Aims

Despite advances in the treatment of paediatric hip disease, adolescent and young adult patients can develop early onset end-stage osteoarthritis. The aims of this study were to address the indications and medium-term outcomes for total hip arthroplasty (THA) with ceramic bearings for teenage patients.

Slipped upper femoral epiphysis (SUFE) is the most common hip disorder to affect adolescents. Controversy exists over the optimal treatment of severe slips, with a continuing debate between in situ fixation versus corrective surgery. We present our experience in a series of 57 patients presenting with severe unilateral SUFE (defined > 50°) managed with a subcapital cuneiform osteotomy.

Between 2001 and 2011, 57 patients (35 male, 22 female) with a mean age of 13.1 years (9.6 to 20.3, SD 2.3) were referred to our tertiary referral institution with a severe slip. The affected limb was rested in slings and springs before corrective surgery which was performed via an anterior Smith-Petersen approach. Radiographic analysis confirmed an improvement in mean head–shaft slip angle from 53.8^o (standard deviation (sd) 3.2) pre-operatively to 9.1^o (sd 3.1) post-operatively, with minimal associated femoral neck shortening. In total 50 (88%) patients were complication free at a mean follow-up of seven years (2.8 to 13.9 years, sd 3). Their mean Oxford hip score was 44 (37 to 48) and median visual analogue pain score was 0 out of 10 (interquartile range 0 to 4). A total of six patients (10.5%) developed avascular necrosis requiring further surgery and one (1.8%) patient developed chondrolysis but declined further intervention.

This is a technically demanding operation with variable outcomes reported in the literature. We have demonstrated good results in our tertiary centre.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:1718–25.

Revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a complex procedure which carries both a greater risk for patients and greater cost for the treating hospital than does a primary TKA. As well as the increased cost of peri-operative investigations, blood transfusions, surgical instrumentation, implants and operating time, there is a well-documented increased length of stay which accounts for most of the actual costs associated with surgery.

We compared revision surgery for infection with revision for other causes (pain, instability, aseptic loosening and fracture). Complete clinical, demographic and economic data were obtained for 168 consecutive revision TKAs performed at a tertiary referral centre between 2005 and 2012.

Revision surgery for infection was associated with a mean length of stay more than double that of aseptic cases (21.5 vs 9.5 days, p < 0.0001). The mean cost of a revision for infection was more than three times that of an aseptic revision (£30 011 (sd 4514) vs £9655 (sd 599.7), p < 0.0001).

Current NHS tariffs do not fully reimburse the increased costs of providing a revision knee surgery service. Moreover, especially as greater costs are incurred for infected cases. These losses may adversely affect the provision of revision surgery in the NHS.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2015;97-B:197–201.

In this paper we make the case for the use of single-stage revision for infected knee arthroplasty.

This review summarises the opinions and conclusions reached from a symposium on infected total knee replacement (TKR) held at the British Association of Surgery of the Knee (BASK) annual meeting in 2011. The National Joint Registry for England and Wales reported 5082 revision TKRs in 2010, of which 1157 (23%) were caused by infection. The diagnosis of infection beyond the acute post-operative stage relies on the identification of the causative organism by aspiration and analysis of material obtained at arthroscopy. Ideal treatment then involves a two-stage surgical procedure with extensive debridement and washout, followed by antibiotics. An articulating or non-articulating drug-eluting cement spacer is used prior to implantation of the revision prosthesis, guided by the serum level of inflammatory markers. The use of a single-stage revision is gaining popularity and we would advocate its use in certain patients where the causative organism is known, no sinuses are present, the patient is not immunocompromised, and there is no radiological evidence of component loosening or osteitis.

It is our opinion that single-stage revision produces high-quality reproducible results and will soon achieve the same widespread acceptance as it does in infected hip arthroplasty.

Revision arthroplasty of the hip is expensive owing to the increased cost of pre-operative investigations, surgical implants and instrumentation, protracted hospital stay and drugs. We compared the costs of performing this surgery for aseptic loosening, dislocation, deep infection and peri-prosthetic fracture. Clinical, demographic and economic data were obtained for 305 consecutive revision total hip replacements in 286 patients performed at a tertiary referral centre between 1999 and 2008. The mean total costs for revision surgery in aseptic cases (n = 194) were £11 897 (sd 4629), for septic revision (n = 76) £21 937 (sd 10 965), for peri-prosthetic fracture (n = 24) £18 185 (sd 9124), and for dislocation (n = 11) £10 893 (sd 5476). Surgery for deep infection and peri-prosthetic fracture was associated with longer operating times, increased blood loss and an increase in complications compared to revisions for aseptic loosening. Total inpatient stay was also significantly longer on average (p < 0.001). Financial costs vary significantly by indication, which is not reflected in current National Health Service tariffs.