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

Aims. The aims of this study were to determine the incidence and factors for developing periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following hemiarthroplasty (HA) for hip fracture, and to evaluate treatment outcome and identify factors associated with treatment outcome. Methods. A retrospective review was performed of consecutive patients treated for HA PJI at a tertiary referral centre with a mean 4.5 years’ follow-up (1.6 weeks to 12.9 years). Surgeries performed included debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR) and single-stage revision. The effect of different factors on developing infection and treatment outcome was determined. Results. A total of 1,984 HAs were performed during the study period, and 44 sustained a PJI (2.2%). Multiple logistic regression analysis revealed that a higher CCI score (odds ratio (OR) 1.56 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.117 to 2.187); p = 0.003), peripheral vascular disease (OR 11.34 (95% CI 1.897 to 67.810); p = 0.008), cerebrovascular disease (OR 65.32 (95% CI 22.783 to 187.278); p < 0.001), diabetes (OR 4.82 (95% CI 1.903 to 12.218); p < 0.001), moderate-to-severe renal disease (OR 5.84 (95% CI 1.116 to 30.589); p = 0.037), cancer without metastasis (OR 6.42 (95% CI 1.643 to 25.006); p = 0.007), and metastatic solid tumour (OR 15.64 (95% CI 1.499 to 163.087); p = 0.022) were associated with increasing PJI risk. Upon final follow-up, 17 patients (38.6%) failed initial treatment and required further surgery for HA PJI. One-year mortality was 22.7%. Factors associated with treatment outcome included lower preoperative Hgb level (97.9 g/l (SD 11.4) vs 107.0 g/l (SD 16.1); p = 0.009), elevated CRP level (99.1 mg/l (SD 63.4) vs 56.6 mg/l (SD 47.1); p = 0.030), and type of surgery. There was lower chance of success with DAIR (42.3%) compared to revision HA (66.7%) or revision with conversion to total hip arthroplasty (100%). Early-onset PJI (≤ six weeks) was associated with a higher likelihood of treatment failure (OR 3.5 (95% CI 1.2 to 10.6); p = 0.007) along with patients treated by a non-arthroplasty surgeon (OR 2.5 (95% CI 1.2 to 5.3); p = 0.014). Conclusion. HA PJI initially treated with DAIR is associated with poor chances of success and its value is limited. We strongly recommend consideration of a single-stage revision arthroplasty with cemented components. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(12):924–932

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.

Aims

With increasing burden of revision hip arthroplasty (THA), one of the major challenges is the management of proximal femoral bone loss associated with previous multiple surgeries. Proximal femoral arthroplasty (PFA) has already been popularized for tumour surgeries. Our aim was to describe the outcome of using PFA in these demanding non-neoplastic cases.

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.