The August 2014 Hip & Pelvis Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Serial MRIs best for pseudotumour surveillance; Is ultrasound good enough for MOM follow-up?; Does weight loss in obese patients help?; Measuring acetabular anteversion on plain films; Two-stage one-stage too many in fungal hip revisions? and 35 is the magic number in arthroplasty.

Total hip replacement causes a short-term increase in the risk of mortality. It is important to quantify this and to identify modifiable risk factors so that the risk of post-operative mortality can be minimised. We performed a systematic review and critical evaluation of the current literature on the topic. We identified 32 studies published over the last 10 years which provide either 30-day or 90-day mortality data. We estimate the pooled incidence of mortality during the first 30 and 90 days following hip replacement to be 0.30% (95% CI 0.22 to 0.38) and 0.65% (95% CI 0.50 to 0.81), respectively. We found strong evidence of a temporal trend towards reducing mortality rates despite increasingly co-morbid patients. The risk factors for early mortality most commonly identified are increasing age, male gender and co-morbid conditions, particularly cardiovascular disease. Cardiovascular complications appear to have overtaken fatal pulmonary emboli as the leading cause of death after hip replacement.

Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2014;3:175–82

The orientation of the acetabular component can influence both the short- and long-term outcomes of total hip replacement (THR). We performed a prospective, randomised, controlled trial of two groups, comprising of 40 patients each, in order to compare freehand introduction of the component with introduction using the transverse acetabular ligament (TAL) as a reference for anteversion. Anteversion and inclination were measured on pelvic radiographs.

With respect to anteversion, in the freehand group 22.5% of the components were outside the safe zone versus 0% in the transverse acetabular ligament group (p = 0.002). The mean angle of anteversion in the freehand group was 21° (2° to 35°) which was significantly higher compared with 17° (2° to 25°) in the TAL group (p = 0.004). There was a significant difference comparing the variations of both groups (p = 0.008).

With respect to inclination, in the freehand group 37.5% of the components were outside the safe zone versus 20% in the TAL group (p = 0.14). There was no significant difference regarding the accuracy or variation of the angle of inclination when comparing the two groups.

The transverse acetabular ligament may be used to obtain the appropriate anteversion when introducing the acetabular component during THR, but not acetabular component inclination.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:312–18.

Total knee replacement (TKR) is one of the most common operations in orthopaedic surgery worldwide. Despite its scientific reputation as mainly successful, only 81% to 89% of patients are satisfied with the final result. Our understanding of this discordance between patient and surgeon satisfaction is limited. In our experience, focus on five major factors can improve patient satisfaction rates: correct patient selection, setting of appropriate expectations, avoiding preventable complications, knowledge of the finer points of the operation, and the use of both pre- and post-operative pathways. Awareness of the existence, as well as the identification of predictors of patient–surgeon discordance should potentially help with enhancing patient outcomes.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B, Supple A:120–3.

The December 2013 Shoulder & Elbow Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Platelet-rich plasma; Arthroscopic treatment of sternoclavicular joint osteoarthritis; Synchronous arthrolysis and cuff repair; Arthroscopic arthrolysis; Regional blockade in the beach chair; Recurrent instability; Avoiding iatrogenic nerve injury in elbow arthroscopy; and Complex reconstruction of total elbow revisions

This is the second of a series of reviews of registries. This review looks specifically at worldwide registry data that have been collected on knee arthroplasty, what we have learned from their reports, and what the limitations are as to what we currently know.

The December 2013 Hip & Pelvis Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Enhanced recovery works; Acetabular placement; Exercise better than rest in osteoarthritis patients; if Birmingham hip resurfacing is immune from pseudotumour; HIV and arthroplasty; Labral tears revisited; Prophylactic surgery for FAI; and Ceramics and impaction grafting

The June 2013 Shoulder & Elbow Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: whether suture anchors are still the gold standard; infection and revision elbow arthroplasty; the variable success of elbow replacements; sliding knots; neurologic cuff pain and the suprascapular nerve; lies, damn lies and statistics; osteoarthritis; and one- or two-stage treatment for the infected shoulder revision.

We evaluated the impact of pre-coating the tibial component with polymethylmethacrylate (PMMA) on implant survival in a cohort of 16 548 primary NexGen total knee replacements (TKRs) in 14 113 patients. In 13 835 TKRs a pre-coated tray was used while in 2713 TKRs the non-pre-coated version of the same tray was used. All the TKRs were performed between 2001 and 2009 and were cemented. TKRs implanted with a pre-coated tibial component had a lower cumulative survival than those with a non-pre-coated tibial component (p = 0.01). After adjusting for diagnosis, age, gender, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, femoral coupling design, surgeon volume and hospital volume, pre-coating was an independent risk factor for all-cause aseptic revision (hazard ratio 2.75, p = 0.006). Revision for aseptic loosening was uncommon for both pre-coated and non-pre-coated trays (rates of 0.12% and 0%, respectively). Pre-coating with PMMA does not appear to be protective of revision for this tibial tray design at short-term follow-up.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:367–70.

The December 2012 Hip & Pelvis Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: swimming against the tide with resurfacing; hip impingement surgery; the relationship between obesity and co-morbidities and joint replacement infection; cemented hips; cross-linked polyethylene notching; whether cement is necessary in oncological arthroplasty; and how total hip replacement may result in weight gain.

As part of the national initiative to reduce waiting times for joint replacement surgery in Wales, the Cardiff and Vale NHS Trust referred 224 patients to the NHS Treatment Centre in Weston-Super-Mare for total knee replacement (TKR). A total of 258 Kinemax TKRs were performed between November 2004 and August 2006. Of these, a total of 199 patients (232 TKRs, 90%) have been followed up for five years. This cohort was compared with 258 consecutive TKRs in 250 patients, performed at Cardiff and Vale Orthopaedic Centre (CAVOC) over a similar time period. The five year cumulative survival rate was 80.6% (95% confidence interval (CI) 74.0 to 86.0) in the Weston-Super-Mare cohort and 95.0% (95% CI 90.2 to 98.2) in the CAVOC cohort with revision for any reason as the endpoint. The relative risk for revision at Weston-Super-Mare compared with CAVOC was 3.88 (p < 0.001). For implants surviving five years, the mean Oxford knee scores (OKS) and mean EuroQol (EQ-5D) scores were similar (OKS: Weston-Super-Mare 29 (2 to 47) vs CAVOC 29.8 (3 to 48), p = 0.61; EQ-5D: Weston-Super-Mare 0.53 (-0.38 to 1.00) vs CAVOC 0.55 (-0.32 to 1.00), p = 0.79). Patients with revised TKRs had significantly lower Oxford knee and EQ-5D scores (p < 0.001).

The results show a higher revision rate for patients operated at Weston-Super-Mare Treatment Centre, with a reduction in functional outcome and quality of life after revision. This further confirms that patients moved from one area to another for joint replacement surgery fare poorly.

We examined the association between patient-related factors and the risk of initial, short- and long-term implant failure after primary total hip replacement. We used data from the Danish Hip Arthroplasty Registry between 1 January 1995 and 31 December 2002, which gave us a total of 36 984 patients. Separate analyses were carried out for three follow-up periods: 0 to 30 days, 31 days to six months (short term), and six months to 8.6 years after primary total hip replacement (long term). The outcome measure was defined as time to failure, which included re-operation with open surgery for any reason.

Male gender and a high Charlson co-morbidity index score were strongly predictive for failure, irrespective of the period of follow-up. Age and diagnosis at primary total hip replacement were identified as time-dependent predictive factors of failure. During the first 30 days after primary total hip replacement, an age of 80 years or more and hip replacement undertaken as a sequela of trauma, for avascular necrosis or paediatric conditions, were associated with an increased risk of failure. However, during six months to 8.6 years after surgery, being less than 60 years old was associated with an increased risk of failure, whereas none of the diagnoses for primary total hip replacement appeared to be independent predictors.

Randomised controlled trials represent the gold standard in the evaluation of outcome of treatment. They are needed because differences between treatment effects have been minimised and observational studies may give a biased estimation of the outcome. However, conducting this kind of trial is challenging. Several methodological issues, including patient or surgeon preference, blinding, surgical standardisation, as well as external validity, have to be addressed in order to lower the risk of bias. Specific tools have been developed in order to take into account the specificity of evaluation of the literature on non-pharmacological intervention. A better knowledge of methodological issues will allow the orthopaedic surgeon to conduct more appropriate studies and to better appraise the limits of his intervention.