Advertisement for orthosearch.org.uk
Results 1 - 20 of 294
Results per page:
Bone & Joint Open
Vol. 4, Issue 5 | Pages 378 - 384
23 May 2023
Jones CS Eardley WGP Johansen A Inman DS Evans JT

Aims. The aim of this study was to describe services available to patients with periprosthetic femoral fracture (PPFF) in England and Wales, with focus on variation between centres and areas for care improvement. Methods. This work used data freely available from the National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) facilities survey in 2021, which asked 21 questions about the care of patients with PPFFs, and nine relating to clinical decision-making around a hypothetical case. Results. Of 174 centres contributing data to the NHFD, 161 provided full responses and 139 submitted data on PPFF. Lack of resources was cited as the main reason for not submitting data. Surgeon (44.6%) and theatre (29.7%) availability were reported as the primary reasons for surgical delay beyond 36 hours. Less than half had a formal process for a specialist surgeon to operate on PPFF at least every other day. The median number of specialist surgeons at each centre was four (interquartile range (IQR) 3 to 6) for PPFF around both hips and knees. Around one-third of centres reported having one dedicated theatre list per week. The routine discussion of patients with PPFF at local and regional multidisciplinary team meetings was lower than that for all-cause revision arthroplasties. Six centres reported transferring all patients with PPFF around a hip joint to another centre for surgery, and this was an occasional practice for a further 34. The management of the hypothetical clinical scenario was varied, with 75 centres proposing ORIF, 35 suggested revision surgery and 48 proposed a combination of both revision and fixation. Conclusion. There is considerable variation in both the organization of PPFF services England and Wales, and in the approach taken to an individual case. The rising incidence of PPFF and complexity of these patients highlight the need for pathway development. The adoption of networks may reduce variability and improve outcomes for patients with PPFF. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(5):378–384


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 106-B, Issue SUPP_3 | Pages 1 - 1
23 Jan 2024
Stanley AL Jones TJ Dasic D Kakarla S Kolli S Shanbhag S McCarthy MJH
Full Access

Aims. Traumatic central cord syndrome (CCS) typically follows a hyperextension injury and results in a motor impairment affecting the upper limbs more than the lower limbs, with occasional sensory impairment and urinary retention seen. Current evidence on mortality and long-term outcomes is limited. The primary aim of this study is to assess the five-year mortality of CCS, and to determine any difference in mortality between management groups or age. Patients and Methods. Patients ≥18 years with traumatic CCS between January 2012 and December 2017 in Wales were identified. Patient demographics and injury, management and outcome data was collected. Statistical analysis was performed to assess mortality and between group differences. Results. 65 patients were identified (66.2% male, mean age 63.9 years). At five-years follow-up, 32.3% (n=21) of CCS patients were dead. 6 (9.2%) patients had died within 31 days of their injury. 69.2% (n=45) of patients were managed conservatively and there was no significant difference (p=0.062) in age between conservatively and surgically managed patients. Kaplan-Meier analysis revealed no significant difference in mortality between patients managed conservatively compared to those managed surgically (log rank test, p=0.819). However, there was a significant difference (p=0.001) in mortality between the different age groups (<50 years vs 50–70 years vs >70 years). At five-years follow up, 55.6% of the patient group aged >70 years at time of injury were dead. Respiratory failure was the most common cause of death (n=9, 42.9%). Conclusion. Almost one third of patients with traumatic CCS in Wales were dead at five years following their injury. Management type did not significantly affect mortality, however age at time of injury did. Further work assessing the long-term functional outcomes of surviving patients is needed, to allow more reliable prognostic information and functional recovery predictions to be given


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 104-B, Issue SUPP_7 | Pages 91 - 91
1 Jul 2022
Jones CS Johansen A Inman D Eardley W Toms A Evans J
Full Access

Abstract. Introduction. Inter-prosthetic femoral fractures (IPFF) are fractures occurring between ipsilateral hip and knee implants or fixation devices. In 2020, the National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) was extended to capture data from patients with peri-prosthetic femoral fractures (PPFF), including those specifically with IPFF. This study aims to describe the epidemiology and treatment of IPFF in England and Wales. Methodology. This population-based observational cohort study utilised open-access data available from the NHFD. Patients aged over 60, admitted to an acute hospital in England or Wales with an IPFF, within the period 1st January 2020 to 31st December 2020 were included. The primary outcome of this study was the incidence of IPFF in England and Wales. The secondary outcome was the treatment received. Results. Of 2606 patients admitted with PPFF, a total of 133 fractures occurred between ipsilateral hip and knee implants. Internal fixation was performed most frequently, in 87 cases. Revision arthroplasty was performed in 15 cases (hip n=10, knee n=5). A total of 20 patients were managed non-operatively, and three underwent primary arthroplasty (hip n=2, knee n=1). Conclusion. As the proportion of patients living with hip and knee implants continues to increase, it is expected that so too will the incidence of IPFF. This study is the first to estimate the incidence of IPFF in England and Wales. This is likely an underestimate of the true incidence and so we support calls for the prioritisation of further research into the epidemiology, prevention, and management of IPFF


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 104-B, Issue SUPP_7 | Pages 92 - 92
1 Jul 2022
Jones CS Johansen A Inman D Eardley W Toms A Evans J
Full Access

Abstract. Introduction. In 2020, the National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) was extended to capture data from patients with periprosthetic femoral fractures (PPFF) with plans to include these patients in Best Practice Tarif. We aimed to describe the epidemiology of PPFF in England and Wales, with a particular focus on fractures occurring around the femoral component of knee prostheses. Methodology. This population-based observational cohort study utilised open-access data available from the NHFD. Patients aged over 60, admitted to an acute hospital in England or Wales with a PPFF, within the period 1st January 2020 to 31st December 2020 were included. The primary outcome was the incidence of PPFF in England and Wales. The secondary outcome was the treatment received. Results. We identified 2606 patients with PPFF from 135 hospitals. Of these, a total of 578 fractures occurred around the femoral component of a knee implant. These were classified as Vancouver A (epicondylar, n=77), B (involving implant/cement, n=166) and C (proximal to implant/cement, n=335). Internal fixation was the most employed treatment, used in 352 cases. Revision arthroplasty was performed in 80 cases, and 100 were managed non-operatively. Only 28% of operated PPFF went to theatre within 36 hours but nearly 90% had orthogeriatrician review within 72 hours. Conclusion. Eighty six percent of patients with PPFF were treated with non-revision surgery and would not be recorded in the National Joint Registry. In response, we support calls for the prioritisation of further research into the prevention and management of PPFF around the knee


Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 12, Issue 5 | Pages 321 - 330
9 May 2023
Lenguerrand E Whitehouse MR Beswick AD Kunutsor SK Webb JCJ Mehendale S Porter M Blom AW

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


Bone & Joint Research
Vol. 11, Issue 10 | Pages 690 - 699
4 Oct 2022
Lenguerrand E Whitehouse MR Kunutsor SK Beswick AD Baker RP Rolfson O Reed MR Blom AW

Aims. We compared the risks of re-revision and mortality between two-stage revision surgery and single-stage revision surgery among patients with infected primary knee arthroplasty. Methods. Patients with a periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of their primary knee arthroplasty, initially revised with a single-stage or a 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 (HR) at different postoperative periods. The total number of revisions and re-revisions undergone by patients was compared between the two strategies. Results. A total of 489 primary knee arthroplasties were revised with single-stage procedure (1,390 person-years) and 2,377 with two-stage procedure (8,349 person-years). The adjusted incidence rates of all-cause re-revision and for infection were comparable between these strategies (HR overall five years, 1.15 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87 to 1.52), p = 0.308; HR overall five years, 0.99 (95% CI 0.70 to 1.39), p = 0.949, respectively). Patients initially managed with single-stage revision received fewer revision procedures overall than after two-stage revision (1.2 vs 2.2, p < 0.001). Mortality was lower for single-stage revision between six and 18 months postoperative (HR at six months, 0.51 (95% CI 0.25 to 1.00), p = 0.049 HR at 18 months, 0.33 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.99), p = 0.048) and comparable at other timepoints. Conclusion. The risk of re-revision was similar between single- and two-stage revision for infected primary knee arthroplasty. Single-stage group required fewer revisions overall, with lower or comparable mortality at specific postoperative periods. The single-stage revision is a safe and effective strategy to treat infected knee arthroplasties. There is potential for increased use to reduce the burden of knee PJI for patients, and for the healthcare system. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2022;11(10):690–699


The Bone & Joint Journal
Vol. 105-B, Issue 10 | Pages 1060 - 1069
1 Oct 2023
Holleyman RJ Jameson SS Reed M Meek RMD Khanduja V Hamer A Judge A Board T

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


Total hip replacement (THR) is one of the most common and cost-effective elective surgical procedures. In the National Health Service (NHS) of England and Wales a myriad of implants for THR are offered at a variety of locally negotiated prices. This study aims to estimate the total burden of elective THR to the NHS, expenditure on implants, and different scenarios of cost changes if implant selection changed for different patient groups. Using National Joint Registry (NJR) data and NHS reference costs, we estimated the number and expenditure of NHS funded primary and revision THR in the 10-year period 2008–2017 and forecasted the number and expenditure on THR over the next decade. Using NJR average NHS Trust prices for the different implant combinations we estimated the average cost of implants used in THRs and estimated the budget impact on NHS providers from switching to alternative implants. The NHS spent over £4.76 billion performing 702,381 THRs between 2008–2017. The average cost of implants was £1,260 per surgery, almost a fifth of the cost of primary THR. Providing cemented implant combinations in primary elective THRs may potentially save up to £281 million over the next 10 years, whilst keeping 10-year revision risks low. The NHS is likely to spend over £5.6 billion providing primary elective THR over the next decade. There are efficiency savings to realise in the NHS by switching to more cost-effective implant combinations available for patients undergoing primary elective THR surgery, but these will need to be balanced against the risks inherent to a change in selection of implants and surgical practice. The HIPPY programme will be conducting practice surveys, discrete choice experiments and a large randomised controlled trial of cemented, uncemented and hybrid fixation in THR for patients under 70 to answer uncertainties


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 84-B, Issue SUPP_I | Pages - 3
1 Mar 2002
Evans A
Full Access

One million patients with head injuries present to UK hospitals each year. A significant proportion of these patients have ongoing problems and a large number remain disabled at one year. The management of these patients has recently been criticised by a Royal College of Surgeons Working Party Report (published in June 1999). Several recommendations for the care of head injured patients were made. We have undertaken a study to examine the way these cases are currently dealt with in Welsh hospitals. A large proportion (75%) of these patients in Wales are cared for by non-neurosurgical consultants with the orthopaedic speciality receiving referrals in most hospitals (55%). A questionnaire was sent to these non-neurological consultants looking after head injuries with specific questions on the current care of these patients and for their opinion on the current system. We have received an excellent response rate (99%) with the results showing that the Working Party recommendation have not been translated into a change in clinical practice. Our study indicates several shortcomings in the current care of these patients in Wales. It also demonstrates that the almost unanimous (98%) view amongst the consultants that responded is that there is a genuine need for change if we are to offer these patients the best care and rehabilitation in the 21st Century


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 94-B, Issue SUPP_XXIX | Pages 34 - 34
1 Jul 2012
Brooks F Akram T Chandratreya A Roy S Pemberton D
Full Access

This study was designed to evaluate the performance of a new patient specific interpositional knee device. Treatment of osteoarthritis is evolving, allowing surgical treatment options at an earlier stage. The interpositional knee device is a recently developed patient specific implant used for the treatment of mild to moderate uni-compartmental osteoarthritis. The benefits over traditional methods of surgical management are: it's less invasive, can be a day procedure and does not limit future options. Young Adults with early uni-compartmental arthritis are suitable. A MRI scan of the patient's knee is reviewed by local and US radiologists to decide if the patient is suitable for the implant. A bespoke implant is produced. Prior to insertion an arthroscopic procedure is undertaken to allow proper positioning of the implant. We treated 27 patients with the iForma Conformis interpositional knee implant in South Wales at the Princess of Wales Hospital, Bridgend and the Royal Glamorgan Hospital, Llantrisant since November 2007. The pre- and post-operative WOMAC scores were recorded. The average age was 54.7 years, BMI 32; 10 females and 20 males. The average pre-operative WOMAC score was 42.2 improving to 62.9 post-operatively. 35 implants were used. 7 patients experienced post-operative problems. No dislocations were reported. Average follow-up was 12.6 months. Our early experience suggests patient selection plays a role in the outcome following surgery. It indicates that this device is a viable and safe alternative to a uni-compartmental knee replacement


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 94-B, Issue SUPP_XII | Pages 4 - 4
1 Apr 2012
Brooks F Akram T Chandratreya A Roy S Pemberton D
Full Access

Treatment of osteoarthritis is evolving, allowing surgical treatment options at an earlier stage. The interpositional knee device is a recently developed patient specific implant used for the treatment of mild to moderate uni-compartmental osteoarthritis. The benefits over traditional methods of surgical management are: it's less invasive, can be a day procedure and does not limit future options. Young Adults with early uni-compartmental arthritis are suitable. A MRI scan of the patient's knee is reviewed by radiologists to decide if the patient is suitable. A bespoke implant is produced. Prior to insertion an arthroscopy is undertaken to allow proper positioning. We treated 27 patients with the iForma Conformis interpositional knee implant in South Wales at the Princess of Wales Hospital, Bridgend and the Royal Glamorgan Hospital, Llantrisant since November 2007. The pre- and post-operative WOMAC scores were recorded. The average age was 54.7 years, BMI 32; 10 females and 20 males. The average pre-operative WOMAC score was 42.2 improving to 62.9 post-operatively. 35 implants were used. 7 patients experienced post-operative problems. No dislocations were reported. Average follow-up was 12.6 months. Our early experience suggests patient selection plays a role in the outcome following surgery. It indicates that this device is a viable and safe alternative to a uni-compartmental knee replacement


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 94-B, Issue SUPP_XVII | Pages 9 - 9
1 May 2012
Brooks F Akram T Chandratreya A Roy S Pemberton D
Full Access

Treatment of osteoarthritis is evolving, allowing more options of surgical intervention at an earlier stage. The interpositional knee device is a recently developed patient specific implant used for the treatment of uni-compartmental osteoarthritis. It is designed for use in mild to moderate osteo-arthritis only. The benefits it offers are, that it is less invasive than traditional methods, can be performed as a day procedure and does not limit future options. Young adults with uni-compartmental arthritis are suitable for this implant. A MRI scan of the patient's knee is reviewed by radiologists to decide if the patient is suitable. A bespoke implant, based on the MRI data, is produced. Prior to insertion an arthroscopy is undertaken to allow proper positioning of the implant. We have treated 26 patients with the iForma Conformis interpositional knee implant in South Wales at the Princess of Wales Hospital, Bridgend and the Royal Glamorgan Hospital, Llantrisant since November 2007. The pre- and post-operative WOMAC scores were recorded. Average age was 54.7 years, BMI 32; 9 females and 17 males. The average pre-operative WOMAC score was 42.2 with an improvement to 62.9. 33 implants were used (19 right, 14 left). 7 patients experienced post-operative problems (5 implants removed and 2 MUAs). No dislocations were reported. Average follow-up time was 12.6 months (range 6-26 months). Our early experience suggests patient selection plays a vital role in the outcome of patients following surgery. It indicates that the interpositional knee device is a viable and safe alternative to a uni-compartmental knee replacement


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 85-B, Issue SUPP_III | Pages 270 - 270
1 Mar 2003
Shoaib Amer Mehraj Q Jepson F Clay N
Full Access

Introduction: Haemophilus influenzae type B has been the pathogen responsible for a significant proportion of cases of septic arthritis in children in the past. Vaccination was introduced in the United Kingdom in October, 1992 in order to combat meningitis and epiglottitis. This study looks at the effects of vaccination on childhood septic arthritis in Wales. Methods: Data was collected prospectively from 1988 by the Public Health Laboratory Service in Wales. Data was analysed with a two-sample t-test. Results: There were 17 cases in children in which 16 were attributed to type B. 14 cases occurred in the 5 years before mass immunisation. Only 2 cases occurred in the 8 years following immunisation. The incidence of Haemophilus influenzae septic arthritis in children has fallen significantly since the introduction of immunization (P=0.009). Discussion: Vaccination has resulted in a significant fall in the incidence of Haemophilus influenzae type B septic arthritis in children in Wales. This may have consequences on guidelines for the empirical treatment of septic arthritis. If a child if found to have Haemophilus influenzae septic arthritis, this is suspicious of immunocompromise, or an alternate type infection. The novel way in which infection has been controlled may be one which can be used in future to control multi-resistant bacterial infection in orthopaedic surgery


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 99-B, Issue SUPP_12 | Pages 39 - 39
1 Jun 2017
Wilkinson J Hunt L Blom A
Full Access

With the increasing demand for hip and knee replacement, and the increasing pressure to move towards routine seven-day services within the National Health Service, the trend towards weekend operating is set to increase. We aimed to determine whether planned, elective total hip and total knee replacement performed at the weekend is associated with a different 30-day mortality versus those performed between Monday and Friday. We used National Joint Registry of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Isle of Man (NJR) linked to Office for National Statistics (ONS) data. The study dataset comprised 118,096 joint replacement episodes performed at the weekend and 1,233,882 episodes done on a weekday. The main outcome measure was 30-day all-causes mortality. We applied a survivorship analysis using a Kaplan-Meier framework to examine the 30-day cumulative mortality rate for all elective hip and knee replacements performed in England and Wales between 1st April 2003 and 31st December 2014, with Cox proportional-hazards regression models to assess for time-dependent variation and adjust for identified risk factors for mortality. For hip replacement the cumulative 30-day mortality was 0.15% (95%CI: 0.12–0.19) for patients operated on at the weekend versus 0.20% (0.19–0.21) for patients undergoing surgery during the normal working week. For knee replacement the cumulative 30-day mortality was 0.14% (0.11–0.17) for patients operated on at the weekend versus 0.18% (0.17–0.19) for patients undergoing surgery during the normal working week. The lower mortality associated with weekend operating was most apparent in the later years of the audit (2009 to 2014) and remained after adjustment for any differences in patient age, gender, American Society of Anaesthesiologist grade, surgeon seniority, surgical and anaesthetic practices, and thrombo-prophylaxis choice in weekend versus weekday operated patients. Hip and knee replacements are routinely performed on Saturdays, and to a lesser extent on Sundays, in England and Wales and are not associated with an increased risk of post-operative mortality


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 95-B, Issue SUPP_1 | Pages 197 - 197
1 Jan 2013
Baker P Critchley R Jameson S Hodgson S Reed M Gregg P Deehan D
Full Access

Background. Both surgeon and hospital volume influence patient outcomes following revision knee arthroplasty. Purpose. To audit all centres performing revision knee procedures in England and Wales over a 2-year period. All centres were audited against two pre-defined standards linked to hospital volume. Operative volume should be greater than 10 revisions per year;. More than 2.5 revisions should be performed for every 100 primary arthroplasties implanted. Methods. Data for 9659 knee revisions performed in 359 different centres between 01/07/08 and 30/06/10 was accessed from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. For each centre information on the volume of primary and revision knee procedures undertaken during this period was available and was used as the basis for audit. Results. During the 2-year study period 396 different centres performed 153133 primary knee arthroplasties. Of these 359 (91%) performed 9659 knee revisions, equivalent to 6.2 revisions for every 100 primary arthroplasties performed. Revision centres included 208 (58%) NHS hospitals performing 8148 revisions, 141 (39%) independent hospitals performing 1258 revisions and 10 (3%) Independent Sector Treatment Centres (ISTC) performing 253 revisions. The median number of revisions performed per hospital was 7 per year (Range 1 to 144). Volume differed dependent upon hospital type (NHS=14/year vs. Independent=3/year, p< 0.001). Two hundred and twelve (59%) centres performed < 10 revisions per year and thus fell below the audit standard. Eighty of these centres also performed < 2.5 revisions per 100 primaries. Of the 141 independent hospitals 128 (91%) fell below the suggested standards for revision volume. Conclusions. A significant number of institutions are performing only a small volume of knee revision procedures. To ensure safe and sustainable practice with better outcomes, consideration should be given to rationalising the revision service in fewer centres


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 93-B, Issue SUPP_III | Pages 295 - 295
1 Jul 2011
Robinson P Muir L
Full Access

Background: Procedures performed at the incorrect anatomical site are perceived as rare events. However, they can be devastating for patients and doctors. In 2007, the Chief Medical Officer for England highlighted surgical site errors as an area of concern. Evidence from the UK and North America suggests that these events are more common than we think. We present our findings on the rates of surgical errors in England and Wales. Methods: We obtained information from the National Patient Safety Agency (NPSA) and the NHS Litigation Authority (NHSLA) detailing reported cases of surgical error in England and Wales in the time period 1995–2007. This information was evaluated in conjunction with data detailing the total number of operations performed in England and Wales for the same time periods. Results: Since 1995 there have been 292 cases of errors recorded on the NHSLA database. Orthopaedic surgery was the worst offending speciality with 87 cases (29.8%). There were 49 cases (16.8%) in dental surgery and 40 cases (13.7%) in general surgery. The most commonly affected sub-specialty area of orthopaedic surgery was the hand (21 cases), followed by foot and ankle (18 cases) and spine (16 cases). The total cost of the cases which have been settled was £2,252,752.58. For the year 2006–2007 the risk of an event in orthopaedic surgery was calculated to be 1 in 105,712 cases. The risk in general surgery and obstetrics and gynaecology during this period was 1 in 353,511 and 1 in 133,371 respectively. Discussion: Orthopaedic procedures featured more commonly on the NHSLA database than any other specialty. Rates were also higher after adjustment for case load. We would like to draw attention to policies such as the WHO surgical safety checklist which aim to reduce the occurrence of such adverse incidents


Total hip replacement (THR) for end-stage osteoarthritis is a commonly performed cost-effective procedure, which provides patients with significant clinical improvement. Estimating the future demand for joint replacement is important to identify the healthcare resources needed. We estimated the number of primary THRs that will need to be performed up to the year 2060. We used data from The National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man on the current volume of primary THR (n=94,936) performed in 2018. We projected future numbers of THR using a static estimated rate from 2018 applied to population growth forecast data from the UK Office for National Statistics up to 2060. By 2060, primary THR volume would increase from 2018 levels by an estimated 37.7% (n=130,766). For both males and females demand for surgery was also higher for patients aged 70 and over, with older patients having the biggest relative increase in volume over time: 70–79 years (144.6% males, 141.2% females); 80–89 years (212.4% males, 185.6% females); 90 years and older (448.0% males, 298.2% females). By 2060 demand for THR is estimated to increase by almost 40%. Demand will be greatest in older patients (70 years+), which will have significant implications for the health service that requires forward planning given morbidity and resource use is higher in this population. There is a backlog of current demand with cancellation of elective surgery due to seasonal flu pressures in 2017 and now Covid-19 in 2020. Orthopaedics already has the largest waiting list of any speciality. These issues will negatively impact the health services ability to deliver timely joint replacement to many patients for a number of years and require urgent planning


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 105-B, Issue SUPP_16 | Pages 4 - 4
17 Nov 2023
Mahajan U Mehta S Sathyamoorthy P
Full Access

Abstract

There are numerous advantages of discharging patients early after any surgery. Day case arthroplasty in hip and knee is already brought into practice at many centres. We present our journey towards discharging elective shoulder arthroplasty patient on same after their surgery. An initial retrospective study of patients who underwent elective shoulder replacement between 2017 and 2020 were studied. It was identified that a selected group of patients could be discharged on the same of their surgery. The criteria to select a patient for this service was laid down that include ASA 1 or 2, good family support on discharge, personal wishes of patients and early identification of potential patients in the clinic and planning for day case shoulder arthroplasty56 consecutive patients underwent elective arthroplasty of shoulder. Among them 22 patients were discharges on the next day of surgery. The potential patients those could discharged on same were identified to be 11 out of 22 were under ASA 2 and had good family support at home on discharge. Average length of stay after surgery was 2.17 days. We have prospectively discharged 2 patients following the new criteria. This study demonstrates how outpatient elective shoulder could be implemented at other centres. Patient participation and selection with proper planning is key for success here.

Declaration of Interest

(a) fully declare any financial or other potential conflict of interest


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 100-B, Issue SUPP_1 | Pages 43 - 43
1 Jan 2018
Wilkinson J Hunt L Blom A
Full Access

With the increasing demand for hip and knee replacement and move towards seven-day services, we examined whether this planned, elective surgery performed at the weekend is associated with a different 30-day mortality versus that performed between Monday and Friday. The study dataset comprised 118,096 joint replacement episodes performed at the weekend and 1,233,882 episodes done on a weekday. We used a Kaplan-Meier framework to examine the 30-day cumulative mortality rate for all elective hip and knee replacements performed in England and Wales and recorded in the NJR between 1st April 2003 and 31st December 2014, with Cox proportional-hazards regression models to assess for time-dependent variation and adjust for identified risk factors for mortality. For hip replacement the cumulative 30-day mortality was 0.15% (95%CI: 0.12–0.19) for patients operated on at the weekend versus 0.20% (0.19–0.21) for patients undergoing surgery during the normal working week. For knee replacement the cumulative 30-day mortality was 0.14% (0.11–0.17) for patients operated on at the weekend versus 0.18% (0.17–0.19) for patients undergoing surgery during the normal working week. The lower mortality associated with weekend operating was most apparent in the later years of the audit (2009 to 2014) and remained after adjustment for any differences in patient age, gender, American Society of Anaesthesiologist grade, surgeon seniority, surgical and anaesthetic practices, and thrombo-prophylaxis choice in weekend versus weekday operated patients. Routine hip and knee replacements performed at the weekend in England and Wales and are not associated with an increased risk of post-operative mortality


Orthopaedic Proceedings
Vol. 100-B, Issue SUPP_1 | Pages 38 - 38
1 Jan 2018
Matharu G Pandit H Murray D Judge A
Full Access

Pseudotumours have recently been reported in non-metal-on-metal total hip replacements (non-MoM THRs), however the magnitude and risk factors for this complication are unknown, as is the outcome of its treatment. 3340 primary THR undergoing revision for pseudotumour between 2008 and 2015 were identified in the National Joint Registry for England and Wales. 7.5% (n=249) of these pseudotumour revisions, had non-MoM bearing surfaces. The risk of revision for pseudotumour in non-MoM hips was 0.032% (249/789,397; 95% CI 0.028%–0.036%). The risk of pseudotumour revision was 2.35 times (95% CI 1.76–3.11) higher in ceramic-on-ceramic compared with hard-on-soft bearings, and 2.80 times (95% CI 1.74–4.36) higher in 36mm metal-on-polyethylene bearings compared to 28mm and 32mm metal-on-polyethylene bearings. The outcome of revision for pseudotumour non-MoM hips was studied in 185 hips. 13.5% (n=25) had re-revisions at a mean of 1.2 years (range 0.1–3.1 years). Infection (32%), dislocation/subluxation (24%), and aseptic loosening (24%) were the commonest indications for re-revision. The 4-year survival rate was 83.8% (95% CI=76.7%–88.9%). Multiple revision indications (Hazard Ratio (HR)=2.78; 95% CI=1.03–7.49) and incomplete revision procedures (HR=5.76; 95% CI=1.28–25.9) increased the risk of re-revision. Although the overall risk of revision for pseudotumour in non-MoM THRs is low, the risk is increasing and is significantly higher in ceramic-on-ceramic and large head metal-on-polyethylene THR. These revisions have a high early failure rate