Survival analysis is an important tool for assessing the outcome of total joint replacement. The Kaplan-Meier method is used to estimate the incidence of revision of a prosthesis over time, but does not account appropriately for competing events which preclude revision. In the presence of competing death, this method will lead to statistical bias and the curve will lose its interpretability. A valid comparison of survival results between studies using the method is impossible without accounting for different rates of competing events. An alternative and easily applicable approach, the cumulative incidence of competing risk, is proposed. Using three simulated data sets and realistic data from a cohort of 406 consecutive cementless total hip prostheses, followed up for a minimum of ten years, both approaches were compared and the magnitude of potential bias was highlighted. The Kaplan-Meier method overestimated the incidence of revision by almost 4% (60% relative difference) in the simulations and more than 1% (31.3% relative difference) in the realistic data set. The cumulative incidence of competing risk approach allows for appropriate accounting of competing risk and, as such, offers an improved ability to compare survival results across studies.

Allografts of bone from the femoral head are often used in orthopaedic procedures. Although the donated heads are thoroughly tested microscopically before release by the bone bank, some surgeons take additional cultures in the operating theatre before implantation. There is no consensus about the need to take these cultures. We retrospectively assessed the clinical significance of the implantation of positive-cultured bone allografts. The contamination rate at retrieval of the allografts was 6.4% in our bone bank. Intra-operative cultures were taken from 426 femoral head allografts before implantation; 48 (11.3%) had a positive culture. The most frequently encountered micro-organism was coagulase-negative staphylococcus. Deep infection occurred in two of the 48 patients (4.2%). In only one was it likely that the same micro-organism caused the contamination and the subsequent infection.

In our study, the rate of infection in patients receiving positive-cultured allografts at implantation was not higher than the overall rate of infection in allograft surgery suggesting that the positive cultures at implantation probably represent contamination and that the taking of additional cultures is not useful.