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. Methods. There will be two linked work packages focusing on opinion from key stakeholders (patients and surgeons). First, an online modified Delphi process to determine a consensus set of factors that should be involved in patient prioritization. This will be performed using standard Delphi methodology consisting of multiple rounds where following initial individual rating there is feedback, discussion, and further recommendations undertaken towards eventual consensus. The second stage will then consist of a Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) to allow for priority setting of the factors derived from the Delphi through elicitation of weighted benefit scores. The DCE consists of several choice tasks designed to elicit stakeholder preference regarding included attributes (factors). Results. The study is co-funded by the University of Aberdeen Knowledge Exchange Commission (Ref CF10693-29) and a Chief Scientist Office (CSO) Scotland Clinical Research Fellowship which runs from 08/2021 to 08/2024 (Grant ref: CAF/21/06). Approval from the University of Aberdeen Institute of Applied Health Sciences School Ethics Review Board was granted 22/03/2022 - Reference number SERB/2021/12/2210. Conclusion. The PATHWAY project provides the first attempt to use patient and surgeon opinions to develop a unified approach to prioritization for those awaiting hip and knee arthroplasty. Development of such a tool will provide more equitable access to arthroplasty services, as well as providing a framework for developing similar approaches in other areas of healthcare delivery. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(10):753–758

Aims. This study aimed to develop a virtual clinic for the purpose of reducing face-to-face orthopaedic consultations. Patients and Methods. Anonymized experts (hip and knee arthroplasty patients, surgeons, physiotherapists, radiologists, and arthroplasty practitioners) gave feedback via a Delphi Consensus Technique. This consisted of an iterative sequence of online surveys, during which virtual documents, made up of a patient-reported questionnaire, standardized radiology report, and decision-guiding algorithm, were modified until consensus was achieved. We tested the patient-reported questionnaire on seven patients in orthopaedic clinics using a ‘think-aloud’ process to capture difficulties with its completion. Results. A patient-reported 13-item questionnaire was developed covering pain, mobility, and activity. The radiology report included up to ten items (e.g. progressive periprosthetic bone loss) depending on the type of arthroplasty. The algorithm concludes in one of three outcomes: review at surgeon’s discretion (three to 12 months); see at next available clinic; or long-term follow-up/discharge. Conclusion. The virtual clinic approach with attendant documents achieved consensus by orthopaedic experts, radiologists, and patients. The robust development and testing of this standardized virtual clinic provided a sound platform for organizations in the United Kingdom to adopt a virtual clinic approach for follow-up of hip and knee arthroplasty patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:951–959

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

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.

Aims

Fungal prosthetic joint infections (PJIs) are rare and account for about 1% of total PJIs. Our aim was to present clinical and microbiological results in treating these patients with a two-stage approach and antifungal spacers.

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.