Total femoral arthroplasty (TFA) is a rare procedure used in cases of significant femoral bone loss, commonly from cancer, infection, and trauma. Low patient numbers have resulted in limited published work on long-term outcomes, and even less regarding TFA undertaken for non-oncological indications. The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term clinical outcomes of all TFAs in our unit. Data were collected retrospectively from a large tertiary referral revision arthroplasty unit’s database. Inclusion criteria included all patients who underwent TFA in our unit. Preoperative demographics, operative factors, and short- and long-term outcomes were collected for analysis. Outcome was defined using the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) outcome reporting tool.Aims
Methods
Access to joint replacement is being restricted for patients with comorbidities in a number of high-income countries. However, there is little evidence on the impact of comorbidities on outcomes. The purpose of this study was to determine the safety and effectiveness of hip and knee arthroplasty in patients with and without comorbidities. In total, 312,079 hip arthroplasty and 328,753 knee arthroplasty patients were included. A total of 11 common comorbidities were identified in administrative hospital records. Safety risks were measured by assessing length of hospital stay (LOS) and 30-day emergency readmissions and mortality. Effectiveness outcomes were changes in Oxford Hip or Knee Scores (OHS/OKS) (scale from 0 (worst) to 48 (best)) and in health-related quality of life (EQ-5D) (scale from 0 (death) to 1 (full health)) from immediately before, to six months after, surgery. Regression analysis was used to estimate adjusted mean differences (LOS, change in OHS/OKS/EQ-5D) and risk differences (readmissions and mortality).Aims
Methods
The enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) concept in arthroplasty surgery has led to a reduction in postoperative length of stay in recent years. Patients with prolonged length of stay (PLOS) add to the burden of a strained NHS. Our aim was to identify the main reasons. A PLOS was arbitrarily defined as an inpatient hospital stay of four days or longer from admission date. A total of 2,000 consecutive arthroplasty patients between September 2017 and July 2018 were reviewed. Of these, 1,878 patients were included after exclusion criteria were applied. Notes for 524 PLOS patients were audited to determine predominant reasons for PLOS.Introduction
Methods
The aim of this study was to give estimates of the incidence of component incompatibility in hip and knee arthroplasty and to test the effect of an online, real-time compatibility check. Intraoperative barcode registration of arthroplasty implants was introduced in Denmark in 2013. We developed a compatibility database and, from May 2017, real-time compatibility checking was implemented and became part of the registration. We defined four classes of component incompatibility: A-I, A-II, B-I, and B-II, depending on an assessment of the level of risk to the patient (A/B), and on whether incompatibility was knowingly accepted (I/II).Aims
Materials and Methods
Currently, the US Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) has been testing bundled payments for revision total joint arthroplasty (TJA) through the Bundled Payment for Care Improvement (BPCI) programme. Under the BPCI, bundled payments for revision TJAs are defined on the basis of diagnosis-related groups (DRGs). However, these DRG-based bundled payment models may not be adequate to account appropriately for the varying case-complexity seen in revision TJAs. The 2008-2014 Medicare 5% Standard Analytical Files (SAF5) were used to identify patients undergoing revision TJA under DRG codes 466, 467, or 468. Generalized linear regression models were built to assess the independent marginal cost-impact of patient, procedural, and geographic characteristics on 90-day costs.Aims
Methods
Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) is a potential treatment
for isolated bone on bone osteoarthritis when limited to a single
compartment. The risk for revision of UKA is three times higher
than for total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The aim of this review was
to discuss the different revision options after UKA failure. A search was performed for English language articles published
between 2006 and 2016. After reviewing titles and abstracts, 105
papers were selected for further analysis. Of these, 39 papers were
deemed to contain clinically relevant data to be included in this review.Objectives
Materials and Methods
Infection following total hip or knee arthroplasty is a serious
complication. We noted an increase in post-operative infection in
cases carried out in temporary operating theatres. We therefore
compared those cases performed in standard and temporary operating
theatres and examined the deep periprosthetic infection rates. A total of 1223 primary hip and knee arthroplasties were performed
between August 2012 and June 2013. A total of 539 (44%) were performed
in temporary theatres. The two groups were matched for age, gender,
body mass index and American Society of Anesthesiologists grade.Aims
Patients and methods
Initial stability of tibial trays is crucial for long-term success of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in both primary and revision settings. Rotating platform (RP) designs reduce torque transfer at the tibiofemoral interface. We asked if this reduced torque transfer in RP designs resulted in subsequently reduced micromotion at the cemented fixation interface between the prosthesis component and the adjacent bone. Composite tibias were implanted with fixed and RP primary and revision tibial trays and biomechanically tested under up to 2.5 kN of axial compression and 10° of external femoral component rotation. Relative micromotion between the implanted tibial tray and the neighbouring bone was quantified using high-precision digital image correlation techniques.Objectives
Methods
We reviewed systematically the published evidence on the effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis for the reduction of wound infection in patients undergoing total hip and total knee replacement. Publications were identified using the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL databases. We also contacted authors to identify unpublished trials. We included randomised controlled trials which compared any prophylaxis with none, the administration of systemic antibiotics with that of those in cement, cephalosporins with glycopeptides, cephalosporins with penicillin-derivatives, and second-generation with first-generation cephalosporins. A total of 26 studies (11 343 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Methodological quality was variable. In a meta-analysis of seven studies (3065 participants) antibiotic prophylaxis reduced the absolute risk of wound infection by 8% and the relative risk by 81% compared with no prophylaxis (p <
0.00001). No other comparison showed a significant difference in clinical effect. Antibiotic prophylaxis should be routine in joint replacement but the choice of agent should be made on the basis of cost and local availability.
The aim of this study was to perform a cost–utility
analysis of total hip (THR) and knee replacement (TKR). Arthritis is
a disabling condition that leads to long-term deterioration in quality
of life. Total joint replacement, despite being one of the greatest
advances in medicine of the modern era, has recently come under
scrutiny. The National Health Service (NHS) has competing demands,
and resource allocation is challenging in times of economic restraint. Patients
who underwent THR (n = 348) or TKR (n = 323) between January and
July 2010 in one Scottish region were entered into a prospective
arthroplasty database. A health–utility score was derived from the
EuroQol (EQ-5D) score pre-operatively and at one year, and was combined
with individual life expectancy to derive the quality-adjusted life years
(QALYs) gained. Two-way analysis of variance was used to compare
QALYs gained between procedures, while controlling for baseline
differences. The number of QALYs gained was higher after THR than
after TKR (6.5 Cite this article:
