We have investigated whether the use of laminar-flow theatres and space suits reduced the rate of revision for early deep infection after total hip (THR) and knee (TKR) replacement by reviewing the results of the New Zealand Joint Registry at ten years.

Of the 51 485 primary THRs and 36 826 primary TKRs analysed, laminar-flow theatres were used in 35.5% and space suits in 23.5%. For THR there was a significant increase in early infection in those procedures performed with the use of a space suit compared with those without (p < 0.0001), in those carried out in a laminar-flow theatre compared with a conventional theatre (p < 0.003) and in those undertaken in a laminar-flow theatre with a space suit (p < 0.001) when compared with conventional theatres without such a suit. The results were similar for TKR with the use of a space suit (p < 0.001), in laminar-flow theatres (p < 0.019) and when space suits were used in those theatres (p < 0.001). These findings were independent of age, disease and operating time and were unchanged when the surgeons and hospital were analysed individually.

The rate of revision for early deep infection has not been reduced by using laminar flow and space suits. Our results question the rationale for their increasing use in routine joint replacement, where the added cost to the health system seems to be unjustified.

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.