Aims. This study aimed to investigate the estimated change in primary and revision arthroplasty rate in the Netherlands and Denmark for hips, knees, and shoulders during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 (COVID-period). Additional points of focus included the comparison of patient characteristics and hospital type (2019 vs COVID-period), and the estimated loss of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and impact on waiting lists. Methods. All hip, knee, and shoulder arthroplasties (2014 to 2020) from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register, and hip and knee arthroplasties from the Danish Hip and Knee Arthroplasty Registries, were included. The expected number of arthroplasties per month in 2020 was estimated using Poisson regression, taking into account changes in age and sex distribution of the general Dutch/Danish population over time, calculating observed/expected (O/E) ratios. Country-specific proportions of patient characteristics and hospital type were calculated per indication category (osteoarthritis/other elective/acute). Waiting list outcomes including QALYs were estimated by modelling virtual waiting lists including 0%, 5% and 10% extra capacity. Results. During COVID-period, fewer arthroplasties were performed than expected (Netherlands: 20%; Denmark: 5%), with the lowest O/E in April. In the Netherlands, more acute indications were prioritized, resulting in more American Society of Anesthesiologists grade III to IV patients receiving surgery. In both countries, no other patient prioritization was present. Relatively more arthroplasties were performed in private hospitals. There were no clinically relevant differences in revision arthroplasties between pre-COVID and COVID-period. Estimated total health loss depending on extra capacity ranged from: 19,800 to 29,400 QALYs (Netherlands): 1,700 to 2,400 QALYs (Denmark). With no extra capacity it will take > 30 years to deplete the waiting lists. Conclusion. The COVID-19 pandemic had an enormous negative effect on arthroplasty rates, but more in the Netherlands than Denmark. In the Netherlands, hip and shoulder patients with acute indications were prioritized. Private hospitals filled in part of the capacity gap. QALY loss due to postponed arthroplasty surgeries is considerable. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(12):977–990

Aims. The aim of this study was to conduct a cross-sectional, observational cohort study of patients presenting for revision of a total hip, or total or unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, to understand current routes to revision surgery and explore differences in symptoms, healthcare use, reason for revision, and the revision surgery (surgical time, components, length of stay) between patients having regular follow-up and those without. Methods. Data were collected from participants and medical records for the 12 months prior to revision. Patients with previous revision, metal-on-metal articulations, or hip hemiarthroplasty were excluded. Participants were retrospectively classified as ‘Planned’ or ‘Unplanned’ revision. Multilevel regression and propensity score matching were used to compare the two groups. Results. Data were analyzed from 568 patients, recruited in 38 UK secondary care sites between October 2017 and October 2018 (43.5% male; mean (SD) age 71.86 years (9.93); 305 hips, 263 knees). No significant inclusion differences were identified between the two groups. For hip revision, time to revision > ten years (odds ratio (OR) 3.804, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.353 to 10.694), p = 0.011), periprosthetic fracture (OR 20.309, 95% CI (4.574 to 90.179), p < 0.001), and dislocation (OR 12.953, 95% CI (4.014 to 41.794), p < 0.001), were associated with unplanned revision. For knee, there were no associations with route to revision. Revision after ten years was more likely for those who were younger at primary surgery, regardless of route to revision. No significant differences in cost outcomes, length of surgery time, and access to a health professional in the year prior to revision were found between the two groups. When periprosthetic fractures, dislocations, and infections were excluded, healthcare use was significantly higher in the unplanned revision group. Conclusion. Differences between characteristics for patients presenting for planned and unplanned revision are minimal. Although there was greater healthcare use in those having unplanned revision, it appears unlikely that routine orthopaedic review would have detected many of these issues. It may be safe to disinvest in standard follow-up provided there is rapid access to orthopaedic review. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(1):59–67

Aims. The overall aim of this study was to determine the impact of deprivation with regard to quality of life, demographics, joint-specific function, attendances for unscheduled care, opioid and antidepressant use, having surgery elsewhere, and waiting times for surgery on patients awaiting total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods. Postal surveys were sent to 1,001 patients on the waiting list for THA or TKA in a single Northern Ireland NHS Trust, which consisted of the EuroQol five-dimension five-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L), visual analogue scores (EQ-VAS), and Oxford Hip and Knee Scores. Electronic records determined prescriptions since addition to the waiting list and out-of-hour GP and emergency department attendances. Deprivation quintiles were determined by the Northern Ireland Multiple Deprivation Measure 2017 using postcodes of home addresses. Results. Overall, 707 postal surveys were returned, of which 277 (39.2%) reported negative “worse than death” EQ-5D scores and 219 (21.9%) reported the consumption of strong opioids. Those from the least deprived quintile 5 had a significantly better EQ-5D index (median 0.223 (interquartile range (IQR) -0.080 to 0.503) compared to those in the most deprived quintiles 1 (median 0.049 (IQR -0.199 to 0.242), p = 0.004), 2 (median 0.076 (IQR -0.160 to 0.277; p = 0.010), and 3 (median 0.076 (IQR-0.153 to 0.301; p = 0.010). Opioid use was significantly greater in the most deprived quintile 1 compared to all other quintiles (45/146 (30.8%) vs 174/809 (21.5%); odds ratio 1.74 (95% confidence interval 1.18 to 2.57; p = 0.005). Conclusion. More deprived patients have worse health-related quality of life and greater opioid use while waiting for THA and TKA than more affluent patients. For patients awaiting surgery, more information and alternative treatment options should be available. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(5):444–451

Aims. The aims of this study were to: 1) report on a cohort of skeletally mature patients with native hip and knee septic arthritis over a 14-year period; 2) to determine the rate of joint failure in patients who had experienced an episode of hip or knee septic arthritis; and 3) to assess the outcome following septic arthritis relative to the infecting organism, whether those patients infected by Staphylococcus aureus would be more likely to have adverse outcomes than those infected by other organisms. Methods. All microbiological samples from joint aspirations between March 2000 and December 2014 at our institution were reviewed in order to identify cases of culture-proven septic arthritis. Cases in children (aged < 16 years) and prosthetic joints were excluded. Data were abstracted on age at diagnosis, sex, joint affected (hip or knee), type of organisms isolated, cause of septic arthritis, comorbidities within the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), details of treatment, and outcome. Results. A total of 142 patients were confirmed to have had an episode of septic arthritis in a native hip (n = 17) or knee joint (n = 125). S. aureus accounted for 57.7% of all hip and knee joint infections. There were 13 inpatient deaths attributed to septic arthritis. The median age of the patients who died was 77.5 (46.9 to 92.2) and their median age-adjusted CCI was 8 (6 to 12). A failure of the joint occurred in 26 knees (21%) and nine hips (53%). Of the knee joints infected by S. aureus (n = 71), 23 knees (32%) went into failure of joint, whereas of those infected by other organisms (n = 54), only three knees (6%) failed. Conclusion. Based on our study findings, hip and knee septic arthritis long-term outcomes were substantially worse than their immediate outcome suggested. Failure of knee joint is 6.1 times more likely to occur in those infected with S. aureus. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(9):785–792

Aims. The primary aim of this prospective, multicentre study is to describe the rates of returning to golf following hip, knee, ankle, and shoulder arthroplasty in an active golfing population. Secondary aims will include determining the timing of return to golf, changes in ability, handicap, and mobility, and assessing joint-specific and health-related outcomes following surgery. Methods. This is a multicentre, prospective, longitudinal study between the Hospital for Special Surgery, (New York City, New York, USA) and Edinburgh Orthopaedics, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, (Edinburgh, UK). Both centres are high-volume arthroplasty centres, specializing in upper and lower limb arthroplasty. Patients undergoing hip, knee, ankle, or shoulder arthroplasty at either centre, and who report being golfers prior to arthroplasty, will be included. Patient-reported outcome measures will be obtained at six weeks, three months, six months, and 12 months. A two-year period of recruitment will be undertaken of arthroplasty patients at both sites. Conclusion. The results of this prospective study will provide clinicians with accurate data to deliver to patients with regard to the likelihood of return to golf and timing of when they can expect to return to golf following their hip, knee, ankle, or shoulder arthroplasty, as well as their joint-specific functional outcomes. This will help patients to manage their postoperative expectations and plan their postoperative recovery pathway. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(7):490–495

Aims. The aim of this study was to determine satisfaction rates after hip and knee arthroplasty in patients who did not respond to postoperative patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), characteristics of non-responders, and contact preferences to maximize response rates. Methods. A prospective cohort study of patients planned to undergo hip arthroplasty (n = 713) and knee arthroplasty (n = 737) at a UK university teaching hospital who had completed preoperative PROMs questionnaires, including the EuroQol five-dimension health-related quality of life score, and Oxford Hip Score (OHS) and Oxford Knee Score (OKS). Follow-up questionnaires were sent by post at one year, including satisfaction scoring. Attempts were made to contact patients who did not initially respond. Univariate, logistic regression, and receiver operator curve analysis was performed. Results. At one year, 667 hip patients (93.5%) and 685 knee patients (92.9%) had undergone surgery and were alive. No response was received from 151/667 hip patients (22.6%), 83 (55.0%) of whom were ultimately contacted); or from 108/685 knee patients (15.8%), 91 (84.3%) of whom were ultimately contacted. There was no difference in satisfaction after arthroplasty between initial non-responders and responders for hips (74/81 satisfied vs 476/516 satisfied; p = 0.847) or knees (81/93 satisfied vs 470/561 satisfied; p = 0.480). Initial non-response and persistent non-response was associated with younger age, higher BMIs, and worse preoperative PROMs for both hip and knee patients (p < 0.050). Being in employment was associated with persistent non-response for hip patients (p = 0.047). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that younger age (p < 0.038), higher BMI (p = 0.018), and poorer preoperative OHS (p = 0.031) were independently associated with persistent non-response to hip PROMs. No independent associations were identified for knees. Using a threshold of > 66.4 years predicted a preference for contact by post (area under the curve 0.723 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.647 to 0.799; p < 0.001, though this CI crosses the 0.7 limit considered reliable). Conclusion. The majority of initial non-responders were ultimately contactable with effort. Satisfaction rates were not inferior in patients who did not initially respond to PROMs. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(4):275–283

Aims. We estimated the prevalence of people living with at least one hip, knee, or shoulder arthroplasty in the Netherlands. Methods. We included the first hip (n = 416,333), knee (n = 314,569), or shoulder (n = 23,751) arthroplasty of each patient aged ≥ 40 years between 2007 and 2022 (hip/knee) or 2014 and 2022 (shoulder) from the Dutch Arthroplasty Register (LROI). Data on the size of the Dutch population were obtained from Statistics Netherlands. Annual incidences and deaths from hip and knee arthroplasty since 2010, and shoulder arthroplasty since 2015, were observed from the LROI. Annual incidences and deaths before those years were estimated using Poisson regression analyses and parametric survival models based on a Gompertz distribution. Non-parametric percentile bootstrapping with resampling was used to estimate 95% CIs. Results. Annual incidences per 100,000 Dutch inhabitants aged ≥ 40 years increased for hip arthroplasties from 221 (95% CI 214 to 229) in 1990 to 360 in 2022, for knee arthroplasties from 181 (95% CI 174 to 188) to 272, and for shoulder arthroplasties from 11 (95% CI 8.0 to 16) to 34. In 2022, 791,000 (95% CI 787,000 to 794,000) people in the Netherlands were living with at least one joint replacement, representing 8.4% (95% CI 8.4 to 8.5) of the Dutch population aged ≥ 40 years. For hip, knee, and shoulder arthroplasties, these were 436,000 (95% CI 433,000 to 438,000), 383,000 (95% CI 380,000 to 386,000), and 34,000 (95% CI 33,000 to 36,000) people, corresponding to 4.7% (95% CI 4.6 to 4.7), 4.1% (95% CI 4.1 to 4.1), and 0.4% (95% CI 0.3 to 0.4) of the Dutch population, respectively. The most common age group living with at least one joint replacement was the ≥ 80-year age group, representing 38% (95% CI 37 to 38) of the Dutch population aged ≥ 80 years. Conclusion. Approximately 800,000 people in the Netherlands were living with at least one hip, knee, or shoulder replacement in 2022, representing one in 12 Dutch inhabitants aged ≥ 40 years. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2025;6(1):74–81

Aims. Prolonged waits for hip and knee arthroplasty have raised questions about the equity of current approaches to waiting list prioritization for those awaiting surgery. We therefore set out to understand key stakeholder (patient and surgeon) preferences for the prioritization of patients awaiting such surgery, in order to guide future waiting list redesign. Methods. A combined qualitative/quantitative approach was used. This comprised a Delphi study to first inform which factors patients and surgeons designate as important for prioritization of patients on hip and knee arthroplasty waiting lists, followed by a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to determine how the factors should be weighed against each other. Coefficient values for each included DCE attribute were used to construct a ‘priority score’ (weighted benefit score) that could be used to rank individual patients waiting for surgery based on their respective characteristics. Results. In total, 43 people participated in the initial round of the Delphi study (16 patients and 27 surgeons), with a 91% completion rate across all three rounds. Overall, 73 surgeons completed the DCE. Following the final consensus meeting of the Delphi component, the seven final factors designated for inclusion were Pain, Mobility/Function, Activities of Daily Living, Inability to Work/Care, Length of Time Waited, Radiological Severity, and Mental Wellbeing. Output from the adjusted multinomial regression revealed radiological severity to be the most significant factor (coefficient 2.27 (SD 0.31); p < 0.001), followed by pain (coefficient 1.08 (SD 0.13); p < 0.001) and time waited (coefficient for one month additional wait 0.12 (SD 0.02); p < 0.001). Conclusion. These results present a new robust method for determining comparative priority for those on primary hip and knee hip arthroplasty waiting lists. Evaluation of potential implementation in clinical practice is now required. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2025;107-B(1):89–96

Aims. To review the evidence and reach consensus on recommendations for follow-up after total hip and knee arthroplasty. Methods. A programme of work was conducted, including: a systematic review of the clinical and cost-effectiveness literature; analysis of routine national datasets to identify pre-, peri-, and postoperative predictors of mid-to-late term revision; prospective data analyses from 560 patients to understand how patients present for revision surgery; qualitative interviews with NHS managers and orthopaedic surgeons; and health economic modelling. Finally, a consensus meeting considered all the work and agreed the final recommendations and research areas. Results. The UK poSt Arthroplasty Follow-up rEcommendations (UK SAFE) recommendations apply to post-primary hip and knee arthroplasty follow-up. The ten-year time point is based on a lack of robust evidence beyond ten years. The term 'complex cases' refers to individual patient and surgical factors that may increase the risk for arthroplasty failure. For Orthopaedic Data Evaluation Panel (ODEP) 10A* minimum implants, it is safe to disinvest in routine follow-up from one to ten years post-non-complex hip and knee arthroplasty provided there is rapid access to orthopaedic review. For ODEP 10A* minimum implants in complex cases, or non-ODEP 10A* minimum implants, periodic follow-up post-hip and knee arthroplasty may be required from one to ten years. At ten years post-hip and knee arthroplasty, clinical and radiological evaluation is recommended. After ten years post-hip and knee arthroplasty, frequency of further follow-up should be based on the ten-year assessment; ongoing rapid access to orthopaedic review is still required. Conclusion. Complex cases, implants not meeting the ODEP 10A* criteria, and follow-up after revision surgery are not covered by this recommendation. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(2):72–78

Aims. The extended wait that most patients are now experiencing for hip and knee arthroplasty has raised questions about whether reliance on waiting time as the primary driver for prioritization is ethical, and if other additional factors should be included in determining surgical priority. Our Prioritization of THose aWaiting hip and knee ArthroplastY (PATHWAY) project will explore which perioperative factors are important to consider when prioritizing those on the waiting list for hip and knee arthroplasty, and how these factors should be weighted. The final product will include a weighted benefit score that can be used to aid in surgical prioritization for those awaiting elective primary hip and knee arthroplasty. Methods. There will be two linked work packages focusing on opinion from key stakeholders (patients and surgeons). First, an online modified Delphi process to determine a consensus set of factors that should be involved in patient prioritization. This will be performed using standard Delphi methodology consisting of multiple rounds where following initial individual rating there is feedback, discussion, and further recommendations undertaken towards eventual consensus. The second stage will then consist of a Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) to allow for priority setting of the factors derived from the Delphi through elicitation of weighted benefit scores. The DCE consists of several choice tasks designed to elicit stakeholder preference regarding included attributes (factors). Results. The study is co-funded by the University of Aberdeen Knowledge Exchange Commission (Ref CF10693-29) and a Chief Scientist Office (CSO) Scotland Clinical Research Fellowship which runs from 08/2021 to 08/2024 (Grant ref: CAF/21/06). Approval from the University of Aberdeen Institute of Applied Health Sciences School Ethics Review Board was granted 22/03/2022 - Reference number SERB/2021/12/2210. Conclusion. The PATHWAY project provides the first attempt to use patient and surgeon opinions to develop a unified approach to prioritization for those awaiting hip and knee arthroplasty. Development of such a tool will provide more equitable access to arthroplasty services, as well as providing a framework for developing similar approaches in other areas of healthcare delivery. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(10):753–758

Data of high quality are critical for the meaningful interpretation of registry information. The National Joint Registry (NJR) was established in 2002 as the result of an unexpectedly high failure rate of a cemented total hip arthroplasty. The NJR began data collection in 2003. In this study we report on the outcomes following the establishment of a formal data quality (DQ) audit process within the NJR, within which each patient episode entry is validated against the hospital unit’s Patient Administration System and vice-versa. This process enables bidirectional validation of every NJR entry and retrospective correction of any errors in the dataset. In 2014/15 baseline average compliance was 92.6% and this increased year-on-year with repeated audit cycles to 96.0% in 2018/19, with 76.4% of units achieving > 95% compliance. Following the closure of the audit cycle, an overall compliance rate of 97.9% was achieved for the 2018/19 period. An automated system was initiated in 2018 to reduce administrative burden and to integrate the DQ process into standard workflows. Our processes and quality improvement results demonstrate that DQ may be implemented successfully at national level, while minimizing the burden on hospitals.

Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(9):716–725.

Aims. While internet search engines have been the primary information source for patients’ questions, artificial intelligence large language models like ChatGPT are trending towards becoming the new primary source. The purpose of this study was to determine if ChatGPT can answer patient questions about total hip (THA) and knee arthroplasty (TKA) with consistent accuracy, comprehensiveness, and easy readability. Methods. We posed the 20 most Google-searched questions about THA and TKA, plus ten additional postoperative questions, to ChatGPT. Each question was asked twice to evaluate for consistency in quality. Following each response, we responded with, “Please explain so it is easier to understand,” to evaluate ChatGPT’s ability to reduce response reading grade level, measured as Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL). Five resident physicians rated the 120 responses on 1 to 5 accuracy and comprehensiveness scales. Additionally, they answered a “yes” or “no” question regarding acceptability. Mean scores were calculated for each question, and responses were deemed acceptable if ≥ four raters answered “yes.”. Results. The mean accuracy and comprehensiveness scores were 4.26 (95% confidence interval (CI) 4.19 to 4.33) and 3.79 (95% CI 3.69 to 3.89), respectively. Out of all the responses, 59.2% (71/120; 95% CI 50.0% to 67.7%) were acceptable. ChatGPT was consistent when asked the same question twice, giving no significant difference in accuracy (t = 0.821; p = 0.415), comprehensiveness (t = 1.387; p = 0.171), acceptability (χ. 2. = 1.832; p = 0.176), and FKGL (t = 0.264; p = 0.793). There was a significantly lower FKGL (t = 2.204; p = 0.029) for easier responses (11.14; 95% CI 10.57 to 11.71) than original responses (12.15; 95% CI 11.45 to 12.85). Conclusion. ChatGPT answered THA and TKA patient questions with accuracy comparable to previous reports of websites, with adequate comprehensiveness, but with limited acceptability as the sole information source. ChatGPT has potential for answering patient questions about THA and TKA, but needs improvement. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(2):139–146

Aims. The aim of this meta-analysis was to determine the pooled incidence of postoperative urinary retention (POUR) following total hip and knee arthroplasty (total joint replacement (TJR)) and to evaluate the risk factors and complications associated with POUR. Methods. Two authors conducted searches in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus on TJR and urinary retention. Eligible studies that reported the rate of POUR and associated risk factors for patients undergoing TJR were included in the analysis. Patient demographic details, medical comorbidities, and postoperative outcomes and complications were separately analyzed. The effect estimates for continuous and categorical data were reported as standardized mean differences (SMDs) and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs, respectively. Results. A total of 31 studies were included in the systematic review. Of these, 29 studies entered our meta-analysis, which included 3,273 patients diagnosed with POUR and 11,583 patients without POUR following TJR. The pooled incidence of POUR was 28.06%. Demographic risk factors included male sex (OR 1.81, 95% CI 1.26 to 2.59), increasing age (SMD 0.16, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.27), and American Society of Anesthesiologists grade 3 to 4 (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.77). Patients with a history of benign prostatic hyperplasia (OR 1.99, 95% CI 1.41 to 2.83) and retention (OR 3.10, 95% CI 1.58 to 6.06) were more likely to develop POUR. Surgery-related risk factors included spinal anaesthesia (OR 1.44, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.74) and postoperative epidural analgesia (OR 2.82, 95% CI 1.65 to 4.82). Total hip arthroplasty was associated with higher odds of POUR compared to total knee arthroplasty (OR 1.10, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.20). Postoperatively, POUR was associated with a longer length of stay (SMD 0.21, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.39). Conclusion. Our meta-analysis demonstrated key risk variables for POUR following TJR, which may assist in identifying at-risk patients and direct patient-centered pathways to minimize this postoperative complication. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(7):601–611

Aims. A substantial fraction of patients undergoing knee arthroplasty (KA) or hip arthroplasty (HA) do not achieve an improvement as high as the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), i.e. do not achieve a meaningful improvement. Using three patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), our aim was: 1) to assess machine learning (ML), the simple pre-surgery PROM score, and logistic-regression (LR)-derived performance in their prediction of whether patients undergoing HA or KA achieve an improvement as high or higher than a calculated MCID; and 2) to test whether ML is able to outperform LR or pre-surgery PROM scores in predictive performance. Methods. MCIDs were derived using the change difference method in a sample of 1,843 HA and 1,546 KA patients. An artificial neural network, a gradient boosting machine, least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression, ridge regression, elastic net, random forest, LR, and pre-surgery PROM scores were applied to predict MCID for the following PROMs: EuroQol five-dimension, five-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L), EQ visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS), Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Physical Function Short-form (HOOS-PS), and Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Physical Function Short-form (KOOS-PS). Results. Predictive performance of the best models per outcome ranged from 0.71 for HOOS-PS to 0.84 for EQ-VAS (HA sample). ML statistically significantly outperformed LR and pre-surgery PROM scores in two out of six cases. Conclusion. MCIDs can be predicted with reasonable performance. ML was able to outperform traditional methods, although only in a minority of cases. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2023;12(9):512–521

Aims. Day-case success rates after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA), total knee arthroplasty (TKA), and medial unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (mUKA) may vary, and detailed data are needed on causes of not being discharged. The aim of this study was to analyze the association between surgical procedure type and successful day-case surgery, and to analyze causes of not being discharged on the day of surgery when eligible and scheduled for day-case THA, TKA, and mUKA. Methods. A multicentre, prospective consecutive cohort study was carried out from September 2022 to August 2023. Patients were screened for day-case eligibility using well defined inclusion and exclusion criteria, and discharged when fulfilling predetermined discharge criteria. Day-case eligible patients were scheduled for surgery with intended start of surgery before 1.00 pm. Results. Of 6,142 primary hip and knee arthroplasties, eligibility rates for day-case surgery were 34% for THA (95% CI 32% to 36%), 34% for TKA (95% CI 32% to 36%), and 52% for mUKA (95% CI 49% to 55%). Surgery before 1.00 pm was achieved in 85% of eligible patients. The day-case success rate among patients with surgery before 1.00 pm was 59% (95% CI 55% to 62%) for THA, 61% (95% CI 57% to 65%) for TKA, and 72% (95% CI 68% to 76%) for mUKA. Overall day-case success rates (eligible and non-eligible) were 19% (95% CI 17% to 20%) for THA, 20% (95% CI 18% to 21%) for TKA, and 42% (95% CI 39% to 45%) for mUKA. Adjusted analysis confirmed higher day-case success in eligible mUKA patients (odds ratio 1.9 (1.6 to 2.3)) compared to TKA and THA patients. Primary causes for day-case failure were mobilization issues (9% to 12% between procedures), prolonged spinal anaesthesia (4% to 9%), and postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) (4% to 14%). Conclusion. THA and TKA patients showed comparable eligibility (34%) with similar day-case success rates (59 to 61%), whereas mUKA patients demonstrated higher eligibility (52%) and day-case success (72%). Mobilization issues, prolonged spinal anaesthesia, and PONV were the most frequent causes for not being discharged

Aims. This study aims to describe the pre- and postoperative self-reported health and quality of life from a national cohort of patients undergoing elective total conventional hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in Australia. For context, these data will be compared with patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) data from other international nation-wide registries. Methods. Between 2018 to 2020, and nested within a nationwide arthroplasty registry, preoperative and six-month postoperative PROMs were electronically collected from patients before and after elective THA and TKA. There were 5,228 THA and 8,299 TKA preoperative procedures as well as 3,215 THA and 4,982 TKA postoperative procedures available for analysis. Validated PROMs included the EuroQol five-dimension five-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L; range 0 to 100; scored worst-best health), Oxford Hip/Knee Scores (OHS/OKS; range 0 to 48; scored worst-best hip/knee function) and the 12-item Hip/Knee disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS-12/KOOS-12; range 0 to 100; scored best-worst hip/knee health). Additional items included preoperative expectations, patient-perceived improvement, and postoperative satisfaction. Descriptive analyses were undertaken. Results. For THA and TKA patients respectively, the patient profile was 2,850 (54.5%) and 4,684 (56.4%) female, mean age 66.8 years (SD 10.6) and 67.5 (SD 8.8), and mean BMI 29.9 kg/m. 2. (SD 7.7) and 32.5 kg/m. 2. (SD 7.0). The proportion of THA and TKA patients who reported their joint as ‘much better’ was 2,946 (92.6%) and 4,020 (81.6%) respectively, and the majority of patients were ‘satisfied’ or ‘very satisfied’ with their procedure (2,754 (86.5%) and 3,981 (80.8%)). There were 311 (9.7%) of THA patients and 516 (10.5%) of TKA patients who reported ‘dissatisfied’ or ‘very dissatisfied’ with their surgery. Conclusion. Large improvements in pain, function, and overall health were evident following primary THA and TKA. Approximately 10% of patients reported dissatisfaction with their surgery. Future analyses will focus on factors contributing to dissatisfaction after arthroplasty. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(6):422–432

Aims. Arthroplasty has been shown to generate the most waste among all orthopaedic subspecialties, and it is estimated that hip and knee arthroplasty generate in excess of three million kg of waste annually in the UK. Infectious waste generates up to ten times more CO2 compared with recycled waste, and previous studies have shown that over 90% of waste in the infectious stream is misallocated. We assessed the effect of real-time waste segregation by an unscrubbed team member on waste generation in knee and hip arthroplasty cases, and compared this with a simple educational intervention during the ‘team brief’ at the start of the operating list across two sites. Methods. Waste was categorized into five categories: infectious, general, recycling, sharps, and linens. Each category was weighed at the end of each case using a digital weighing scale. At Site A (a tertiary orthopaedic hospital), pre-intervention data were collected for 16 total knee arthroplasy (TKA) and 15 total hip arthroplasty (THA) cases. Subsequently, for ten TKA and ten THA cases, an unscrubbed team member actively segregated waste in real-time into the correct streams. At Site B (a district general hospital), both pre- and post-intervention groups included ten TKA and ten THA cases. The intervention included reminding staff during the ‘team brief’ to segregate waste correctly. Results. Active real-time waste segregation reduced infectious waste by a mean of 2.51 kg (95% CI 1.492 to 3.542) in TKA, and 1.83 kg in THA cases (p = 0.004). Educational intervention reduced infectious waste by a mean of 3.52 kg in TKA and 2.09 kg in THA cases (p = 0.026). Total waste was significantly reduced in both groups post-intervention for TKA cases. Conclusion. Simple educational measures alone can significantly reduce the amount of infectious waste. Extrapolated nationally, our results would yield a reduction of approximately 315,004 kg to 594,577 kg of CO2 annually, which equates to 70 to 132 gasoline-powered passenger vehicles driven for a year. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(12):1119–1124

Aims. The COVID-19 pandemic has caused unprecedented disruption to elective orthopaedic services. The primary objective of this study was to examine changes in functional scores in patients awaiting total hip arthroplasty (THA), total knee arthroplasty (TKA), and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). Secondary objectives were to investigate differences between these groups and identify those in a health state ‘worse than death’ (WTD). Methods. In this prospective cohort study, preoperative Oxford hip and knee scores (OHS/OKS) were recorded for patients added to a waiting list for THA, TKA, or UKA, during the initial eight months of the COVID-19 pandemic, and repeated at 14 months into the pandemic (mean interval nine months (SD 2.84)). EuroQoL five-dimension five-level health questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) index scores were also calculated at this point in time, with a negative score representing a state WTD. OHS/OKS were analyzed over time and in relation to the EQ-5D-5L. Results. A total of 174 patients (58 THA, 74 TKA, 42 UKA) were eligible, after 27 were excluded (one died, seven underwent surgery, 19 non-responders). The overall mean OHS/OKS deteriorated from 15.43 (SD 6.92), when patients were added to the waiting list, to 11.77 (SD 6.45) during the pandemic (p < 0.001). There were significantly worse EQ-5D-5L index scores in the THA group (p = 0.005), with 22 of these patients (38%) in a health state WTD, than either the TKA group (20 patients; 27% WTD), or the UKA group (nine patients; 21% WTD). A strong positive correlation between the EQ-5D-5L index score and OHS/OKS was observed (r = 0.818; p < 0.001). Receiver operating characteristic analysis revealed that an OHS/OKS lower than nine predicted a health state WTD (88% sensitivity and 73% specificity). Conclusion. OHS/OKS deteriorated significantly among patients awaiting lower limb arthroplasty during the COVID-19 pandemic. Overall, 51 patients were in a health state WTD, representing 29% of our entire cohort, which is considerably worse than existing pre-pandemic data. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(3):138–145

Aims. Periprosthetic hip and knee infection remains one of the most severe complications following arthroplasty, with an incidence between 0.5% to 1%. This study compares the outcomes of revision surgery for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) following hip and knee arthroplasty prior to and after implementation of a specialist PJI multidisciplinary team (MDT). Methods. Data was retrospectively analyzed from a single centre. In all, 29 consecutive joints prior to the implementation of an infection MDT in November 2016 were compared with 29 consecutive joints subsequent to the MDT conception. All individuals who underwent a debridement antibiotics and implant retention (DAIR) procedure, a one-stage revision, or a two-stage revision for an acute or chronic PJI in this time period were included. The definition of successfully treated PJI was based on the Delphi international multidisciplinary consensus. Results. There were no statistically significant differences in patient demographics or comorbidities between the groups. There was also no significant difference in length of overall hospital stay (p = 0.530). The time taken for formal microbiology advice was significantly shorter in the post MDT group (p = 0.0001). There was a significant difference in failure rates between the two groups (p = 0.001), with 12 individuals (41.38%) pre-MDT requiring further revision surgery compared with one individual (6.67%) post-MDT inception. Conclusion. Our standardized multidisciplinary approach for periprosthetic knee and hip joint infection shows a significant reduction in failure rates following revision surgery. Following implementation of our MDT, our success rate in treating PJI is 96.55%, higher than what current literature suggests. We advocate the role of a specialist infection MDT in the management of patients with a PJI to allow an individualized patient-centred approach and care plan, thereby reducing postoperative complications and failure rates. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(7):509–514

Aims. Antibiotic prophylaxis involving timely administration of appropriately dosed antibiotic is considered effective to reduce the risk of surgical site infection (SSI) after total hip and total knee arthroplasty (THA/TKA). Cephalosporins provide effective prophylaxis, although evidence regarding the optimal timing and dosage of prophylactic antibiotics is inconclusive. The aim of this study is to examine the association between cephalosporin prophylaxis dose, timing, and duration, and the risk of SSI after THA/TKA. Methods. A prospective multicentre cohort study was undertaken in consenting adults with osteoarthritis undergoing elective primary TKA/THA at one of 19 high-volume Australian public/private hospitals. Data were collected prior to and for one-year post surgery. Logistic regression was undertaken to explore associations between dose, timing, and duration of cephalosporin prophylaxis and SSI. Data were analyzed for 1,838 participants. There were 264 SSI comprising 63 deep SSI (defined as requiring intravenous antibiotics, readmission, or reoperation) and 161 superficial SSI (defined as requiring oral antibiotics) experienced by 249 (13.6%) participants within 365 days of surgery. Results. In adjusted modelling, factors associated with a significant reduction in any SSI and deep SSI included: correct weight-adjusted dose (any SSI; adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.68 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 0.99); p = 0.045); commencing preoperative cephalosporin within 60 minutes (any SSI, aOR 0.56 (95% CI 0.36 to 0.89); p = 0.012; deep SSI, aOR 0.29 (95% CI 0.15 to 0.59); p < 0.001) or 60 minutes or longer prior to skin incision (aOR 0.35 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.70); p = 0.004; deep SSI, AOR 0.27 (95% CI 0.09 to 0.83); p = 0.022), compared to at or after skin incision. Other factors significantly associated with an increased risk of any SSI, but not deep SSI alone, were receiving a non-cephalosporin antibiotic preoperatively (aOR 1.35 (95% CI 1.01 to 1.81); p = 0.044) and changing cephalosporin dose (aOR 1.76 (95% CI 1.22 to 2.57); p = 0.002). There was no difference in risk of any or deep SSI between the duration of prophylaxis less than or in excess of 24 hours. Conclusion. Ensuring adequate, weight-adjusted dosing and early, preoperative delivery of prophylactic antibiotics may reduce the risk of SSI in THA/TKA, whereas the duration of prophylaxis beyond 24 hours is unnecessary. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(3):252–260