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. 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. We investigated the efficacy and safety profile of commonly used venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis agents following hip and knee arthroplasty. Methods. A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and OrthoSearch was performed. Prophylaxis agents investigated were aspirin (< 325 mg and ≥ 325 mg daily), enoxaparin, dalteparin, fondaparinux, unfractionated heparin, warfarin, rivaroxaban, apixaban, and dabigatran. The primary efficacy outcome of interest was the risk of VTE, whereas the primary safety outcomes of interest were the risk of major bleeding events (MBE) and wound complications (WC). VTE was defined as the confirmed diagnosis of any deep vein thrombosis and/or pulmonary embolism. Network meta-analysis combining direct and indirect evidence was performed. Cluster rank analysis using the surface under cumulative ranking (SUCRA) was applied to compare each intervention group, weighing safety and efficacy outcomes. Results. Of 86 studies eligible studies, cluster rank analysis showed that aspirin < 325 mg daily (SUCRA-VTE 89.3%; SUCRA-MBE 75.3%; SUCRA-WC 71.1%), enoxaparin (SUCRA-VTE 55.7%; SUCRA-MBE 49.8%; SUCRA-WC 45.2%), and dabigatran (SUCRA-VTE 44.9%; SUCRA-MBE 52.0%; SUCRA-WC 41.9%) have an overall satisfactory efficacy and safety profile. Conclusion. We recommend the use of either aspirin < 325 mg daily, enoxaparin, or dabigatran for VTE prophylaxis following hip and knee arthroplasty. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(9):924–934

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

Aims. The primary aim was to assess change in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of patients as they waited from six to 12 months for a total hip (THA) or total or partial knee arthroplasty (KA). Secondary aims were to assess change in joint-specific function, mental health, quality of sleep, number living in a state worse than death (WTD), wellbeing, and patient satisfaction with their healthcare. Methods. This prospective study included 142 patients awaiting a THA (mean age 66.7 years (SD 11.4); 71 female) and 214 patients awaiting KA (mean age 69.7 years (SD 8.7); 117 female). Patients completed questionnaires (EuroQol five-dimension health questionnaire (EQ-5D), Oxford Hip and Knee Scores (OHS/OKS), Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Score (HADS), University of California, Los Angeles Activity Scale, wellbeing assessment, and satisfaction with their healthcare) at six and 12 months while awaiting surgery. Results. There was a clinical and statistically significant deterioration in the EQ-5D while awaiting THA (mean change 0.071 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.018 to 0.124); p = 0.009) and KA (mean change 0.069 (95% CI 0.032 to 0.106); p < 0.001). For patients awaiting a THA, there were deteriorations in OHS (p = 0.003), PSQI (p = 0.008), both HADS depression (p = 0.001) and anxiety (p = 0.002), and an increased prevalence in those in a state WTD (p = 0.010). For those awaiting KA, there were significant deteriorations in OKS (p < 0.001), UCLA (p = 0.001), and HADS depression (p < 0.001) and anxiety (p < 0.001). There were significant decreases in wellbeing (satisfaction with life, feeling life to be worthwhile, and happiness) and increases in anxiety for those awaiting THA or KA (p < 0.001). Those awaiting THA (odds ratio (OR) 0.52 (95% CI 0.31 to 0.89); p = 0.016) and KA (OR 0.46 (95% CI 0.31 to 0.71); p < 0.001) had a significant decrease in satisfaction with their healthcare. Conclusion. As patients waited from six to 12 months for THA or KA, they experienced a clinically significant deterioration in HRQoL. There were also deteriorations in joint-specific function, mental health, wellbeing, and patient satisfaction with healthcare. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(2):166–173

Aims. To examine whether natural language processing (NLP) using a clinically based large language model (LLM) could be used to predict patient selection for total hip or total knee arthroplasty (THA/TKA) from routinely available free-text radiology reports. Methods. Data pre-processing and analyses were conducted according to the Artificial intelligence to Revolutionize the patient Care pathway in Hip and knEe aRthroplastY (ARCHERY) project protocol. This included use of de-identified Scottish regional clinical data of patients referred for consideration of THA/TKA, held in a secure data environment designed for artificial intelligence (AI) inference. Only preoperative radiology reports were included. NLP algorithms were based on the freely available GatorTron model, a LLM trained on over 82 billion words of de-identified clinical text. Two inference tasks were performed: assessment after model-fine tuning (50 Epochs and three cycles of k-fold cross validation), and external validation. Results. For THA, there were 5,558 patient radiology reports included, of which 4,137 were used for model training and testing, and 1,421 for external validation. Following training, model performance demonstrated average (mean across three folds) accuracy, F1 score, and area under the receiver operating curve (AUROC) values of 0.850 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.833 to 0.867), 0.813 (95% CI 0.785 to 0.841), and 0.847 (95% CI 0.822 to 0.872), respectively. For TKA, 7,457 patient radiology reports were included, with 3,478 used for model training and testing, and 3,152 for external validation. Performance metrics included accuracy, F1 score, and AUROC values of 0.757 (95% CI 0.702 to 0.811), 0.543 (95% CI 0.479 to 0.607), and 0.717 (95% CI 0.657 to 0.778) respectively. There was a notable deterioration in performance on external validation in both cohorts. Conclusion. The use of routinely available preoperative radiology reports provides promising potential to help screen suitable candidates for THA, but not for TKA. The external validation results demonstrate the importance of further model testing and training when confronted with new clinical cohorts. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(7):688–695

Aims. For the increasing number of working-age patients undergoing total hip or total knee arthroplasty (THA/TKA), return to work (RTW) after surgery is crucial. We investigated the association between occupational class and time to RTW after THA or TKA. Methods. Data from the prospective multicentre Longitudinal Leiden Orthopaedics Outcomes of Osteoarthritis Study were used. Questionnaires were completed preoperatively and six and 12 months postoperatively. Time to RTW was defined as days from surgery until RTW (full or partial). Occupational class was preoperatively assessed and categorized into four categories according to the International Standard Classification of Occupations 2008 (blue-/white-collar, high-/low-skilled). Cox regression analyses were conducted separately for THA and TKA patients. Low-skilled blue-collar work was used as the reference category. Results. A total of 360 THA and 276 TKA patients, preoperatively employed, were included. Patients were mainly high-skilled (THA 57%; TKA 41%) or low-skilled (THA 24%; TKA 38%) white-collar workers. Six months post-THA, RTW rates were 78% of low-skilled blue-collar workers compared to 83% to 86% within other occupational classes, increasing after 12 months to 87% to 90% in all occupational classes. Six months post-TKA, RTW rates were 58% of low-skilled and 64% of high-skilled blue-collar workers compared to 80% to 89% of white-collar workers, and after 12 months 79% of low-skilled blue-collar workers compared to 87% to 92% within other occupational classes. High-skilled white-collar workers (THA: hazard ratio (HR) 2.12 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.32 to 3.40); TKA: HR 2.31 (95% CI 1.34 to 4.00)) and low-skilled white-collar workers (TKA: HR 1.82 (95% CI 1.04 to 3.18)) had a higher hazard to RTW within six months postoperatively. Conclusion. Clear differences existed in time to RTW among both THA and TKA patients in each of the groups studied. These findings may help guide tailored patient-specific information during preoperative consultation and advice postoperatively, as well as to create awareness among workers and their employers. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(9):977–984

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. 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. The primary aim of this study was to assess whether patients waiting six months or more for a total hip (THA) or knee (KA) arthroplasty had a deterioration in their health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Secondary aims were to assess changes in frailty and the number of patients living in a state considered to be worse than death (WTD), and factors associated with changes in HRQoL and frailty. Methods. This cross-sectional study included 326 patients, 150 males (46.0%) and 176 females (54.0%), with a mean age of 68.6 years (SD 9.8) who were randomly selected from waiting lists at four centres and had been waiting for six months or more (median 13 months, interquartile range 10 to 21) for a primary THA (n = 161) or KA (n = 165). The EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D) and visual analogue scores (EQ-VAS), Rockwood Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), and 36-Item Short Form Survey subjective change in HRQoL were assessed at the time and recalled for six months earlier. A state that was WTD was defined as an EQ-5D of less than zero. Results. There were significant deteriorations in the EQ-5D (mean 0.175, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.145 to 0.204; p < 0.001), EQ-VAS (mean 8.6, 95% CI 7.0 to 10.4; < 0.001), and CFS (from 3 “managing well” to 4 “vulnerable”; p < 0.001), and a significant increase in the number of those in a state that was WTD (n = 48; p < 0.001) during the previous six months for the whole cohort. A total of 110 patients (33.7%) stated that their health was much worse and 107 (32.8%) felt it was somewhat worse compared with six months previously. A significantly greater EQ-5D (-0.14, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.28; p = 0.038) and a state that was not WTD (-0.14, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.26; p = 0.031) were associated with a deterioration in the EQ-5D. THA (0.21, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.34; p = 0.002) or a lower (better) CFS (0.14, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.20; p < 0.001) were independently significantly associated with a deterioration in the CFS. Conclusion. Patients waiting more than six months for THA or KA had a significant deterioration in their HRQoL and increased frailty, with two-thirds of patients feeling that their health had worsened. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(11):1215–1224

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

Aims. Routinely collected patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have been useful to quantify and quality-assess provision of total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in the UK for the past decade. This study aimed to explore whether the outcome following primary THA and TKA had improved over the past seven years. Methods. Secondary data analysis of 277,430 primary THAs and 308,007 primary TKAs from the NHS PROMs programme was undertaken. Outcome measures were: postoperative Oxford Hip/Knee Score (OHS/OKS); proportion of patients achieving a clinically important improvement in joint function (responders); quality of life; patient satisfaction; perceived success; and complication rates. Outcome measures were compared based on year of surgery using multiple linear and logistic regression models. Results. For primary THA, multiple linear regression modelling found that more recent year of surgery was associated with higher postoperative OHS (unstandardized coefficient (B) 0.15 points (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 0.17); p < 0.001) and higher EuroQol five-dimension index (EQ-5D) utility (B 0.002 (95% CI 0.001 to 0.002); p < 0.001). The odds of being a responder (odds ratio (OR) 1.02 (95% CI 1.02 to 1.03); p < 0.001) and patient satisfaction (OR 1.02 (95% CI 1.01 to 1.03); p < 0.001) increased with year of surgery, while the odds of any complication reduced (OR 0.97 (95% CI 0.97 to 0.98); p < 0.001). No trend was found for perceived success (p = 0.555). For primary TKA, multiple linear regression modelling found that more recent year of surgery was associated with higher postoperative OKS (B 0.21 points (95% CI 0.19 to 0.22); p < 0.001) and higher EQ-5D utility (B 0.002 (95% CI 0.002 to 0.003); p < 0.001). The odds of being a responder (OR 1.04 (95% CI 1.03 to 1.04); p < 0.001), perceived success (OR 1.02 (95% CI 1.01 to 1.02); p < 0.001), and patient satisfaction (OR 1.02 (95% CI 1.01 to 1.02); p < 0.001) all increased with year of surgery, while the odds of any complication reduced (OR 0.97 (95% CI 0.97 to 0.97); p < 0.001). Conclusion. Nearly all patient-reported outcomes following primary THA/TKA improved by a small amount over the past seven years. Due to the high proportion of patients achieving good outcomes, PROMs following THA and TKA may need to focus on better discrimination of patients achieving high scores to be able to continue to measure improvement in outcomes. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(6):687–695

Aims. The primary aim was to assess the rate of postoperative COVID-19 following hip and knee arthroplasty performed in March 2020 in the UK. The secondary aims were to assess whether there were clinical factors associated with COVID-19 status, the mortality rate of patients with COVID-19, and the rate of potential COVID-19 in patients not presenting to healthcare services. Methods. A multicentre retrospective study was conducted of patients undergoing hip or knee arthroplasty during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic (1 March 2020 to 31 March 2020) with a minimum of 60 days follow-up. Patient demographics, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, procedure type, primary or revision, length of stay (LOS), COVID-19 test status, and postoperative mortality were recorded. A subgroup of patients (n = 211) who had not presented to healthcare services after discharge were contacted and questioned as to whether they had symptoms of COVID-19. Results. Five (0.5%) of 1,073 patients who underwent hip or knee arthroplasty tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 postoperatively. When adjusting for confounding factors, increasing LOS (p = 0.022) was the only significant factor associated with developing COVID-19 following surgery and a stay greater than three days was a reliable predictor with an area under the curve of 81% (p = 0.018). There were three (0.3%) deaths in the study cohort and the overall mortality rate attributable to COVID-19 was 0.09% (n = 1/1,073), with one (20%) of the five patients with COVID-19 dying postoperatively. Of the 211 patients contacted, two had symptoms within two to 14 days postoperatively with a positive predictive value of 31% and it was therefore estimated that one patient may have had undiagnosed COVID-19. Conclusion. The rate of postoperative COVID-19 was 0.5% and may have been as high as 1% when accounting for those patients not presenting to healthcare services, which was similar to the estimated population prevalence during the study period. The overall mortality rate secondary to COVID-19 was low (0.09%), however the mortality rate for those patients developing COVID-19 was 20%. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(4):681–688

Aims. To calculate how the likelihood of obtaining measurable benefit from hip or knee arthroplasty varies with preoperative patient-reported scores. Methods. Existing UK data from 222,933 knee and 209,760 hip arthroplasty patients were used to model an individual’s probability of gaining meaningful improvement after surgery based on their preoperative Oxford Knee or Hip Score (OKS/OHS). A clinically meaningful improvement after arthroplasty was defined as ≥ 8 point improvement in OHS, and ≥ 7 in OKS. Results. The upper preoperative score threshold, above which patients are unlikely to achieve any meaningful improvement from surgery, is 41 for knees and 40 for hips. At lower scores, the probability of improvement increased towards a maximum of 88% (knee) and 95% for (hips). Conclusion. By our definition of meaningful improvement, patients with preoperative scores above 41 (OKS) and 40 (OHS) should not be routinely referred to secondary care for possible arthroplasty. Using lower thresholds would incrementally increase the probability of meaningful benefit for those referred but will exclude some patients with potential to benefit. The findings are useful to support the complex shared decision-making process in primary care for referral to secondary care; and in secondary care for experienced clinicians counselling patients considering knee or hip arthroplasty, but should not be used in isolation. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(7):941–949

Aims. The aim of this study is to assess the impact of a pilot enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programme on length of stay (LOS) and post-discharge resource usage via service evaluation and cost analysis. Methods. Between May and December 2019, 100 patients requiring hip or knee arthroplasty were enrolled with the intention that each would have a preadmission discharge plan, a preoperative education class with nominated helper, a day of surgery admission and mobilization, a day one discharge, and access to a 24/7 dedicated helpline. Each was matched with a patient under the pre-existing pathway from the previous year. Results. Mean LOS for ERAS patients was 1.59 days (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.14 to 2.04), significantly less than that of the matched cohort (3.01 days; 95% CI 2.56 to 3.46). There were no significant differences in readmission rates for ERAS patients at both 30 and 90 days (six vs four readmissions at 30 days, and nine vs four at 90 days). Despite matching, there were significantly more American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade 3 patients in the ERAS cohort. There was a mean cost saving of £757.26 (95% CI £-1,200.96 to £-313.56) per patient. This is despite small increases in postoperative resource usage in the ERAS patients. Conclusion. ERAS represents a safe and effective means of reducing LOS in primary joint arthroplasty patients. Implementation of ERAS principles has potential financial savings and could increase patient throughput without compromising care. In elective care, a preadmission discharge plan is key. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(11):966–973

Aims. The aim of this study was to give estimates of the incidence of component incompatibility in hip and knee arthroplasty and to test the effect of an online, real-time compatibility check. Materials and Methods. Intraoperative barcode registration of arthroplasty implants was introduced in Denmark in 2013. We developed a compatibility database and, from May 2017, real-time compatibility checking was implemented and became part of the registration. We defined four classes of component incompatibility: A-I, A-II, B-I, and B-II, depending on an assessment of the level of risk to the patient (A/B), and on whether incompatibility was knowingly accepted (I/II). Results. A total of 26 524 arthroplasties were analyzed. From 12 307 procedures that were undertaken before implementation of the compatibility check, 21 class A incompatibilities were identified (real- or high-risk combinations; 0.17%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.11 to 0.26). From 5692 hip and 6615 knee procedures prior to implementation of the compatibility check, we found rates of class A-I incompatibility (real- or high-risk combinations unknowingly inserted) of 0.14% (95% CI 0.06 to 0.28) and 0.17% (95% CI 0.08 to 0.30), respectively. From 14 217 procedures after the introduction of compatibility checking (7187 hips and 7030 knees), eight class A incompatibilities (0.06%; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.11) were identified. This difference was statistically significant (p = 0.008). Conclusion. Our data presents validated estimates of the baseline incidence of incompatibility events for hip and knee arthroplasty procedures and shows that a significant reduction in class A incompatibility events is possible using a web-based recording system. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:960–969

Aims. To assess how the cost-effectiveness of total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) varies with age, sex, and preoperative Oxford Hip or Knee Score (OHS/OKS); and to identify the patient groups for whom THA/TKA is cost-effective. Methods. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis using a Markov model from a United Kingdom NHS perspective, informed by published analyses of patient-level data. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of THA and TKA in adults with hip or knee osteoarthritis compared with having no arthroplasty surgery during the ten-year time horizon. Results. THA and TKA cost < £7,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained at all preoperative scores below the absolute referral thresholds calculated previously (40 for OHS and 41 for OKS). Furthermore, THA cost < £20,000/QALY for patients with OHS of ≤ 45, while TKA was cost-effective for patients with OKS of ≤ 43, since the small improvements in quality of life outweighed the cost of surgery and any subsequent revisions. Probabilistic and one-way sensitivity analyses demonstrated that there is little uncertainty around the conclusions. Conclusion. If society is willing to pay £20,000 per QALY gained, THA and TKA are cost-effective for nearly all patients who currently undergo surgery, including all patients at and above our calculated absolute referral thresholds. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(7):950–958

Aims. Infection following total hip or knee arthroplasty is a serious complication. We noted an increase in post-operative infection in cases carried out in temporary operating theatres. We therefore compared those cases performed in standard and temporary operating theatres and examined the deep periprosthetic infection rates. Patients and methods. A total of 1223 primary hip and knee arthroplasties were performed between August 2012 and June 2013. A total of 539 (44%) were performed in temporary theatres. The two groups were matched for age, gender, body mass index and American Society of Anesthesiologists grade. Results. The deep infection rate for standard operating theatres was 0 of 684 (0%); for temporary theatres it was eight of 539 (1.5%) (p = 0.001). Conclusion. Use of a temporary operating theatre for primary hip and knee arthroplasty was associated with an unacceptable increase in deep infection. We do not advocate the use of these theatres for primary joint arthroplasty. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2017;99-B:917–20

Aims

Removal of infected components and culture-directed antibiotics are important for the successful treatment of chronic periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). However, as many as 27% of chronic PJI patients yield negative culture results. Although culture negativity has been thought of as a contraindication to one-stage revision, data supporting this assertion are limited. The aim of our study was to report on the clinical outcomes for one-stage and two-stage exchange arthroplasty performed in patients with chronic culture-negative PJI.

Aims. Increasing demand for total hip and knee arthroplasty (THA/TKA) and associated follow-up has placed huge demands on orthopaedic services. Feasible follow-up mechanisms are therefore essential. . Methods. We conducted an audit of clinical follow-up decision-making for THA/TKA based on questionnaire/radiograph review compared with local practice of Arthroplasty Care Practitioner (ACP)-led outpatient follow-up. In all 599 patients attending an ACP-led THA/TKA follow-up clinic had a pelvic/knee radiograph, completed a pain/function questionnaire and were reviewed by an ACP. An experienced orthopaedic surgeon reviewed the same radiographs and questionnaires, without patient contact or knowledge of the ACP’s decision. Each pathway classified patients into: urgent review, annual monitoring, routine follow-up or discharge. . Results. In total, 401 hip and 198 knee patients were included. There was substantial agreement between the ACP and surgeon for both hip (kappa = 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 0.76) and knee (kappa = 0.81, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.88). Positive agreement was very high for discharge and routine follow-up; however the ACP was more likely to select annual monitoring and the surgeon urgent review. . Discussion. Review of the questionnaire/radiograph together identified all patients in need of increased surveillance, with good agreement for on-going patient management. However, review of the radiograph or questionnaire alone missed some patients with potential problems. A radiograph in conjunction with a questionnaire as a review may represent a cost effective THA/TKA follow-up mechanism. Take home message: A questionnaire and radiograph-based remote review may represent a cost-effective total joint arthroplasty follow-up mechanism; thereby reducing the considerable burden that follow-up currently places on the NHS. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2016;98-B:201–8