Aims. Understanding of open fracture management is skewed due to reliance on small-number lower limb, specialist unit reports and large, unfocused registry data collections. To address this, we carried out the Open Fracture Patient Evaluation Nationwide (OPEN) study, and report the demographic details and the initial steps of care for patients admitted with open fractures in the UK. Methods. Any patient admitted to hospital with an open fracture between 1 June 2021 and 30 September 2021 was included, excluding phalanges and isolated hand injuries. Institutional information governance approval was obtained at the lead site and all data entered using Research Electronic Data Capture. Demographic details, injury, fracture classification, and patient dispersal were detailed. Results. In total, 1,175 patients (median age 47 years (interquartile range (IQR) 29 to 65), 61.0% male (n = 717)) were admitted across 51 sites. A total of 546 patients (47.1%) were employed, 5.4% (n = 63) were diabetic, and 28.8% (n = 335) were smokers. In total, 29.0% of patients (n = 341) had more than one injury and 4.8% (n = 56) had two or more open fractures, while 51.3% of fractures (n = 637) occurred in the lower leg. Fractures sustained in vehicle incidents and collisions are common (38.8%; n = 455) and typically seen in younger patients. A simple fall (35.0%; n = 410) is common in older people. Overall, 69.8% (n = 786) of patients were admitted directly to an orthoplastic centre, 23.0% (n = 259) were transferred to an orthoplastic centre after initial management elsewhere, and 7.2% were managed outwith specialist units (n = 81). Conclusion. This study describes the epidemiology of open fractures in the UK. For a decade, orthopaedic surgeons have been practicing in a guideline-driven, network system without understanding the patient features, injury characteristics, or dispersal processes of the wider population. This work will inform care pathways as the UK looks to the future of trauma networks and guidelines, and how to optimize care for patients with open fractures. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(10):746–752

Aims. The Open-Fracture Patient Evaluation Nationwide (OPEN) study was performed to provide clarity in open fracture management previously skewed by small, specialist centre studies and large, unfocused registry investigations. We report the current management metrics of open fractures across the UK. Method. Patients admitted to hospital with an open fracture (excluding phalanges or isolated hand injuries) between 1 June 2021 and 30 September 2021 were included. Institutional information governance approval was obtained at the lead site and all data entered using Research Electronic Data Capture software. All domains of the British Orthopaedic Association Standard for Open Fracture Management were recorded. Results. Across 51 centres, 1,175 patients were analyzed. Antibiotics were given to 754 (69.0%) in the emergency department, 240 (22.0%) pre-hospital, and 99 (9.1%) as inpatients. Wounds were photographed in 848 (72.7%) cases. Median time to first surgery was 16 hrs 14 mins (interquartile range (IQR) 8 hrs 29 mins to 23 hrs 19 mins). Complex injuries were operated on sooner (median 12 hrs 51 mins (IQR 4 hrs 36 mins to 21 hrs 14 mins)). Of initial procedures, 1,053 (90.3%) occurred between 8am and 8pm. A consultant orthopaedic surgeon was present at 1,039 (89.2%) first procedures. In orthoplastic centres, a consultant plastic surgeon was present at 465 (45.1%) first procedures. Overall, 706 (60.8%) patients required a single operation. At primary debridement, 798 (65.0%) fractures were definitively fixed, while 734 (59.8%) fractures had fixation and coverage in one operation through direct closure or soft-tissue coverage. Negative pressure wound therapy was used in 235 (67.7%) staged procedures. Following wound closure or soft-tissue cover, 509 (47.0%) patients received antibiotics for a median of three days (IQR 1 to 7). Conclusion. OPEN provides an insight into care across the UK and different levels of hospital for open fractures. Patients are predominantly operated on promptly, in working hours, and at specialist centres. Areas for improvement include combined patient review and follow-up, scheduled operating, earlier definitive soft-tissue cover, and more robust antibiotic husbandry. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(9):1073–1080

Aims. Slipped capital femoral epiphysis (SCFE) is one of the most common hip diseases of adolescence that can cause marked disability, yet there is little robust evidence to guide treatment. Fundamental aspects of the disease, such as frequency, are unknown and consequently the desire of clinicians to undertake robust intervention studies is somewhat prohibited by a lack of fundamental knowledge. Methods. The study is an anonymized nationwide comprehensive cohort study with nested consented within the mechanism of the British Orthopaedic Surgery Surveillance (BOSS) Study. All relevant hospitals treating SCFE in England, Scotland, and Wales will contribute anonymized case details. Potential missing cases will be cross-checked against two independent external sources of data (the national administrative data and independent trainee data). Patients will be invited to enrich the data collected by supplementing anonymized case data with patient-reported outcome measures. In line with recommendations of the IDEAL Collaboration, the study will primarily seek to determine incidence, describe case mix and variations in surgical interventions, and explore the relationships between baseline factors (patients and types of interventions) and two-year outcomes. Discussion. This is the first disease to be investigated using the BOSS Study infrastructure. It provides a robust method to determine the disease frequency, and a large unbiased sample of cases from which treatment strategies can be investigated. It may form the basis for definitive robust intervention studies or, where these are demonstrated not to be feasible, this may be the most robust cohort study

We present detailed information about early morbidity after aseptic revision knee replacement from a nationwide study. All aseptic revision knee replacements undertaken between 1st October 2009 and 30th September 2011 were analysed using the Danish National Patient Registry with additional information from the Danish Knee Arthroplasty Registry. The 1218 revisions involving 1165 patients were subdivided into total revisions, large partial revisions, partial revisions and revisions of unicondylar replacements (UKR revisions). The mean age was 65.0 years (27 to 94) and the median length of hospital stay was four days (interquartile range: 3 to 5), with a 90 days re-admission rate of 9.9%, re-operation rate of 3.5% and mortality rate of 0.2%. The age ranges of 51 to 55 years (p = 0.018), 76 to 80 years (p < 0.001) and ≥ 81 years (p < 0.001) were related to an increased risk of re-admission. The age ranges of 76 to 80 years (p = 0.018) and the large partial revision subgroup (p = 0.073) were related to an increased risk of re-operation. The ages from 76 to 80 years (p < 0.001), age ≥ 81 years (p < 0.001) and surgical time > 120 min (p <  0.001) were related to increased length of hospital stay, whereas the use of a tourniquet (p = 0.008) and surgery in a low volume centre (p = 0.013) were related to shorter length of stay. . In conclusion, we found a similar incidence of early post-operative morbidity after aseptic knee revisions as has been reported after primary procedures. This suggests that a length of hospital stay ≤ four days and discharge home at that time is safe following aseptic knee revision surgery in Denmark. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B:1649–56

Aims

The aim of this study was to examine perioperative blood transfusion practice, and associations with clinical outcomes, in a national cohort of hip fracture patients.

The December 2022 Trauma Roundup. 360. looks at: Anterior approach for acetabular fractures using anatomical plates; Masquelet–Ilizarov for the management of bone loss post debridement of infected tibial nonunion; Total hip arthroplasty – better results after low-energy displaced femoral neck fracture in young patients; Unreamed intramedullary nailing versus external fixation for the treatment of open tibial shaft fractures in Uganda: a randomized clinical trial; The Open-Fracture Patient Evaluation Nationwide (OPEN) study: the management of open fracture care in the UK; Cost-utility analysis of cemented hemiarthroplasty versus hydroxyapatite-coated uncemented hemiarthroplasty; Unstable ankle fractures: fibular nail fixation compared to open reduction and internal fixation; Long-term outcomes of randomized clinical trials: wrist and calcaneus; ‘HeFT’y follow-up of the UK Heel Fracture Trial

The December 2022 Research Roundup. 360. looks at: Halicin is effective against Staphylococcus aureus biofilms in vitro; Synovial fluid and serum neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio: useful in septic arthritis?; Transcutaneous oximetry and wound healing; Orthopaedic surgery causes gut microbiome dysbiosis and intestinal barrier dysfunction; Mortality in alcohol-related cirrhosis: a nationwide population-based cohort study; Self-reported resistance training is associated with better bone microarchitecture in vegan people

Aims. This observational cross-sectional study aimed to answer the following questions: 1) how has nonunion incidence developed from 2009 to 2019 in a nationwide cohort; 2) what is the age and sex distribution of nonunions for distinct anatomical nonunion localizations; and 3) how high were the costs for surgical nonunion treatment in a level 1 trauma centre in Germany?. Methods. Data consisting of annual International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10 diagnosis codes from German medical institutions from 2009 to 2019, provided by the Federal Statistical Office of Germany (Destatis), were analyzed. Nonunion incidence was calculated for anatomical localization, sex, and age groups. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were determined and compared with a two-sample z-test. Diagnosis-related group (DRG)-reimbursement and length of hospital stay were retrospectively retrieved for each anatomical localization, considering 210 patients. Results. In 2019, a total of 11,840 nonunion cases (17.4/100,000 inhabitants) were treated. In comparison to 2018, the incidence of nonunion increased by 3% (IRR 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 1.99, p = 0.935). The incidence was higher for male cases (IRR female/male: 0.79, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.82, p = 0.484). Most nonunions occurred at the pelvic and hip region (3.6/100,000 inhabitants, 95% CI 3.5 to 3.8), followed by the ankle and foot as well as the hand (2.9/100,000 inhabitants each). Mean estimated DRG reimbursement for in-hospital treatment of nonunions was highest for nonunions at the pelvic and hip region (€8,319 (SD 2,410), p < 0.001). Conclusion. Despite attempts to improve fracture treatment in recent years, nonunions remain a problem for orthopaedic and trauma surgery, with a stable incidence throughout the last decade. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2022;11(8):541–547

Aims. The aim of this study was to investigate the association between additional rehabilitation at the weekend, and in-hospital mortality and complications in patients with hip fracture who underwent surgery. Methods. A retrospective cohort study was conducted in Japan using a nationwide multicentre database from April 2010 to March 2018, including 572,181 patients who had received hip fracture surgery. Propensity score matching was performed to compare patients who received additional weekend rehabilitation at the weekend in addition to rehabilitation on weekdays after the surgery (plus-weekends group), as well as those who did not receive additional rehabilitation at the weekend but did receive weekday rehabilitation (weekdays-only group). After the propensity score matching of 259,168 cases, in-hospital mortality as the primary outcome and systemic and surgical complications as the secondary outcomes were compared between the two groups. Results. The plus-weekends group was significantly associated with lower in-hospital mortality rates compared with the weekdays-only group (hazard ratio 0.86; 95% confidence interval 0.8 to 0.92; p < 0.001). Systemic complications such as acute coronary syndrome, heart failure, renal failure, and sepsis were significantly lower in the plus-weekends group, whereas urinary tract infection (UTI) and surgical complications such as surgical site infection and haematoma were significantly higher in the plus-weekends group. Conclusion. Additional weekend rehabilitation was significantly associated with lower in-hospital mortality, as well as acute coronary syndrome, heart failure, renal failure, and sepsis, but was also significantly associated with a higher risk of UTI and surgical complications. This result can facilitate the effective use of the limited rehabilitation resources at the weekend and improve the clinical awareness of specific complications. To establish more robust causal associations between additional rehabilitation over the weekend and clinical outcomes, further prospective studies or randomized controlled trials with larger sample sizes are warranted. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(8):872–879

The February 2023 Spine Roundup. 360. looks at: S2AI screws: At what cost?; Just how good is spinal deformity surgery?; Is 80 years of age too late in the day for spine surgery?; Factors affecting the accuracy of pedicle screw placement in robot-assisted surgery; Factors causing delay in discharge in patients eligible for ambulatory lumbar fusion surgery; Anterior cervical discectomy or fusion and selective laminoplasty for cervical spondylotic myelopathy; Surgery for cervical radiculopathy: what is the complication burden?; Hypercholesterolemia and neck pain; Return to work after surgery for cervical radiculopathy: a nationwide registry-based observational study

The February 2023 Oncology Roundup. 360. looks at: Is the number of national database research studies in musculoskeletal sarcoma increasing, and are these studies reliable?; Re-excision after unplanned excision of soft-tissue sarcoma is associated with high morbidity; Adjuvant radiation in atypical lipomatous tumours; The oncological outcomes of isolated limb perfusion and neoadjuvant radiotherapy in soft-tissue sarcoma patients - a nationwide multicentre study; Can low-grade chondrosarcoma be treated with intralesional curettage and cryotherapy?; Efficacy and safety of carbon ion radiotherapy for bone sarcomas: a systematic review and meta-analysis; Doxorubicin-polymeric meshes prevent local recurrence after sarcoma resection while avoiding cardiotoxicity; How important are skip lesions in Ewing’s sarcoma?; Improving outcomes for amputees: the health-related quality of life and cost utility analysis of osseointegration prosthetics in transfemoral amputees

Aims. This study sought to estimate the clinical outcomes and describe the nationwide variation in practice, as part of the feasibility workup for a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommended randomized clinical trial to determine the optimal treatment of torus fractures of the distal radius in children. Methods. Prospective data collection on torus fractures presenting to our emergency department. Patient consent and study information, including a copy of the Wong-Baker Faces pain score, was issued at the first patient contact. An automated text message service recorded pain scores at days 0, 3, 7, 21, and 42 postinjury. A cross-sectional survey of current accident and emergency practice in the UK was also undertaken to gauge current practice following the publication of NICE guidance. Results. In all, 30 patients with a mean age of 8.9 years were enrolled over a six-week period. Of the 150 potential data points, data was captured in 146, making the data 97.3% complete. Pain scores were recorded at day 0 (mean 6.5 (95% confidence interval (CI) 5.7 to 7.3)), day 3 (4.4 (95% CI 3.5 to 5.2)), day 7 (3.0 (95% CI 2.3 to 3.6)), day 21 (1.2 (95% CI 0.7 to 1.7)) and day 42 (0.4 (95% CI 0.1 to 0.7)). Of the 100 units who participated in the nationwide survey, 38% were unaware of any local or national protocols regarding torus fractures, 41% treated torus fractures with cast immobilization, and over 60% of patients had follow-up arranged, both contradictory to national guidelines. Conclusion. We have demonstrated the severity, recovery trajectory, and variation in pain scores among children with torus fractures. We demonstrate excellent follow-up of patient outcomes using text messages. Despite national guidelines, there is significant variation in practice. This data directly informed the development of an ongoing nationwide randomized clinical trial – the FORearm Fracture Recovery in Children Evaluation (FORCE) study

Aims. Diabetic foot care is a significant burden on the NHS in England. We have conducted a nationwide survey to determine the current participation of orthopaedic surgeons in diabetic foot care in England. Methods. A questionnaire was sent to all 136 NHS trusts audited in the 2018 National Diabetic Foot Audit (NDFA). The questionnaire asked about the structure of diabetic foot care services. Results. Overall, 123 trusts responded, of which 117 admitted patients with diabetic foot disease and 113 had an orthopaedic foot and ankle surgeon. A total of 90 trusts (77%) stated that the admission involved medicine, with 53 (45%) of these admissions being exclusively under medicine, and 37 (32%) as joint admissions. Of the joint admissions, 16 (14%) were combined with vascular and 12(10%) with orthopaedic surgery. Admission is solely under vascular surgery in 12 trusts (10%) and orthopaedic surgery in 7 (6%). Diabetic foot abscesses were drained by orthopaedic surgeons in 61 trusts (52%) and vascular surgeons in 47 (40%). Conclusion. Orthopaedic surgeons make a significant contribution to both acute and elective diabetic foot care currently in the UK. This contribution is likely to increase with the movement of vascular surgery to a hub and spoke model, and measures should be put in place to increase the team based approach to the diabetic foot, for example with the introduction of a best practice tariff. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(8):618–622

Introduction. There is widespread variation in the management of rare orthopaedic disease, in a large part owing to uncertainty. No individual surgeon or hospital is typically equipped to amass sufficient numbers of cases to draw robust conclusions from the information available to them. The programme of research will establish the British Orthopaedic Surgery Surveillance (BOSS) Study; a nationwide reporting structure for rare disease in orthopaedic surgery. Methods. The BOSS Study is a series of nationwide observational cohort studies of pre-specified orthopaedic disease. All relevant hospitals treating the disease are invited to contribute anonymised case details. Data will be collected digitally through REDCap, with an additional bespoke software solution used to regularly confirm case ascertainment, prompt follow-up reminders and identify potential missing cases from external sources of information (i.e. national administrative data). With their consent, patients will be invited to enrich the data collected by supplementing anonymised case data with patient reported outcomes. The study will primarily seek to calculate the incidence of the rare diseases under investigation, with 95% confidence intervals. Descriptive statistics will be used to describe the case mix, treatment variations and outcomes. Inferential statistical analysis may be used to analyze associations between presentation factors and outcomes. Types of analyses will be contingent on the disease under investigation. Discussion. This study builds upon other national rare disease supporting structures, particularly those in obstetrics and paediatric surgery. It is particularly focused on addressing the evidence base for quality and safety of surgery, and the design is influenced by the specifications of the IDEAL collaboration for the development of surgical research

Aims. Is it feasible to conduct a definitive multicentre trial in community settings of corticosteroid injections (CSI) and hydrodilation (HD) compared to CSI for patients with frozen shoulder? An adequately powered definitive randomized controlled trial (RCT) delivered in primary care will inform clinicians and the public whether hydrodilation is a clinically and cost-effective intervention. In this study, prior to a full RCT, we propose a feasibility trial to evaluate recruitment and retention by patient and clinician willingness of randomization; rates of withdrawal, crossover and attrition; and feasibility of outcome data collection from routine primary and secondary care data. Methods. In the UK, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) advises that prompt early management of frozen shoulder is initiated in primary care settings with analgesia, physiotherapy, and joint injections; most people can be managed without an operation. Currently, there is variation in the type of joint injection: 1) CSI, thought to reduce the inflammation of the capsule reducing pain; and 2) HD, where a small volume of fluid is injected into the shoulder joint along with the steroid, aiming to stretch the capsule of the shoulder to improve pain, but also allowing greater movement. The creation of musculoskeletal hubs nationwide provides infrastructure for the early and effective management of frozen shoulder. This potentially reduces costs to individuals and the wider NHS perhaps negating the need for a secondary care referral. Results. We will conduct a multicentre RCT comparing CSI and HD in combination with CSI alone. Patients aged 18 years and over with a clinical diagnosis of frozen shoulder will be randomized and blinded to receive either CSI and HD in combination, or CSI alone. Feasibility outcomes include the rate of randomization as a proportion of eligible patients and the ability to use routinely collected data for outcome evaluation. This study has involved patients and the public in the trial design, dissemination methods, and how to include groups who are underserved by research. Conclusion. We will disseminate findings among musculoskeletal clinicians via the British Orthopaedic Association, the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy, the Royal College of Radiologists, and the Royal College of General Practitioners. To ensure wide reach we will communicate findings through our established network of charities and organizations, in addition to preparing dissemination findings in Bangla and Urdu (commonly spoken languages in northeast London). If a full trial is shown to be feasible, we will seek additional National Institute for Health and Care Research funding for a definitive RCT. This definitive study will inform NICE guidelines for the management of frozen shoulder. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(3):162–173

Aims. The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness and safety of thromboprophylactic treatments in patients undergoing primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods. Using nationwide medical registries, we identified patients with a primary TKA performed in Denmark between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2018 who received thromboprophylactic treatment. We examined the 90-day risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), major bleeding, and all-cause mortality following surgery. We used a Cox regression model to compute hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each outcome, pairwise comparing treatment with dalteparin or dabigatran with rivaroxaban as the reference. The HRs were both computed using a multivariable and a propensity score matched analysis. Results. We identified 27,736 primary TKA patients who received thromboprophylactic treatment (rivaroxaban (n = 18,846); dalteparin (n = 5,767); dabigatran (n = 1,443); tinzaparin (n = 1,372); and enoxaparin (n = 308)). In the adjusted multivariable analysis and compared with rivaroxaban, treatment with dalteparin (HR 0.68 (95% CI 0.49 to 0.92)) or dabigatran (HR 0.31 (95% CI 0.13 to 0.70)) was associated with a decreased risk of VTE. No statistically significant differences were observed for major bleeding or all-cause mortality. The propensity score matched analysis yielded similar results. Conclusion. Treatment with dalteparin or dabigatran was associated with a decreased 90-day risk of VTE following primary TKA surgery compared with treatment with rivaroxaban. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(10):1571–1577

Aims. A national screening programme has existed in the UK for the diagnosis of developmental dysplasia of the hip (DDH) since 1969. However, every aspect of screening and treatment remains controversial. Screening programmes throughout the world vary enormously, and in the UK there is significant variation in screening practice and treatment pathways. We report the results of an attempt by the British Society for Children’s Orthopaedic Surgery (BSCOS) to identify a nationwide consensus for the management of DDH in order to unify treatment and suggest an approach for screening. Methods. A Delphi consensus study was performed among the membership of BSCOS. Statements were generated by a steering group regarding aspects of the management of DDH in children aged under three months, namely screening and surveillance (15 questions), the technique of ultrasound scanning (eight questions), the initiation of treatment (19 questions), care during treatment with a splint (ten questions), and on quality, governance, and research (eight questions). A two-round Delphi process was used and a consensus document was produced at the final meeting of the steering group. Results. A total of 60 statements were graded by 128 clinicians in the first round and 132 in the second round. Consensus was reached on 30 out of 60 statements in the first round and an additional 12 in the seond. This was summarized in a consensus statement and distilled into a flowchart to guide clinical practice. Conclusion. We identified agreement in an area of medicine that has a long history of controversy and varied practice. None of the areas of consensus are based on high-quality evidence. This document is thus a framework to guide clinical practice and on which high-quality clinical trials can be developed. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(2):209–214

Aims. Open discectomy (OD) is the standard operation for lumbar disc herniation (LDH). Percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD), however, has shown similar outcomes to OD and there is increasing interest in this procedure. However despite improved surgical techniques and instrumentation, reoperation and infection rates continue and are reported to be between 6% and 24% and 0.7% and 16%, respectively. The objective of this study was to compare the rate of reoperation and infection within six months of patients being treated for LDH either by OD or PELD. Methods. In this retrospective, nationwide cohort study, the Korean National Health Insurance database from 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2018 was reviewed. Data were extracted for patients who underwent OD or PELD for LDH without a history of having undergone either procedure during the preceding year. Individual patients were followed for six months through their encrypted unique resident registration number. The primary endpoints were rates of reoperation and infection during the follow-up period. Other risk factors for reoperation and infection were also evalulated. Results. Out of 549,531 patients, 522,640 had undergone OD (95.11%) and 26,891 patients had undergone PELD (4.89%). Reoperation rates within six months were 2.28% in the OD group, and 5.38% in the PELD group. Infection rates were 1.18% in OD group and 0.83% in PELD group. The risk of reoperation was lower for patients with OD than for patients with PELD (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.38). The risk of infection was higher for patients with OD than for patients undergoing PELD (HR, 1.325). Conclusion. Compared with the OD group, the PELD group showed higher reoperation rates and lower infection rates. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(8):1392–1399

Aims. This study aims to describe the pre- and postoperative self-reported health and quality of life from a national cohort of patients undergoing elective total conventional hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in Australia. For context, these data will be compared with patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) data from other international nation-wide registries. Methods. Between 2018 to 2020, and nested within a nationwide arthroplasty registry, preoperative and six-month postoperative PROMs were electronically collected from patients before and after elective THA and TKA. There were 5,228 THA and 8,299 TKA preoperative procedures as well as 3,215 THA and 4,982 TKA postoperative procedures available for analysis. Validated PROMs included the EuroQol five-dimension five-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L; range 0 to 100; scored worst-best health), Oxford Hip/Knee Scores (OHS/OKS; range 0 to 48; scored worst-best hip/knee function) and the 12-item Hip/Knee disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS-12/KOOS-12; range 0 to 100; scored best-worst hip/knee health). Additional items included preoperative expectations, patient-perceived improvement, and postoperative satisfaction. Descriptive analyses were undertaken. Results. For THA and TKA patients respectively, the patient profile was 2,850 (54.5%) and 4,684 (56.4%) female, mean age 66.8 years (SD 10.6) and 67.5 (SD 8.8), and mean BMI 29.9 kg/m. 2. (SD 7.7) and 32.5 kg/m. 2. (SD 7.0). The proportion of THA and TKA patients who reported their joint as ‘much better’ was 2,946 (92.6%) and 4,020 (81.6%) respectively, and the majority of patients were ‘satisfied’ or ‘very satisfied’ with their procedure (2,754 (86.5%) and 3,981 (80.8%)). There were 311 (9.7%) of THA patients and 516 (10.5%) of TKA patients who reported ‘dissatisfied’ or ‘very dissatisfied’ with their surgery. Conclusion. Large improvements in pain, function, and overall health were evident following primary THA and TKA. Approximately 10% of patients reported dissatisfaction with their surgery. Future analyses will focus on factors contributing to dissatisfaction after arthroplasty. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(6):422–432

Aims. The use of multimodal non-opioid analgesia in hip fractures, specifically acetaminophen combined with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), has been increasing. However, the effectiveness and safety of this approach remain unclear. This study aimed to compare postoperative outcomes among patients with hip fractures who preoperatively received either acetaminophen combined with NSAIDs, NSAIDs alone, or acetaminophen alone. Methods. This nationwide retrospective cohort study used data from the Diagnosis Procedure Combination database. We included patients aged ≥ 18 years who underwent surgery for hip fractures and received acetaminophen combined with NSAIDs (combination group), NSAIDs alone (NSAIDs group), or acetaminophen alone (acetaminophen group) preoperatively, between April 2010 and March 2022. Primary outcomes were in-hospital mortality and complications. Secondary outcomes were opioid use postoperatively; readmission within 90 days, one year, and two years; and total hospitalization costs. We used propensity score overlap weighting models, with the acetaminophen group as the reference group. Results. We identified 93,018 eligible patients, including 13,068 in the combination group, 29,203 in the NSAIDs group, and 50,474 in the acetaminophen group. Propensity score overlap weighting successfully balanced patient characteristics among the three groups, with no significant difference in in-hospital mortality rates observed among the groups (combination group risk difference 0.0% (95% CI -0.5 to 0.4%); NSAIDs group risk difference -0.2% (95% CI -0.5 to 0.2%)). However, the combination group exhibited a significantly lower risk of in-hospital complications than the acetaminophen group (risk difference -1.9% (95% CI -3.2 to -0.6%)) as well as a significantly lower risk of deep vein thrombosis (risk difference -1.4% (95% CI -2.2 to -0.7%)). Furthermore, total hospitalization costs were higher in the NSAIDs group than in the acetaminophen group (difference USD $438 (95% CI 249 to 630); p < 0.001). No significant differences in other secondary outcomes were observed among the three groups. Conclusion. The combination of acetaminophen with NSAIDs appears to be safe and advantageous in terms of reducing in-hospital complications. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(8):849–857