Aims. Our aim was to estimate the total costs of all hospitalizations for treating periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) by main management strategy within 24 months post-diagnosis using activity-based costing. Additionally, we investigated the influence of individual PJI treatment pathways on hospital costs within the first 24 months. Methods. Using admission and procedure data from a prospective observational cohort in Australia and New Zealand, Australian Refined Diagnosis Related Groups were assigned to each admitted patient episode of care for activity-based costing estimates of 273 hip PJI patients and 377 knee PJI patients. Costs were aggregated at 24 months post-diagnosis, and are presented in Australian dollars. Results. The mean cost per hip and knee PJI patient was $64,585 (SD $53,550). Single-stage revision mean costs were $67,029 (SD $47,116) and $80,063 (SD $42,438) for hip and knee, respectively. Two-stage revision costs were $113,226 (SD $66,724) and $122,425 (SD $60,874) for hip and knee, respectively. Debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention in hips and knees mean costs were $53,537 (SD$ 39,342) and $48,463 (SD $33,179), respectively. Suppressive antibiotic therapy without surgical management mean costs were $20,296 (SD $8,875) for hip patients and $16,481 (SD $6,712) for knee patients. Hip patients had 16 different treatment pathways and knee patients had 18 treatment pathways. Additional treatment, episodes of care, and length of stay contributed to substantially increased costs up to a maximum of $369,948. Conclusion. Treating PJI incurs a substantial cost burden, which is substantially influenced by management strategy. With an annual PJI incidence of 3,900, the cost burden would be in excess of $250 million to the Australian healthcare system. Treatment pathways with additional surgery, more episodes of care, and a longer length of stay substantially increase the associated hospital costs. Prospectively monitoring individual patient treatment pathways beyond initial management is important when quantifying PJI treatment cost. Our study highlights the importance of optimizing initial surgical treatment, and informs treating hospitals of the resources required to provide care for PJI patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(10):1084–1092

Aims. The aim of this meta-analysis is to assess the association between exchange of modular parts in debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) procedure and outcomes for hip and knee periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Methods. We conducted a systematic search on PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane library from inception until May 2021. Random effects meta-analyses and meta-regression was used to estimate, on a study level, the success rate of DAIR related to component exchange. Risk of bias was appraised using the (AQUILA) checklist. Results. We included 65 studies comprising 6,630 patients. The pooled overall success after DAIR for PJI was 67% (95% confidence interval (CI) 63% to 70%). This was 70% (95% CI 65% to 75%) for DAIR for hip PJI and 63% (95% CI 58% to 69%) for knee PJI. In studies before 2004 (n = 27), our meta-regression analysis showed a 3.5% increase in success rates for each 10% increase in component exchange in DAIR for hip PJI and a 3.1% increase for each 10% increase in component exchange for knee PJI. When restricted to studies after 2004 (n = 37), this association changed: for DAIR for hip PJI a decrease in successful outcome by 0.5% for each 10% increase in component exchange and for DAIR for knee PJI this was a 0.01% increase in successful outcome for each 10% increase in component exchange. Conclusion. This systematic review and meta-regression found no benefit of modular component exchange on reduction of PJI failure. This limited effect should be weighed against the risks for the patient and cost on a case-by-case basis. The association between exchange of modular components and outcome changed before and after 2004. This suggests the effect seen after 2004 may reflect a more rigorous, evidence-based, approach to the infected implant compared to the years before. Level of Evidence: Level III. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(10):806–812

Aims. The COVID-19 pandemic has caused unprecedented disruption to elective orthopaedic services. The primary objective of this study was to examine changes in functional scores in patients awaiting total hip arthroplasty (THA), total knee arthroplasty (TKA), and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). Secondary objectives were to investigate differences between these groups and identify those in a health state ‘worse than death’ (WTD). Methods. In this prospective cohort study, preoperative Oxford hip and knee scores (OHS/OKS) were recorded for patients added to a waiting list for THA, TKA, or UKA, during the initial eight months of the COVID-19 pandemic, and repeated at 14 months into the pandemic (mean interval nine months (SD 2.84)). EuroQoL five-dimension five-level health questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) index scores were also calculated at this point in time, with a negative score representing a state WTD. OHS/OKS were analyzed over time and in relation to the EQ-5D-5L. Results. A total of 174 patients (58 THA, 74 TKA, 42 UKA) were eligible, after 27 were excluded (one died, seven underwent surgery, 19 non-responders). The overall mean OHS/OKS deteriorated from 15.43 (SD 6.92), when patients were added to the waiting list, to 11.77 (SD 6.45) during the pandemic (p < 0.001). There were significantly worse EQ-5D-5L index scores in the THA group (p = 0.005), with 22 of these patients (38%) in a health state WTD, than either the TKA group (20 patients; 27% WTD), or the UKA group (nine patients; 21% WTD). A strong positive correlation between the EQ-5D-5L index score and OHS/OKS was observed (r = 0.818; p < 0.001). Receiver operating characteristic analysis revealed that an OHS/OKS lower than nine predicted a health state WTD (88% sensitivity and 73% specificity). Conclusion. OHS/OKS deteriorated significantly among patients awaiting lower limb arthroplasty during the COVID-19 pandemic. Overall, 51 patients were in a health state WTD, representing 29% of our entire cohort, which is considerably worse than existing pre-pandemic data. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(3):138–145

Aims. This study aimed to evaluate the BioFire Joint Infection (JI) Panel in cases of hip and knee periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) where conventional microbiology is unclear, and to assess its role as a complementary intraoperative diagnostic tool. Methods. Five groups representing common microbiological scenarios in hip and knee revision arthroplasty were selected from our arthroplasty registry, prospectively maintained PJI databases, and biobank: 1) unexpected-negative cultures (UNCs), 2) unexpected-positive cultures (UPCs), 3) single-positive intraoperative cultures (SPCs), and 4) clearly septic and 5) aseptic cases. In total, 268 archived synovial fluid samples from 195 patients who underwent acute/chronic revision total hip or knee arthroplasty were included. Cases were classified according to the International Consensus Meeting 2018 criteria. JI panel evaluation of synovial fluid was performed, and the results were compared with cultures. Results. The JI panel detected microorganisms in 7/48 (14.5%) and 15/67 (22.4%) cases related to UNCs and SPCs, respectively, but not in cases of UPCs. The correlation between JI panel detection and infection classification criteria for early/late acute and chronic PJI was 46.6%, 73%, and 40%, respectively. Overall, the JI panel identified 12.6% additional microorganisms and three new species. The JI panel pathogen identification showed a sensitivity and specificity of 41.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 33.7 to 49.5) and 91.1% (95% CI 84.7 to 94.9), respectively. In total, 19/195 (9.7%) could have been managed differently and more accurately upon JI panel evaluation. Conclusion. Despite its microbial limitation, JI panel demonstrated clinical usefulness by complementing the traditional methods based on multiple cultures, particularly in PJI with unclear microbiological results. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2024;13(7):353–361

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

Aims

Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) remains a serious complication that is associated with high morbidity and costs. The aim of this study was to prepare a systematic review to examine patient-related and perioperative risk factors that can be modified in an attempt to reduce the rate of PJI.

Aims. The success rates of two-stage revision arthroplasty for infection have evolved since their early description. The implementation of internationally accepted outcome criteria led to the readjustment of such rates. However, patients who do not undergo reimplantation are usually set aside from these calculations. The aim of this study was to investigate the outcomes of two-stage revision arthroplasty when considering those who do not undergo reimplantation, and to investigate the characteristics of this subgroup. Methods. A retrospective cohort study was conducted. Patients with chronic hip or knee periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) treated with two-stage revision between January 2010 and October 2018, with a minimum follow-up of one year, were included. Variables including demography, morbidity, microbiology, and outcome were collected. The primary endpoint was the eradication of infection. Patients who did not undergo reimplantation were analyzed in order to characterize this subgroup better. Results. A total of 162 chronic PJIs were included in the study. After a mean follow-up of 57.3 months (12.1 to 115.7), 18 patients (11.1%) did not undergo reimplantation, due either to medical issues (10), the patient’s choice (4), or death (4). When only considering those who underwent reimplantation, the success rate was 80.6%. However, when those who did not undergo reimplantation were included, the success rate dropped to 71.6%. Advanced age, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade ≥ III, McPherson’s C host, and Gram-negative related PJI were independent risk factors for retention of the spacer. The mortality was higher in the non-reimplanted group. Conclusion. The real success rate of two-stage revision may not be as high as previously reported. The exclusion of patients who do not undergo reimplantation resulted in a 9% overestimation of the success rate in this series. Many comorbidity-related risk factors for retention of the spacer were identified, as well as higher death rates in this group. Efforts should be made to optimize these patients medically in order to increase reimplantation and success rates, while decreasing mortality. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(12):1682–1688

The Oxford hip and knee scores are used to measure the outcome after primary total hip and knee replacement. We propose a new layout for the instrument in which patients are always asked about both limbs. In addition, we have defined an alternative scoring method which accounts for missing data. Over a period of 4.5 years, 4086 (1423 patients) and 5708 (1458 patients) questionnaires were completed for hips and knees, respectively. The hip score had a pre-operative median of 70.8 (interquartile range (IQR) 58.3 to 81.2) decreasing to 20.8 (IQR 10.4 to 35.4) after one year. The knee score had a pre-operative median of 68.8 (IQR 56.2 to 79.2) decreasing to 29.2 (IQR 14.6 to 45.8). There was no further significant change in either score after one year. As a result of the data analysis, we suggest that the score percentiles can be used as a standard for auditing patients before and after operation

The Oxford hip and knee scores have been extensively used since they were first described in 1996 and 1998. During this time, they have been modified and used for many different purposes. This paper describes how they should be used and seeks to clarify areas of confusion

Aims

Day-case success rates after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA), total knee arthroplasty (TKA), and medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (mUKA) may vary, and detailed data are needed on causes of not being discharged. The aim of this study was to analyze the association between surgical procedure type and successful day-case surgery, and to analyze causes of not being discharged on the day of surgery when eligible and scheduled for day-case THA, TKA, and mUKA.

Aims

The extended wait that most patients are now experiencing for hip and knee arthroplasty has raised questions about whether reliance on waiting time as the primary driver for prioritization is ethical, and if other additional factors should be included in determining surgical priority. Our Prioritization of THose aWaiting hip and knee ArthroplastY (PATHWAY) project will explore which perioperative factors are important to consider when prioritizing those on the waiting list for hip and knee arthroplasty, and how these factors should be weighted. The final product will include a weighted benefit score that can be used to aid in surgical prioritization for those awaiting elective primary hip and knee arthroplasty.

Joint replacement of the hip and knee remain very satisfactory operations. They are, however, expensive. The actual manufacturing of the implant represents only 30% of the final cost, while sales and marketing represent 40%. Recently, the patents on many well established and successful implants have expired. Companies have started producing and distributing implants that purport to replicate existing implants with good long-term results. The aims of this paper are to assess the legality, the monitoring and cost saving implications of such generic implants. We also assess how this might affect the traditional orthopaedic implant companies. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:892–900

Aims. The aim of this study was to establish the diagnostic accuracy of culture of joint aspirate with and without saline injection-reaspiration. Patients and Methods. This is a retrospective analysis of 580 hip and knee aspirations in patients who were deemed to have a moderate to high risk of infection, and who subsequently proceeded to revision arthroplasty over a period of 12 years. It was carried out at a large quaternary referral centre where preoperative aspiration is routine. Results. Fluid was aspirated primarily in 313 (54%) cases and after saline injection-reaspiration of a ‘dry tap’ in 267 (46%) cases. Overall sensitivity and specificity of the diagnostic aspirate were 84% (78% to 89%) and 85% (81% to 88%), respectively. Sensitivity and specificity of saline injection-reaspiration after ‘dry tap’ were 87% (79% to 92%) and 79% (72% to 84%) compared with 81% (71% to 88%) and 90% (85% to 93%) for direct aspiration. Conclusion. Preoperative joint aspiration and culture is a sensitive and specific test for the confirmation of diagnosis in patients at a moderate to high risk of prosthetic joint infection. Culture of saline injection-reaspiration also provides accurate diagnostic information in the event of a ‘dry tap’. Both methods allow susceptibility testing of relevant organisms and are therefore able to guide perioperative antibiotic therapy. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2018;100-B:749–54

Objectives. The Oxford Hip and Knee Scores (OHS, OKS) have been demonstrated to vary according to age and gender, making it difficult to compare results in cohorts with different demographics. The aim of this paper was to calculate reference values for different patient groups and highlight the concept of normative reference data to contextualise an individual’s outcome. Methods. We accessed prospectively collected OHS and OKS data for patients undergoing lower limb joint arthroplasty at a single orthopaedic teaching hospital during a five-year period. T-scores were calculated based on the OHS and OKS distributions. . Results. Data were obtained from 3203 total hip arthroplasty (THA) patients and 2742 total knee arthroplasty (TKA) patients. The mean age of the patient was 68.0 years (. sd. 11.3, 58.4% women) in the THA group and in 70.2 (. sd. 9.4; 57.5% women) in the TKA group. T-scores were calculated for age and gender subgroups by operation. Different T-score thresholds are seen at different time points pre and post surgery. Values are further stratified by operation (THA/TKA) age and gender. Conclusions. Normative data interpretation requires a fundamental shift in the thinking as to the use of the Oxford Scores. Instead of reporting actual score points, the patient is rated by their relative position within the group of all patients undergoing the same procedure. It is proposed that this form of transformation is beneficial (a) for more appropriately comparing different patient cohorts and (b) informing an individual patient how they are progressing compared with others of their age and gender. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2015;4:137–144

Aims

Calprotectin (CLP) is produced in neutrophils and monocytes and released into body fluids as a result of inflammation or infection. The aim of this study was to evaluate the utility of blood and synovial CLP in the diagnosis of chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI).

Twenty-six patients with rheumatoid arthritis who had undergone bilateral replacement of the hip and knee were reviewed at a mean follow-up time of 51.6 months. A further operation was necessary in five patients due to complications of replacement of the knee, and seven patients still had significant pain in at least one replaced joint. There were no cases of infection due to operation. Seventeen of the patients still used walking aids, but one-third of these did so because of pain in joints that had not been replaced. Patients preferred painless total replacement of the hip to that of the knee

If patients could recall their physical status before total hip (THA) or knee arthroplasty (TKA) accurately it could have valuable applications both clinically and for research. This study evaluated the accuracy of a patient’s recollection one year after either THA or TKA using the Oxford hip or knee scores (OHS and OKS). In total, 113 patients (59 THA, 54 TKA) who had completed the appropriate score pre-operatively were asked to complete the score again at a mean of 12.4 months (standard deviation (. sd. ) 0.8) after surgery, recalling their pre-operative state. While there were no significant differences between the actual and recalled pre-operative scores (OHS mean difference 0.8, . sd. 6.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.82 to 2.42, p = 0.329; OKS mean difference -0.11, . sd. 7.34, 95% CI -2.11 to 1.89, p = 0.912), absolute differences were relatively large (OHS, 5.24; OKS, 5.41), correlation was weak (OHS r = 0.7, OKS r = 0.61) and agreement between actual and recalled responses for individual questions was poor in half of the OHS and two thirds of the OKS. A patient’s recollection of pre-operative pain and function is inaccurate one year after THA or TKA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1070–5

We present a 25-year-old patient with juvenile rheumatoid arthritis and ankylosis of both hips and both knees treated by staged bilateral hip and knee arthroplasty. She was followed up for 18 months. We discuss the pre-operative planning, surgical details and post-operative rehabilitation

We analysed data from the Oxford hip and knee questionnaires collected by the New Zealand Joint Registry at six months and five years after joint replacement, to determine if there was any relationship between the scores and the risk of early revision. Logistic regression of the six-month scores indicated that for every one-unit decrease in the Oxford score, the risk of revision within two years increased by 9.7% for total hip replacement (THR), 9.9% for total knee replacement (TKR) and 12.0% for unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR). Our findings showed that 70% of the revisions within two years for TKR and 67% for THR and UKR would have been captured by monitoring the lowest 22%, 28% and 28%, respectively, of the Oxford scores. When analysed using the Kalairajah classification a score of < 27 (poor) was associated with a risk of revision within two years of 7.6% for THR, 7.0% for TKR and 24.3% for UKR, compared with risks of 0.7%, 0.7% and 1.8%, respectively, for scores > 34 (good or excellent). Our study confirms that the Oxford hip and knee scores at six months are useful predictors of early revision after THR and TKR and we recommend their use for the monitoring of the outcome and potential failure in these patients

Aims. To validate the English language Forgotten Joint Score-12 (FJS-12) as a tool to evaluate the outcome of hip and knee arthroplasty in a United Kingdom population. Patients and Methods. All patients undergoing surgery between January and August 2014 were eligible for inclusion. Prospective data were collected from 205 patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA) and 231 patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Outcomes were assessed with the FJS-12 and the Oxford Hip and Knee Scores (OHS, OKS) pre-operatively, then at six and 12 months post-operatively. Internal consistency, convergent validity, effect size, relative validity and ceiling effects were determined. Results. Data for the TKA and THA patients showed high internal consistency for the FJS-12 (Cronbach α = 0.97 in TKAs, 0.98 in THAs). Convergent validity with the Oxford Scores was high (r = 0.85 in TKAs, r = 0.79 for THAs). From six to 12 months, the change was higher for the FJS-12 than for the OHS in THA patients (effect size d = 0.21 versus -0.03). Ceiling effects at one-year follow-up were low for the FJS-12 with just 3.9% (TKA) and 8.8% (THA) of patients achieving the best possible score. Conclusion. The FJS-12 has strong measurement properties in terms of validity, internal consistency and sensitivity to change in TKA and THA patients. Low ceiling effects and good relative validity allow the monitoring of longer term outcomes, particularly in well-performing groups after total joint arthroplasty. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:218–24