral primary knee arthroplasty were identified from a database. Procedures were performed by a single surgeon between 2014 and 2019 consecutively. Scores were analyzed for normality, skewness, kurtosis, and the presence of ceiling/floor effects. Concurrent validity between the MET score, OKS, and EQ-5D was assessed using Spearman’s rank. Results. Postoperatively the OKS and EQ-5D demonstrated negative skews in distribution, with high kurtosis at six months and one year. The OKS demonstrated a ceiling effect at one year (15.7%) postoperatively. The EQ-5D demonstrated a ceiling effect at six months (30.2%) and one year (39.8%) postoperatively. The MET score did not demonstrate a skewed distribution or ceiling effect either at six months or one year postoperatively. Weak-moderate correlations were noted between the MET score and conventional scores at six months and one year postoperatively. Conclusion. In contrast to the OKS and EQ-5D, the MET score was normally distributed postoperatively with no ceiling effect. It is worth consideration as an arthroplasty outcome measure, particularly for patients with high expectations. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(3):129–137

Aims. To investigate factors that contribute to patient decisions regarding attendance for arthroplasty during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods. A postal questionnaire was distributed to patients on the waiting list for hip or knee arthroplasty in a single tertiary centre within the UK. Patient factors that may have influenced the decision to attend for arthroplasty, global quality of life (QoL) (EuroQol five-dimension three-level (EQ-5D-3L)), and joint-specific QoL (Oxford Hip or Knee Score) were assessed. Patients were asked at which ‘COVID-alert’ level they would be willing to attend an NHS and a “COVID-light” hospital for arthroplasty. Independent predictors were assessed using multivariate logistic regression. Results. Of 540 distributed questionnaires, 400 (74.1%; 236 awaiting hip arthroplasty, 164 awaiting knee arthroplasty) complete responses were received and included. Less than half (48.2%) were willing to attend for hip or knee arthroplasty while a UK COVID-19 epidemic was in circulation (COVID-alert levels 3 to 5). Patients with worse joint-specific QoL had a preference to proceed with surgery at COVID-alert levels 3 to 5 compared to levels 1 and 2 (hip arthroplasty odds ratio (OR) 1.54 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.45 to 1.63); knee arthroplasty OR 1.16 (1.07 to 1.26)). The odds of patients with worse joint-specific QoL being willing to attend for surgery at COVID-alert levels 3 to 5 increased further if surgery in a private, “COVID-light” hospital was available (hip arthroplasty OR 3.50 (95% CI 3.26 to 3.71); knee arthroplasty OR 1.41 (95% CI 1.29 to 1.53). Conclusion. Patient decisions surrounding elective surgery have been influenced by the global COVID-19 pandemic, highlighting the importance of patient involvement in ensuring optimized provision of elective surgery during these challenging times. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(4):261–270

Aims. Professional dancers represent a unique patient population in the setting of hip arthroplasty, given the high degree of hip strength and mobility required by their profession. We sought to determine the clinical outcomes and ability to return to professional dance after total hip arthroplasty (THA) or hip resurfacing arthroplasty (HRA). Methods. Active professional dancers who underwent primary THA or HRA at a single institution with minimum one-year follow-up were included in the study. Primary outcomes included the rate of return to professional dance, three patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) (modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS), Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement (HOOS-JR), and Lower Extremity Activity Scale (LEAS)), and postoperative complications. Results. A total of 49 hips in 39 patients (mean age 56 years (SD 13); 80% female (n = 39)) were included. Mean follow-up was 4.9 years (SD 5.1). Of these 49 hips, 37 THAs and 12 HRAs were performed. In all, 96% of hips returned to professional dance activities postoperatively. With regard to PROMs, there were statistically significant improvements in mHHS, HOOS-JR, and LEAS from baseline to ≥ one year postoperatively. There were complications in 7/49 hips postoperatively (14%), five of which required revision surgery (10%). There were no revisions for instability after the index procedure. Two complications (5.4%) occurred in hips that underwent THA compared with five (42%) after HRA (p = 0.007), though the difference by procedure was not significantly different when including only contemporary implant designs (p = 0.334). Conclusion. Active professional dancers experienced significant improvements in functional outcome scores after THA or HRA, with a 96% rate of return to professional dance. However, the revision rate at short- to mid-term follow-up highlights the challenges of performing hip arthroplasty in this demanding patient population. Further investigation is required to determine the results of THA versus HRA using contemporary implant designs in these patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(3 Supple A):17–23

Aims. Paediatric fractures are highly prevalent and are most often treated with plaster. The application and removal of plaster is often an anxiety-inducing experience for children. Decreasing the anxiety level may improve the patients’ satisfaction and the quality of healthcare. Virtual reality (VR) has proven to effectively distract children and reduce their anxiety in other clinical settings, and it seems to have a similar effect during plaster treatment. This study aims to further investigate the effect of VR on the anxiety level of children with fractures who undergo plaster removal or replacement in the plaster room. Methods. A randomized controlled trial was conducted. A total of 255 patients were included, aged five to 17 years, who needed plaster treatment for a fracture of the upper or lower limb. Randomization was stratified for age (five to 11 and 12 to 17 years). The intervention group was distracted with VR goggles and headphones during the plaster treatment, whereas the control group received standard care. As the primary outcome, the post-procedural level of anxiety was measured with the Child Fear Scale (CFS). Secondary outcomes included the children’s anxiety reduction (difference between CFS after and CFS before plaster procedure), numerical rating scale (NRS) pain, NRS satisfaction of the children and accompanying parents/guardians, and the children’s heart rates during the procedure. An independent-samples t-test and Mann-Whitney U test (depending on the data distribution) were used to analyze the data. Results. The post-procedural CFS was significantly lower (p < 0.001) in the intervention group (proportion of children with no anxiety = 78.6%) than in the control group (56.8%). The anxiety reduction, NRS pain and satisfaction scores, and heart rates showed no significant differences between the control group and the intervention group. Subanalyses showed an increased effect of VR on anxiety levels in young patients, females, upper limb fractures, and those who had had previous plaster treatment. Conclusion. VR effectively reduces the anxiety levels of children in the plaster room, especially in young girls. No statistically significant effects were seen regarding pain, heart rate, or satisfaction scores. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(7):728–734

Aims. Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in total hip arthroplasty in the elderly may occur but has been subject to limited investigation. This study analyzed infection characteristics, surgical outcomes, and perioperative complications of octogenarians undergoing treatment for PJI in a single university-based institution. Methods. We identified 33 patients who underwent treatment for PJIs of the hip between January 2010 and December 2019 using our institutional joint registry. Mean age was 82 years (80 to 90), with 19 females (57%) and a mean BMI of 26 kg/m. 2. (17 to 41). Mean American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade was 3 (1 to 4) and mean Charlson Comorbidity Index was 6 (4 to 10). Leading pathogens included coagulase-negative Staphylococci (45%) and Enterococcus faecalis (9%). Two-stage exchange was performed in 30 joints and permanent resection arthroplasty in three. Kaplan-Meier survivorship analyses were performed. Mean follow-up was five years (3 to 7). Results. The two-year survivorship free of any recurrent PJI was 72% (95% confidence interval (CI) 56 to 89; 18 patients at risk). There were a total of nine recurrent PJIs at a mean of one year (16 days to eight years), one for the same pathogen as at index infection. One additional surgical site infection was noted at two weeks, resulting in a 69% (95% CI 52 to 86; 17 patients at risk) survivorship free of any infection at two years. There were two additional revisions for dislocations at one month each. As such, the two-year survivorship free of any revision was 61% (95% CI 42 to 80; 12 patients at risk). In addition to the aforementioned revisions, there was one additional skin grafting for a decubitus ulcer, resulting in a survivorship free of any reoperation of 54% (95% CI 35 to 73; ten patients at risk) at two years. Mean Clavien-Dindo score of perioperative complications was two out of five, with one case of perioperative death noted at six days. Conclusion. Octogenarians undergoing surgery for PJI of the hip are at low risk of acute mortality, but are at moderate risk of other perioperative complications. One in two patients will undergo a reoperation within two years, with 70% attributable to recurrent infections. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(2):135–139

Aims. We compared the risks of re-revision and mortality between two-stage and single-stage revision surgeries among patients with infected primary hip arthroplasty. Methods. Patients with a periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of their primary arthroplasty revised with single-stage or two-stage procedure in England and Wales between 2003 and 2014 were identified from the National Joint Registry. We used Poisson regression with restricted cubic splines to compute hazard ratios (HRs) at different postoperative periods. The total number of revisions and re-revisions undergone by patients was compared between the two strategies. Results. In total, 535 primary hip arthroplasties were revised with single-stage procedure (1,525 person-years) and 1,605 with two-stage procedure (5,885 person-years). All-cause re-revision was higher following single-stage revision, especially in the first three months (HR at 3 months = 1.98 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.14 to 3.43), p = 0.009). The risks were comparable thereafter. Re-revision for PJI was higher in the first three postoperative months for single-stage revision and waned with time (HR at 3 months = 1.81 (95% CI 1.22 to 2.68), p = 0.003; HR at 6 months = 1.25 (95% CI 0.71 to 2.21), p = 0.441; HR at 12 months = 0.94 (95% CI 0.54 to 1.63), p = 0.819). Patients initially managed with a single-stage revision received fewer revision operations (mean 1.3 (SD 0.7) vs 2.2 (SD 0.6), p < 0.001). Mortality rates were comparable between these two procedures (29/10,000 person-years vs 33/10,000). Conclusion. The risk of unplanned re-revision was lower following two-stage revision, but only in the early postoperative period. The lower overall number of revision procedures associated with a single-stage revision strategy and the equivalent mortality rates to two-stage revision are reassuring. With appropriate counselling, single-stage revision is a viable option for the treatment of hip PJI. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2023;12(5):321–330

Aims. In the UK, the NHS generates an estimated 25 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents (4% to 5% of the nation’s total carbon emissions) and produces over 500,000 tonnes of waste annually. There is limited evidence demonstrating the principles of sustainability and its benefits within orthopaedic surgery. The primary aim of this study was to analyze the environmental impact of orthopaedic surgery and the environmentally sustainable initiatives undertaken to address this. The secondary aim of this study was to describe the barriers to making sustainable changes within orthopaedic surgery. Methods. A literature search was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines through EMBASE, Medline, and PubMed libraries using two domains of terms: “orthopaedic surgery” and “environmental sustainability”. Results. A total of 13 studies were included in the final analysis. All papers studied the environmental impact of orthopaedic surgery in one of three areas: waste management, resource consumption, and carbon emissions. Waste segregation was a prevalent issue and described by nine studies, with up to 74.4% of hazardous waste being generated. Of this, six studies reported recycling waste and up to 43.9% of waste per procedure was recyclable. Large joint arthroplasties generated the highest amount of recyclable waste per procedure. Three studies investigated carbon emissions from intraoperative consumables, sterilization methods, and through the use of telemedicine. One study investigated water wastage and demonstrated that simple changes to practice can reduce water consumption by up to 63%. The two most common barriers to implementing environmentally sustainable changes identified across the studies was a lack of appropriate infrastructure and lack of education and training. Conclusion. Environmental sustainability in orthopaedic surgery is a growing area with a wide potential for meaningful change. Further research to cumulatively study the carbon footprint of orthopaedic surgery and the wider impact of environmentally sustainable changes is necessary. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(8):628–640