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

The aim of this study was to investigate the possible benefit of large-head metal-on-metal bearing on a stem for primary hip replacement compared with a 28 mm diameter conventional metal-on-polyethylene bearing in a prospective randomised controlled trial. We investigated cemented stem behaviour between these two different bearings using Einzel-Bild-Röntgen-Analyse, clinical and patient reported measures (Harris hip score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index, Short Form-36 and satisfaction) and whole blood metal ion levels at two years. A power study indicated that 50 hips were needed in each group to detect subsidence of > 5 mm at two years with a p-value of < 0.05. . Significant improvement (p < 0.001) was found in the mean clinical and patient reported outcomes at two years for both groups. Comparison of outcomes between the groups at two years showed no statistically significant difference for mean stem migration, clinical and patient reported outcomes; except overall patient satisfaction which was higher for metal-on-metal group (p = 0.05). Metal ion levels were raised above the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency advised safety level (7 µg per litre) in 20% of the metal-on-metal group and in one patient in metal-on-polyethylene group (who had a metal-on-metal implant on the contralateral side). Two patients in the metal-on-metal group were revised, one for pseudotumour and one for peri-prosthetic fracture. . Use of large modular heads is associated with a risk of raised whole blood metal ion levels despite using a proven bearing from resurfacing. The head-neck junction or excess stem micromotion are possibly the weak links warranting further research

We report a retrospective review of the incidence of venous thromboembolism in 463 consecutive patients who underwent primary total hip arthroplasty (487 procedures). Treatment included both total hip replacement and hip resurfacing, and the patients were managed without anticoagulants. The thromboprophylaxis regimen included an antiplatelet agent, generally aspirin, hypotensive epidural anaesthesia, elastic compression stockings and early mobilisation. In 258 of these procedures (244 patients) performed in 2005 (cohort A) mechanical compression devices were not used, whereas in 229 (219 patients) performed during 2006 (cohort B) bilateral intermittent pneumatic calf compression was used.

All operations were performed through a posterior mini-incision approach. Patients who required anticoagulation for pre-existing medical problems and those undergoing revision arthroplasty were excluded. Doppler ultrasonographic screening for deep-vein thrombosis was performed in all patients between the fourth and sixth post-operative days. All patients were reviewed at a follow-up clinic six to ten weeks after the operation. In addition, reponse to a questionnaire was obtained at the end of 12 weeks post-operatively.

No symptomatic calf or above-knee deep-vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism occurred. In 25 patients in cohort A (10.2%) and in ten patients in cohort B (4.6%) asymptomatic calf deep-vein thromboses were detected ultrasonographically. This difference was statistically significant (p = 0.03). The regimen followed by cohort B offers the prospect of a low incidence of venous thromboembolism without subjecting patients to the higher risk of bleeding associated with anticoagulant use.

Primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) is one of the most effective ways of improving quality of life (QoL). We have compared the improvement in QoL in 62 patients who had a cemented revision of a THA with that of 62 primary replacements.

One year after operation the median QoL score had been significantly improved in both groups; from 0.870 to 0.990 in the primary group (p < 0.0001) and from 0.870 to 0.980 in the revised group (p < 0.0001). There was no significant difference in the improvement in scores between the groups (p = 0.29).

When reviewed after four years there was no difference in the pain score for either group (p = 0.89), but that for function had deteriorated significantly. This was associated with revision surgery (p = 0.018) and a low preoperative QoL score (p = 0.004).

We conclude that both primary and revision operations give a significant improvement in the QoL but function after revision may be less durable than after a primary arthroplasty.

In a prospective trial we studied 176 consecutive patients having a primary total hip arthroplasty to compare the quality of life before and after operation in non-obese and obese groups. We used a modified Harris hip score and the Rosser Index Matrix to generate these scores, and found that the median preoperative quality of life score for both groups was similar.

During review, both groups showed a corresponding marked improvement in quality of life scores at one and three years. There was no statistically significant difference in the improvement in scores between the non-obese and obese groups. It appears that relative body-weight on its own does not influence the benefit derived from primary total hip arthroplasty.

Peri-prosthetic femoral fracture after total hip replacement (THR) is associated with a poor outcome and high mortality. However, little is known about its long-term incidence after uncemented THR.

We retrospectively reviewed a consecutive series of 326 patients (354 hips) who had received a CLS Spotorno replacement with an uncemented, straight, collarless tapered titanium stem between January 1985 and December 1989. The mean follow-up was 17 years (15 to 20). The occurrence of peri-prosthetic femoral fracture during follow-up was noted. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to estimate the cumulative incidence of fracture.

At the last follow-up, 86 patients (89 hips) had died and eight patients (eight hips) had been lost to follow-up. A total of 14 fractures in 14 patients had occurred. In ten hips, the femoral component had to be revised and in four the fracture was treated by open reduction and internal fixation. The cumulative incidence of peri-prosthetic femoral fracture was 1.6% (95% confidence interval 0.7 to 3.8) at ten years and 4.5% (95% confidence interval 2.6 to 8.0) at 17 years after the primary THR. There was no association between the occurrence of fracture and gender or age at the time of the primary replacement.

Our findings indicate that peri-prosthetic femoral fracture is a significant mode of failure in the long term after the insertion of an uncemented CLS Spotorno stem. Revision rates for this fracture rise in the second decade. Further research is required to investigate the risk factors involved in the occurrence of late peri-prosthetic femoral fracture after the implantation of any uncemented stem, and to assess possible methods of prevention.

Aims. Periprosthetic hip-joint infection is a multifaceted and highly detrimental outcome for patients and clinicians. The incidence of prosthetic joint infection reported within two years of primary hip arthroplasty ranges from 0.8% to 2.1%. Costs of treatment are over five-times greater in people with periprosthetic hip joint infection than in those with no infection. Currently, there are no national evidence-based guidelines for treatment and management of this condition to guide clinical practice or to inform clinical study design. The aim of this study is to develop guidelines based on evidence from the six-year INFection and ORthopaedic Management (INFORM) research programme. Methods. We used a consensus process consisting of an evidence review to generate items for the guidelines and online consensus questionnaire and virtual face-to-face consensus meeting to draft the guidelines. Results. The consensus panel comprised 21 clinical experts in orthopaedics, primary care, rehabilitation, and healthcare commissioning. The final output from the consensus process was a 14-item guideline. The guidelines make recommendations regarding increased vigilance and monitoring of those at increased risk of infection; diagnosis including strategies to ensure the early recognition of prosthetic infection and referral to orthopaedic teams; treatment, including early use of DAIR and revision strategies; and postoperative management including appropriate physical and psychological support and antibiotic strategies. Conclusion. We believe the implementation of the INFORM guidelines will inform treatment protocols and clinical pathways to improve the treatment and management of periprosthetic hip infection. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(4):226–233

Aims. This study describes the variation in the annual volumes of revision hip arthroplasty (RHA) undertaken by consultant surgeons nationally, and the rate of accrual of RHA and corresponding primary hip arthroplasty (PHA) volume for new consultants entering practice. Methods. National Joint Registry (NJR) data for England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the Isle of Man were received for 84,816 RHAs and 818,979 PHAs recorded between April 2011 and December 2019. RHA data comprised all revision procedures, including first-time revisions of PHA and any subsequent re-revisions recorded in public and private healthcare organizations. Annual procedure volumes undertaken by the responsible consultant surgeon in the 12 months prior to every index procedure were determined. We identified a cohort of ‘new’ HA consultants who commenced practice from 2012 and describe their rate of accrual of PHA and RHA experience. Results. The median annual consultant RHA volume, averaged across all cases, was 21 (interquartile range (IQR) 11 to 34; range 0 to 181). Of 1,695 consultants submitting RHA cases within the study period, the top 20% of surgeons by annual volume performed 74.2% of total RHA case volume. More than half of all consultants who had ever undertaken a RHA maintained an annual volume of just one or fewer RHA, however, collectively contributed less than 3% of the total RHA case volume. Consultant PHA and RHA volumes were positively correlated. Lower-volume surgeons were more likely to undertake RHA for urgent indications (such as infection) as a proportion of their practice, and to do so on weekends and public holidays. Conclusion. The majority of RHAs were undertaken by higher-volume surgeons. There was considerable variation in RHA volumes by indication, day of the week, and between consultants nationally. The rate of accrual of RHA experience by new consultants is low, and has important implications for establishing an experienced RHA consultant workforce. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(10):1060–1069

Aims. This study evaluates the association between consultant and hospital volume and the risk of re-revision and 90-day mortality following first-time revision of primary hip arthroplasty for aseptic loosening. Methods. We conducted a cohort study of first-time, single-stage revision hip arthroplasties (RHAs) performed for aseptic loosening and recorded in the National Joint Registry (NJR) data for England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the Isle of Man between 2003 and 2019. Patient identifiers were used to link records to national mortality data, and to NJR data to identify subsequent re-revision procedures. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard models with restricted cubic splines were used to define associations between volume and outcome. Results. Among 12,961 RHAs there were 513 re-revisions within two years, and 95 deaths within 90 days of surgery. The risk of re-revision was highest for a consultant’s first RHA (hazard ratio (HR) 1.56 (95% CI 1.15 to 2.12)) and remained significantly elevated for their first 24 cases (HR 1.26 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.58)). Annual consultant volumes of five/year were associated with an almost 30% greater risk of re-revision (HR 1.28 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.64)) and 80% greater risk of 90-day mortality (HR 1.81 (95% CI 1.02 to 3.21)) compared to volumes of 20/year. RHAs performed at hospitals which had cumulatively undertaken fewer than 167 RHAs were at up to 70% greater risk of re-revision (HR 1.70 (95% CI 1.12 to 2.59)), and those having undertaken fewer than 307 RHAs were at up to three times greater risk of 90-day mortality (HR 3.05 (95% CI 1.19 to 7.82)). Conclusion. This study found a significantly higher risk of re-revision and early postoperative mortality following first-time single-stage RHA for aseptic loosening when performed by lower-volume consultants and at lower-volume institutions, supporting the move towards the centralization of such cases towards higher-volume units and surgeons. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(10):1050–1058

Objectives. We used the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man (NJR) to investigate the risk of revision due to prosthetic joint infection (PJI) for patients undergoing primary and revision hip arthroplasty, the changes in risk over time, and the overall burden created by PJI. Methods. We analysed revision total hip arthroplasties (THAs) performed due to a diagnosis of PJI and the linked index procedures recorded in the NJR between 2003 and 2014. The cohort analysed consisted of 623 253 index primary hip arthroplasties, 63 222 index revision hip arthroplasties and 7585 revision THAs performed due to a diagnosis of PJI. The prevalence, cumulative incidence functions and the burden of PJI (total procedures) were calculated. Overall linear trends were investigated with log-linear regression. Results. We demonstrated a prevalence of revision THA due to prosthetic joint infection of 0.4/100 procedures following primary and 1.6/100 procedures following revision hip arthroplasty. The prevalence of revision due to PJI in the three months following primary hip arthroplasty has risen 2.3-fold (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.3 to 4.1) between 2005 and 2013, and 3.0-fold (95% CI 1.1 to 8.5) following revision hip arthroplasty. Over 1000 procedures are performed annually as a consequence of hip PJI, an increase of 2.6-fold between 2005 and 2013. Conclusions. Although the risk of revision due to PJI following hip arthroplasty is low, it is rising and, coupled with the established and further predicted increased incidence of both primary and revision hip arthroplasty, this represents a growing and substantial treatment burden. Cite this article: E. Lenguerrand, M. R. Whitehouse, A. D. Beswick, S. A. Jones, M. L. Porter, A. W. Blom. Revision for prosthetic joint infection following hip arthroplasty: Evidence from the National Joint Registry. Bone Joint Res 2017;6:391–398. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.66.BJR-2017-0003.R1

Aims. As the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic passes, the challenge shifts to safe resumption of routine medical services, including elective orthopaedic surgery. Protocols including pre-operative self-isolation, COVID-19 testing, and surgery at a non-COVID-19 site have been developed to minimize risk of transmission. Despite this, it is likely that many patients will want to delay surgery for fear of contracting COVID-19. The aim of this study is to identify the number of patients who still want to proceed with planned elective orthopaedic surgery in this current environment. Methods. This is a prospective, single surgeon study of 102 patients who were on the waiting list for an elective hip or knee procedure during the COVID-19 pandemic. Baseline characteristics including age, ASA grade, COVID-19 risk, procedure type, surgical priority, and admission type were recorded. The primary outcome was patient consent to continue with planned surgical care after resumption of elective orthopaedic services. Subgroup analysis was also performed to determine if any specific patient factors influenced the decision to proceed with surgery. Results. Overall, 58 patients (56.8%) wanted to continue with planned surgical care at the earliest possibility. Patients classified as ASA I and ASA II were more likely to agree to surgery (60.5% and 60.0%, respectively) compared to ASA III and ASA IV patients (44.4% and 0.0%, respectively) (p = 0.01). In addition, patients undergoing soft tissue knee surgery were more likely to consent to surgery (90.0%) compared to patients undergoing primary hip arthroplasty (68.6%), primary knee arthroplasty (48.7%), revision hip or knee arthroplasty (0.0%), or hip and knee injections (43.8%) (p = 0.03). Conclusion. Restarting elective orthopaedic services during the COVID-19 pandemic remains a significant challenge. Given the uncertain environment, it is unsurprising that only 56% of patients were prepared to continue with their planned surgical care upon resumption of elective services. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-6:267–271

Aims. Periprosthetic femoral fractures (PPF) are a serious complication of total hip arthroplasty (THA) and are becoming an increasingly common indication for revision arthroplasty with the ageing population. This study aimed to identify potential risk factors for PPF based on an analysis of registry data. Methods. Cases recorded with PPF as the primary indication for revision arthroplasty in the German Arthroplasty Registry (Endoprothesenregister Deutschland (EPRD)), as well as those classified as having a PPF according to the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes in patients’ insurance records were identified from the complete datasets of 249,639 registered primary hip arthroplasties in the EPRD and included in the analysis. Results. The incidence of PPFs was higher (24.6%; 1,483) than reported in EPRD annual reports listing PPF as the main reason for revision (10.9%; 654). The majority of fractures occurred intraoperatively and were directly related to the implantation process. Patients who were elderly, female, or had comorbidities were at higher risk of PPFs (p < 0.001). German hospitals with a surgical volume of < 300 primary procedures per year had a higher rate of PPFs (p < 0.001). The use of cemented and collared prostheses had a lower fracture risk PPF compared to uncemented and collarless components, respectively (both p < 0.001). Collared prostheses reduced the risk of PPF irrespective of the fixation method and hospital’s surgical volume. Conclusion. The high proportion of intraoperative fractures emphasises the need to improve surgeon training and surgical technique. Registry data should be interpreted with caution because of potential differences in coding standards between institutions. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(4):650–658

Aims. There is an increasing demand for hip arthroplasty in China. We aimed to describe trends in in-hospital mortality after this procedure in China and to examine the potential risk factors. Patients and Methods. We included 210 450 patients undergoing primary hip arthroplasty registered in the Hospital Quality Monitoring System in China between 2013 and 2016. In-hospital mortality after hip arthroplasty and its relation to potential risk factors were assessed using multivariable Poisson regression. Results. During the study period, 626 inpatient deaths occurred within 30 days after hip arthroplasty. Mortality decreased from 2.9% in 2013 to 2.6% in 2016 (p for trend = 0.02). Compared with their counterparts, old age, male sex, and divorced or widowed patients had a higher rate of mortality (all p < 0.05). Risk ratio (RR) for mortality after arthroplasty for fracture was two-fold higher (RR 2.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.5 to 2.6) than that for chronic disease. RRs for mortality were 3.3 (95% CI 2.7 to 3.9) and 8.2 (95% CI 6.5 to 10.4) for patients with Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) of 1 to 2 and CCI ≥ 3, respectively, compared with patients with CCI of 0. The rate of mortality varied according to geographical region, the lowest being in the East region (1.8%), followed by Beijing (2.1%), the North (2.9%), South-West (3.6%), South-Central (3.8%), North-East (4.1%), and North-West (5.2%) regions. Conclusion. While in-hospital mortality after hip arthroplasty in China appears low and declined during the study period, discrepancies in mortality after this procedure exist according to sociodemographic factors. Healthcare resources should be allocated more to underdeveloped regions to further reduce mortality. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:1209–1217

The August 2023 Hip & Pelvis Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Using machine learning to predict venous thromboembolism and major bleeding events following total joint arthroplasty; Antibiotic length in revision total hip arthroplasty; Preoperative colonization and worse outcomes; Short stem cemented total hip arthroplasty; What are the outcomes of one- versus two-stage revisions in the UK?; To cement or not to cement? The best approach in hemiarthroplasty; Similar re-revisions in cemented and cementless femoral revisions for periprosthetic femoral fractures in total hip arthroplasty; Are hip precautions still needed?

Aims

The benefit of a dual-mobility acetabular component (DMC) for primary total hip arthroplasties (THAs) is controversial. This study aimed to compare the dislocation and complication rates when using a DMC compared to single-mobility (SM) acetabular component in primary elective THA using data collected at a single centre, and compare the revision rates and survival outcomes in these two groups.

Aims

Routinely collected patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have been useful to quantify and quality-assess provision of total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in the UK for the past decade. This study aimed to explore whether the outcome following primary THA and TKA had improved over the past seven years.

Dislocation is a common and well-studied complication after total hip replacement. However, subluxation, which we define as a clinically recognised episode of incomplete movement of the femoral head outside the acetabulum with spontaneous reduction, has not been studied previously. Out of a total of 2521 hip replacements performed over 12 years by one surgeon, 30 patients experienced subluxations which occurred in 31 arthroplasties. Data were collected prospectively with a minimum follow-up of two years. Subluxation occurred significantly more frequently after revision than after primary hip replacement, and resolved in 19 of 31 cases (61.3%). In six of the 31 hips (19.4%) the patient subsequently dislocated the affected hip, and in six hips (19.4%) intermittent subluxation continued. Four patients had a revision operation for instability, three for recurrent dislocation and one for recurrent subluxation. Clinical and radiological comparisons with a matched group of stable total hips showed no correlation with demographic or radiological parameters. Patients with subluxing hips reported significantly more concern that their hip would dislocate, more often changed their behaviour to prevent instability and had lower postoperative Harris hip scores than patients with stable replacements