Aims. To compare complication-related reoperation rates following primary arthroplasty for proximal humerus fractures (PHFs) versus secondary arthroplasty for failed open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). Patients and Methods. We identified patients aged 50 years and over, who sustained a PHF between 2004 and 2015, from linkable datasets. We used intervention codes to identify patients treated with initial ORIF or arthroplasty, and those treated with ORIF who returned for revision arthroplasty within two years. We used multilevel logistic regression to compare reoperations between groups. Results. We identified 1624 patients who underwent initial arthroplasty for PHF, and 98 patients who underwent secondary arthroplasty following failed ORIF. In total, 72 patients (4.4%) in the primary arthroplasty group had a reoperation within two years following arthroplasty, compared with 19 patients (19.4%) in the revision arthroplasty group. This difference was significantly different (p < 0.001) after covariable adjustment. Conclusion. The number of reoperations following arthroplasty for failed ORIF of PHF is significantly higher compared with primary arthroplasty. This suggests that primary arthroplasty may be a better choice for patients whose prognostic factors suggest a high reoperation rate following ORIF. Prospective clinical studies are required to confirm these findings. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:1272–1279

Aims. Routine surveillance of primary hip and knee arthroplasties has traditionally been performed with office follow-up visits at one year postoperatively. The value of these visits is unclear. The present study aims to determine the utility and burden of routine clinical follow-up at one year after primary arthroplasty to patients and providers. Methods. All patients (473) who underwent primary total hip (280), hip resurfacing (eight), total knee (179), and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (six) over a nine-month period at a single institution were identified from an institutional registry. Patients were prompted to attend their routine one-year postoperative visit by a single telephone reminder. Patients and surgeons were given questionnaires at the one-year postoperative visit, defined as a clinical encounter occurring at nine to 15 months from the date of surgery, regarding value of the visit. Results. Compliance with routine follow-up at one year was 35%. The response rate was over 80% for all questions in the patient and clinician surveys. Overall, 75% of the visits were for routine surveillance. Patients reported high satisfaction with their visits despite the general time for attendance, including travel, being over four hours. Surgeons found the visits more worthwhile when issues were identified or problems were addressed. Conclusion. Patient compliance with follow-up at one year postoperatively after primary hip and knee is low. Routine visits of asymptomatic patients deliver little practical value and represent a large time and cost burden for patients and surgeons. Remote strategies should be considered for routine postoperative surveillance primary hip and knee arthroplasties beyond the acute postoperative period. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(7 Supple B):85–89

The June 2023 Hip & Pelvis Roundup. 360. looks at: Machine learning to identify surgical candidates for hip and knee arthroplasty: a viable option?; Poor outcome after debridement and implant retention; Can you cement polyethylene liners into well-fixed acetabular shells in hip revision?; Revision stem in primary arthroplasties: the Exeter 44/0 125 mm stem; Depression and anxiety: could they be linked to infection?; Does where you live affect your outcomes after hip and knee arthroplasties?; Racial disparities in outcomes after total hip arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty are substantially mediated by socioeconomic disadvantage both in black and white patients

Aims. Periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) and fracture-related infections (FRIs) are associated with a significant risk of adverse events. However, there is a paucity of data on cardiac complications following revision surgery for PJI and FRI and how they impact overall mortality. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the risk of perioperative myocardial injury (PMI) and mortality in this patient cohort. Methods. We prospectively included consecutive patients at high cardiovascular risk (defined as age ≥ 45 years with pre-existing coronary, peripheral, or cerebrovascular artery disease, or any patient aged ≥ 65 years, plus a postoperative hospital stay of > 24 hours) undergoing septic or aseptic major orthopaedic surgery between July 2014 and October 2016. All patients received a systematic screening to reliably detect PMI, using serial measurements of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T. All-cause mortality was assessed at one year. Multivariable logistic regression models were applied to compare incidence of PMI and mortality between patients undergoing septic revision surgery for PJI or FRI, and patients receiving aseptic major bone and joint surgery. Results. In total, 911 consecutive patients were included. The overall perioperative myocardial injury (PMI) rate was 15.4% (n = 140). Septic revision surgery for PJI was associated with a significantly higher PMI rate (43.8% (14/32) vs 14.5% (57/393); p = 0.001) and one-year mortality rate (18.6% (6/32) vs 7.4% (29/393); p = 0.038) compared to aseptic revision or primary arthroplasty. The association with PMI persisted in multivariable analysis with an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 4.7 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.1 to 10.7; p < 0.001), but was not statistically significant for one-year mortality (aOR 1.9 (95% CI 0.7 to 5.4; p = 0.240). PMI rate (15.2% (5/33) vs 14.1% (64/453)) and one-year mortality (15.2% (5/33) vs 9.1% (41/453)) after FRI revision surgery were comparable to aseptic long-bone fracture surgery. Conclusion. Patients undergoing revision surgery for PJI were at a risk of PMI and death compared to those undergoing aseptic arthroplasty surgery. Screening for PMI and treatment in specialized multidisciplinary units should be considered in major bone and joint infections. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(6):696–702

Compression testing of cadaver specimens showed that excision of the radial head allowed proximal radial displacement. The insertion of a metallic radial head restored normal mechanics, while a silicone rubber implant did not. We reviewed 31 of 36 comminuted fractures of the radial head, 21 associated with dislocation or ulnar fracture, which had been treated by primary replacement with a Vitallium prosthesis. At a mean follow-up of 4.5 years, there was reliable restoration of stability and prevention of proximal radial migration. There had been no dislocations or prosthetic failures, but two implants had been removed for loosening. The prosthesis is recommended for use as a spacer to stabilise the elbow after severe injuries while the soft tissues heal

Aims. To compare rates of serious adverse events in patients undergoing revision knee arthroplasty with consideration of the indication for revision (urgent versus elective indications), and compare these with primary arthroplasty and re-revision arthroplasty. Methods. Patients undergoing primary knee arthroplasty were identified in the national Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) between 1 April 1997 to 31 March 2017. Subsequent revision and re-revision arthroplasty procedures in the same patients and same knee were identified. The primary outcome was 90-day mortality and a logistic regression model was used to investigate factors associated with 90-day mortality and secondary adverse outcomes, including infection (undergoing surgery), pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, and stroke. Urgent indications for revision arthroplasty were defined as infection or fracture, and all other indications (e.g. loosening, instability, wear) were included in the elective indications cohort. Results. A total of 939,021 primary knee arthroplasty procedures were included (939,021 patients), of which 40,854 underwent subsequent revision arthroplasty, and 9,100 underwent re-revision arthroplasty. Revision surgery for elective indications was associated with a 90-day rate of mortality of 0.44% (135/30,826; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.37 to 0.52) which was comparable to primary knee arthroplasty (0.46%; 4,292/939,021; 95% CI 0.44 to 0.47). Revision arthroplasty for infection was associated with a much higher mortality of 2.04% (184/9037; 95% CI 1.75 to 2.35; odds ratio (OR) 3.54; 95% CI 2.81 to 4.46), as was revision for periprosthetic fracture at 5.25% (52/991; 95% CI 3.94 to 6.82; OR 6.23; 95% CI 4.39 to 8.85). Higher rates of pulmonary embolism, myocardial infarction, and stroke were also observed in the infection and fracture cohort. Conclusion. Patients undergoing revision arthroplasty for urgent indications (infection or fracture) are at higher risk of mortality and serious adverse events in comparison to primary knee arthroplasty and revision arthroplasty for elective indications. These findings will be important for patient consent and shared decision-making and should inform service design for this patient cohort. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(10):1578–1585

We compared the radiographic results of secondary total hip replacements, 99 following failed uncemented hemiarthroplasties and 21 following failed mould arthroplasties, with those of 825 primary cemented total hip replacements. The probability of occurrence of a number of radiological changes over time was calculated using survival analysis. The mean follow-up was 7.6 years (range one month to 20 years). The performance of the secondary total hip replacements varied with the preceding implant and was different for acetabular and femoral components. The incidence of radiological loosening was higher for femoral components implanted after failed hemiarthroplasties and for acetabular components after failed mould arthroplasties. However, the incidence of continuous radiolucent lines was lower for the acetabular components of converted hemiarthroplasties than for the primary replacements

Aims

The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted the provision of arthroplasty services in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. This study aimed to quantify the backlog, analyze national trends, and predict time to recovery.

Dislocation is the most frequent serious complication following total hip replacement for subcapital femoral fracture. We report a prospective study, using matched groups, which compared the range of hip movement following hip replacement for arthritis and for fracture. The range of movement was significantly greater in the fracture group. We suggest that this is a predisposing factor for dislocation.

We reviewed 249 consecutive Charnley primary low-friction arthroplasties in 191 patients performed by one surgeon using a transtrochanteric approach at a minimum follow-up of ten years. Of these, 37 hips in 32 patients showed osteolysis and were compared with 41 hips in 37 matched patients with no osteolysis. We assessed in each case the wear rate, stability of the prosthesis, acetabular angle, socket angle, thickness of the acetabular and femoral cement mantle, canal flare index, femoral score, stem alignment, implant:canal ratio and stem:canal ratio. We found that a high rate of wear, component instability and osteolysis were associated. Osteolysis was three times more common in men than in women. Factors which reduced osteolysis were cement mantles of 6 mm at the acetabulum and of 3 mm in all zones of the femur, a stem:canal ratio of 60% to 70% and an implant:canal ratio of over 99%. The overall incidence of osteolysis was 14.9% but when these technical criteria were met, the incidence was 5.2%. This suggests that careful technique can dramatically reduce the risk of this complication

The use of hinged implants in primary total knee replacement (TKR) should be restricted to selected indications and mainly for elderly patients. Potential indications for a rotating hinge or pure hinge implant in primary TKR include: collateral ligament insufficiency, severe varus or valgus deformity (> 20°) with necessary relevant soft-tissue release, relevant bone loss including insertions of collateral ligaments, gross flexion-extension gap imbalance, ankylosis, or hyperlaxity. Although data reported in the literature are inconsistent, clinical results depend on implant design, proper technical use, and adequate indications. We present our experience with a specific implant type that we have used for over 30 years and which has given our elderly patients good mid-term results. Because revision of implants with long cemented stems can be very challenging, an effort should be made in the future to use shorter stems in modular versions of hinged implants.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2014;96-B(11 Suppl A):93–5.

Arthroplasty registries are important for the surveillance of joint replacements and the evaluation of outcome. Independent validation of registry data ensures high quality. The ability for orthopaedic implant retrieval centres to validate registry data is not known. We analysed data from the National Joint Registry for England, Wales and Northern Ireland (NJR) for primary metal-on-metal hip arthroplasties performed between 2003 and 2013. Records were linked to the London Implant Retrieval Centre (RC) for validation. A total of 67 045 procedures on the NJR and 782 revised pairs of components from the RC were included. We were able to link 476 procedures (60.9%) recorded with the RC to the NJR successfully. However, 306 procedures (39.1%) could not be linked. The outcome recorded by the NJR (as either revised, unrevised or death) for a primary procedure was incorrect in 79 linked cases (16.6%). The rate of registry-retrieval linkage and correct assignment of outcome code improved over time. The rates of error for component reference numbers on the NJR were as follows: femoral head category number 14/229 (5.0%); femoral head batch number 13/232 (5.3%); acetabular component category number 2/293 (0.7%) and acetabular component batch number 24/347 (6.5%). . Registry-retrieval linkage provided a novel means for the validation of data, particularly for component fields. This study suggests that NJR reports may underestimate rates of revision for many types of metal-on-metal hip replacement. This is topical given the increasing scope for NJR data. We recommend a system for continuous independent evaluation of the quality and validity of NJR data. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:10–18

Aims

For this retrospective cohort study, patients aged ≤ 30 years (very young) who underwent total hip arthroplasty (THA) were compared with patients aged ≥ 60 years (elderly) to evaluate the rate of revision arthroplasty, implant survival, the indications for revision, the complications, and the patient-reported outcomes.

We present six patients with chronic dislocation of the elbow who were treated by primary semiconstrained total elbow arthroplasty. All were women with a mean age of 65 years (51 to 76), the mean interval between dislocation and surgery was 17 weeks (5 to 52) and the mean follow-up 58 months (24 to 123).

The most dramatic improvement was in function. The mean American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeon score was 5.2 times better (p < 0.001) and the mean total range of movement increased from 33° to 121° (p < 0.001) after operation. Three patients developed wear of polyethylene. One required revision for a periprosthetic fracture, and another required a bushing exchange.

Primary semiconstrained elbow arthroplasty provides significant, predictable functional improvement. Potential solutions for wear of polyethylene include a different operative technique or design of implant. Despite the high incidence of such wear, total elbow arthroplasty should be considered as a viable treatment option for chronic dislocation of the elbow in elderly patients.

Patients with skeletal dysplasia are prone to developing advanced osteoarthritis of the knee requiring total knee replacement (TKR) at a younger age than the general population. TKR in this unique group of patients is a technically demanding procedure owing to the deformity, flexion contracture, generalised hypotonia and ligamentous laxity. We retrospectively reviewed the outcome of 11 TKRs performed in eight patients with skeletal dysplasia at our institution using the Stanmore Modular Individualised Lower Extremity System (SMILES) custom-made rotating-hinge TKR. There were three men and five women with mean age of 57 years (41 to 79). Patients were followed clinically and radiologically for a mean of seven years (3 to 11.5). The mean Knee Society clinical and function scores improved from 24 (14 to 36) and 20 (5 to 40) pre-operatively, respectively, to 68 (28 to 80) and 50 (22 to 74), respectively, at final follow-up. Four complications were recorded, including a patellar fracture following a fall, a tibial peri-prosthetic fracture, persistent anterior knee pain, and aseptic loosening of a femoral component requiring revision. Our results demonstrate that custom primary rotating-hinge TKR in patients with skeletal dysplasia is effective at relieving pain, with a satisfactory range of movement and improved function. It compensates for bony deformity and ligament deficiency and reduces the likelihood of corrective osteotomy. Patellofemoral joint complications are frequent and functional outcome is worse than with primary TKR in the general population.

The ideal bearing surface for young patients undergoing total hip replacement (THR) remains controversial. We report the five-year results of a randomised controlled trial comparing the clinical and radiological outcomes of 102 THRs in 91 patients who were <  65 years of age. These patients were randomised to receive a cobalt–chrome on ultra-high-molecular-weight polyethylene, cobalt–chrome on highly cross-linked polyethylene, or a ceramic-on-ceramic bearing. In all, 97 hip replacements in 87 patients were available for review at five years. Two hips had been revised, one for infection and one for peri-prosthetic fracture.

At the final follow-up there were no significant differences between the groups for the mean Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index (pain, p = 0.543; function, p = 0.10; stiffness, p = 0.99), Short Form-12 (physical component, p = 0.878; mental component, p = 0.818) or Harris hip scores (p = 0.22). Radiological outcomes revealed no significant wear in the ceramic group.

Comparison of standard and highly cross-linked polyethylene, however, revealed an almost threefold difference in the mean annual linear wear rates (0.151 mm/year versus 0.059 mm/year, respectively) (p < 0.001).

Aims. Prophylactic antibiotic regimens for elective primary total hip and knee arthroplasty vary widely across hospitals and trusts in the UK. This study aimed to identify antibiotic prophylaxis regimens currently in use for elective primary arthroplasty across the UK, establish variations in antibiotic prophylaxis regimens and their impact on the risk of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in the first-year post-index procedure, and evaluate adherence to current international consensus guidance. Methods. The guidelines for the primary and alternative recommended prophylactic antibiotic regimens in clean orthopaedic surgery (primary arthroplasty) for 109 hospitals and trusts across the UK were sought by searching each trust and hospital’s website (intranet webpages), and by using the MicroGuide app. The mean cost of each antibiotic regimen was calculated using price data from the British National Formulary (BNF). Regimens were then compared to the 2018 Philadelphia Consensus Guidance, to evaluate adherence to international guidance. Results. The primary choice and dosing of the prophylactic antimicrobial regimens varied widely. The two most used regimens were combined teicoplanin and gentamicin, and cefuroxime followed by two or three doses of cefuroxime eight-hourly, recommended by 24 centres (22.02%) each. The alternative choice and dosing of the prophylactic antimicrobial regimen also varied widely across the 83 centres with data available. Prophylaxis regimens across some centres fail to cover the likeliest causes of surgical site infection (SSI). Five centres (4.59%) recommend co-amoxiclav, which confers no Staphylococcus coverage, while 33 centres (30.28%) recommend cefuroxime, which confers no Enterococcus coverage. Limited adherence to 2018 Philadelphia Consensus Guidance was observed, with 67 centres (61.50%) not including a cephalosporin in their guidance. Conclusion. This analysis of guidance on antimicrobial prophylaxis in primary arthroplasty across 109 hospitals and trusts in the UK has identified widespread variation in primary and alternative antimicrobial regimens currently recommended. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(10):742–749

Aims. Our primary aim was to assess reoperation-free survival at one year after the index injury in patients aged ≥ 75 years treated with internal fixation (IF) or arthroplasty for undisplaced femoral neck fractures (uFNFs). Secondary outcomes were reoperations and mortality analyzed separately. Methods. We retrieved data on all patients aged ≥ 75 years with an uFNF registered in the Swedish Fracture Register from 2011 to 2018. The database was linked to the Swedish Arthroplasty Register and the National Patient Register to obtain information on comorbidity, mortality, and reoperations. Our primary outcome, reoperation, or death at one year was analyzed using restricted mean survival time, which gives the mean time to either event for each group separately. Results. Overall, 3,909 patients presenting with uFNFs were included. Of these patients, 3,604 were treated with IF and 305 with primary arthroplasty. There were no relevant differences in age, sex, or comorbidities between groups. In the IF group 58% received cannulated screws and 39% hook pins. In the arthroplasty group 81% were treated with hemiarthroplasty and 19% with total hip arthroplasty. At one year, 32% were dead or had been reoperated in both groups. The reoperation-free survival time over one year of follow-up was 288 days (95% confidence interval (CI) 284 to 292) in the IF group and 279 days (95% CI 264 to 295) in the arthroplasty group, with p = 0.305 for the difference. Mortality was 26% in the IF group and 31% in the arthroplasty group at one year. Reoperation rates were 7.1% in the IF group and 2.3% in the arthroplasty group. Conclusion. In older patients with a uFNF, reoperation-free survival at one year seems similar, regardless of whether IF or arthroplasty is the primary surgery. However, this comparison depends on the choice of follow-up time in that reoperations were more common after IF. In contrast, we found more early deaths after arthroplasty. Our study calls for a randomized trial comparing these two methods. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(2):86–92

Aims. We compared the risks of re-revision and mortality between two-stage and single-stage revision surgeries among patients with infected primary hip arthroplasty. Methods. Patients with a periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of their primary arthroplasty revised with single-stage or two-stage procedure in England and Wales between 2003 and 2014 were identified from the National Joint Registry. We used Poisson regression with restricted cubic splines to compute hazard ratios (HRs) at different postoperative periods. The total number of revisions and re-revisions undergone by patients was compared between the two strategies. Results. In total, 535 primary hip arthroplasties were revised with single-stage procedure (1,525 person-years) and 1,605 with two-stage procedure (5,885 person-years). All-cause re-revision was higher following single-stage revision, especially in the first three months (HR at 3 months = 1.98 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.14 to 3.43), p = 0.009). The risks were comparable thereafter. Re-revision for PJI was higher in the first three postoperative months for single-stage revision and waned with time (HR at 3 months = 1.81 (95% CI 1.22 to 2.68), p = 0.003; HR at 6 months = 1.25 (95% CI 0.71 to 2.21), p = 0.441; HR at 12 months = 0.94 (95% CI 0.54 to 1.63), p = 0.819). Patients initially managed with a single-stage revision received fewer revision operations (mean 1.3 (SD 0.7) vs 2.2 (SD 0.6), p < 0.001). Mortality rates were comparable between these two procedures (29/10,000 person-years vs 33/10,000). Conclusion. The risk of unplanned re-revision was lower following two-stage revision, but only in the early postoperative period. The lower overall number of revision procedures associated with a single-stage revision strategy and the equivalent mortality rates to two-stage revision are reassuring. With appropriate counselling, single-stage revision is a viable option for the treatment of hip PJI. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2023;12(5):321–330

Aims. In cases of severe periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of the knee, salvage procedures such as knee arthrodesis (KA) or above-knee amputation (AKA) must be considered. As both treatments result in limitations in quality of life (QoL), we aimed to compare outcomes and factors influencing complication rates, mortality, and mobility. Methods. Patients with PJI of the knee and subsequent KA or AKA between June 2011 and May 2021 were included. Demographic data, comorbidities, and patient history were analyzed. Functional outcomes and QoL were prospectively assessed in both groups with additional treatment-specific scores after AKA. Outcomes, complications, and mortality were evaluated. Results. A total of 98 patients were included, 52 treated with arthrodesis and 47 with AKA. The mean number of revision surgeries between primary arthroplasty and arthrodesis or AKA was 7.85 (SD 5.39). Mean follow-up was 77.7 months (SD 30.9), with a minimum follow-up of two years. Complications requiring further revision surgery occurred in 11.5% of patients after arthrodesis and in 37.0% of AKA patients. Positive intraoperative tissue cultures obtained during AKA was significantly associated with the risk of further surgical revision. Two-year mortality rate of arthrodesis was significantly lower compared to AKA (3.8% vs 28.3%), with age as an independent risk factor in the AKA group. Functional outcomes and QoL were better after arthrodesis compared to AKA. Neuropathic pain was reported by 19 patients after AKA, and only 45.7% of patients were fitted or were intended to be fitted with a prosthesis. One-year infection-free survival after arthrodesis was 88.5%, compared to 78.5% after AKA. Conclusion. Above-knee amputation in PJI results in high complication and mortality rates and poorer functional outcome compared to arthrodesis. Mortality rates after AKA depend on patient age and mobility, with most patients not able to be fitted with a prosthesis. Therefore, arthrodesis should be preferred whenever possible if salvage procedures are indicated. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(7):669–679