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

Given the prolonged waits for hip arthroplasty seen across the U.K. it is important that we optimise priority systems to account for potential disparities in patient circumstances and impact. We set out to achieve this through a two-stage approach. This included a Delphi-study of patient and surgeon preferences to determine what should be considered when determining patient priority, followed by a Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) to decide relative weighting of included attributes. The study was conducted according to the published protocol ([. https://boneandjoint.org.uk/article/10.1302/2633-1462.310.BJO-2022-0071. ](. https://boneandjoint.org.uk/article/10.1302/2633-1462.310.BJO-2022-0071. )). The Delphi study was performed online over 3 rounds with anonymous ranking and feedback. Included factors were voted as either Consensus in, Consensus out, or No Consensus• following an established scoring criterion. A final consensus meeting determined the prioritisation factors (and their levels) to be included in the DCE. The DCE was then conducted using an online platform, with surgeons performing 18 choice sets regarding which merited greater priority between two hypothetical patients. Results were collated and analysed using multinomial logit regression analysis (MNL). For the Delphi study there were 43 responses in the first round, with a subsequent 91% participation rate. Final consensus inclusion was achieved for Pain; Mobility/Function; Activities of Daily Living; Inability to Work/Care; Length of Time Waited; Radiological Severity and Mental Wellbeing. 70 individuals subsequently contributed to the DCE, with radiological severity being 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 1-month additional wait 0.12 \[SD 0.02\], p<0.001). The calculated trade-off in waiting time for a 1-level change in pain (e.g., moderate to severe pain) was 9.14 months. These results present a new method of determining comparative priority for those on primary hip arthroplasty waiting lists. Evaluation of potential implementation in clinical practice is now required

Pyrexia in the post-operative setting has often been associated with a possible systemic or wound infection. We assessed whether there is any justification for our concern regarding post-operative pyrexia following hip arthroplasty and subsequent deep prosthetic infection. Method:. Study 1. An assessment of the clinical outcome of 97 sequential patients who underwent 103 primary hip arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis replacements. Daily temperature and systemic complications in the post-operative period were recorded. Clinical outcome was measured using an Oxford hip questionnaire. Patients had a mean follow-up of 5.2 years (range 3.5–7.2years). Study 2. A review of postoperative temperature records of 80 patients who had undergone primary total hip replacement. Thirty-one patients had required revision surgery at a mean time interval of 37.2 months (range 5–74 months) for confirmed deep prosthetic infection. The remaining Forty-nine patients were asymptomatic at a mean follow-up of 31.5 months. Results:. Study 1. Post-operative pyrexia of 38 degrees Celsius was present in 51% of patient’s undergoing primary hip replacement in the first post-operative week but in 21.1% no etiological cause could be identified. Clinical outcome measured by an oxford hip questionnaire was not influenced by the post-operative temperature pattern. Study 2. The mean peak temperature on the first post-operative day was significantly lower in patients with deep prosthetic infection then patients with a clinically normal outcome (p=0.01). Conclusion: Post-operative pyrexia is clearly not uncommon following primary arthroplasty and its presence should not be regarded as detrimental. Pyrexia in the post-operative setting is a component of the acute phase response to trauma and study 2 demonstrates patients who develop a low-grade infection following arthroplasty may have diminished febrile response to surgical trauma

Aim of the study: In order to compare the short-term results of a mini-incision in primary hip replacement with the results of the standard incision we developed a prospective study with 80 patients. Forty of them had a hip replacement using a mini-incision technique, and the 40 remaining patients using a classic approach. Methods: All the patients were treated with an anatomic non cemented stem (ABG-II, Striker). No statistical differences were found related to age, gender and weight between groups. The patients were distributed into two surgical teams according to the date of their first visit to our service. Each team develop only one kind of procedure. Results: No differences were found related to the incidence of surgical or postoperative complications, placement of the implants and need of early rehabilitation. Patients having a mini incision were discharged from the hospital only 1 day earlier than those having a standard incision (5.6 days vs. 6.7 days). Only blood transfusion showed a significant improvement: 8% in the mini-incision group and 32% in the standard approach needed a transfusion. Conclusions: No major improvements were found related to the use of mini-incisions in primary hip replacement. To obtain the positive clinical outcomes related to this new technique some improvements should be done in anesthetics, pain control an early rehabilitation in selected and motivated patients

Pyrexia in the post-operative setting has often been associated with a possible systemic or wound infection. We assessed whether there is any justification for our concern regarding post-operative pyrexia following hip arthroplasty and subsequent deep prosthetic infection. We undertook an assessment of the clinical outcome of 97 sequential patients who underwent 103 primary hip arthroplasty for primary osteoarthritis replacements. Daily temperature and systemic complications in the post-operative period were recorded. Clinical outcome was measured using an Oxford hip questionnaire. Patients had a mean follow-up of 5.2 years (range 3.5–7.2years). We reviewed the postoperative temperature records of 80 patients who had undergone primary total hip replacement. Thirty-one patients had required revision surgery at a mean time interval of 37.2 months (range 5–74 months) for confirmed deep prosthetic infection. The remaining Forty-nine patients were asymptomatic at a mean follow-up of 31.5 months. Study 1. Post-operative pyrexia of 38 degrees Celsius was present in 51% of patients undergoing primary hip replacement in the first post-operative week but in 21.1% no etiological cause could be identified. Clinical outcome measured by an Oxford hip questionnaire was not influenced by the post-operative temperature pattern. Study 2. The mean peak temperature on the first post-operative day was significantly lower in patients with deep prosthetic infection then patients with a clinically normal outcome (p=0.01). Post-operative pyrexia is clearly not uncommon following primary arthroplasty and its presence should not be regarded as detrimental. Pyrexia in the postoperative setting is a component of the acute phase response to trauma and study 2 demonstrates patients who develop a low-grade infection following arthroplasty may have a diminished febrile response to surgical trauma which may be an indirect representation of a diminished immune response to surgical trauma or infection

Introduction. Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is an uncommon but serious complication of hip replacement. A recent systematic review of patient risk factors for PJI identified male gender, smoking status, increasing BMI, steroid use, previous joint surgery and comorbidities of diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis and depression as risk factors for developing PJI. Limitations of the current literature include the short term follow up of most published studies. We investigated the role of patient, surgical and healthcare factors on the risk of revision of a primary hip replacement for PJI at different time-points in the post-operative follow-up. It is important that those risk factors are identified so that patients can be appropriately counselled according to their individual risk profile prior to surgery and modifiable factors can be addressed to reduce the risk of PJI at an individual and healthcare system level. Materials and Methods. Primary hip replacements and subsequent revision procedures performed for PJI from 2003–2014 were identified from the National Joint Registry (NJR). Patient (age, gender, ASA grade, BMI), perioperative (surgical indication, type of anaesthesia, thromboprophylaxis regime, surgical approach, hip replacement and bearing surface and use of femoral or acetabular bone graft) and healthcare system characteristics (surgeon grade, surgical volume) were linked with data from Hospital Episode Statistics to obtain information on specific ethnicity and comorbidities (derived from the Charlson index). Multilevel piecewise exponential non-proportional hazards models were used to estimate their effects at different post-operative periods (0–3 months, 3–6 months, 6–12 months, 12–24 and >24 months post-operation). Results. The index hip replacements consisted of 623,253 primaries with 2,705 subsequently revised for PJI, 14% within 3 months, 8% between 3–6 months, 14% between 6–12 months, 22% between 1–2 years and 42% ≥2 years after the index procedure. Risk factors for revision of PJI included male gender, high BMI, high ASA grade and younger age. Their effects were period-specific. Patients with chronic pulmonary disease, diabetes or dementia had high early risk of revision for PJI, as did patients operated for a fractured neck of femur (<3 months). Metal-on-metal bearings (>12 months) and lateral surgical approach (≥3 months) also influenced the mid- and long-term revision risk for PJI. No or modest associations were found with the operating surgeon grade, surgical volume and hospital surgical volume. Conclusion. The effects of patient, perioperative and healthcare system risk factors for PJI after primary hip replacement are time-dependent. Modifiable risk factors such as the type of surgical approach and bearing surface have also been found

Introduction:. Intraoperative cell salvage involves the collection of blood directly from the operative field. The purpose of this study was to determine if its use reduces the need for postoperative allogenic blood transfusion, assess any adverse events and its effect on duration of postoperative stay in primary hip arthroplasty. Patients and Methods:. We prospectively examined the effect of intraoperative cell salvage on the need for postoperative allogenic blood transfusion. Between February 2009 and August 2010, a total of 77 patients who underwent primary total hip arthroplasty were included in the study, under the care of the senior author (KB). All patients had a diagnosis of osteoarthritis. Intraoperative cell salvage was used in 38 patients and not used in 39 patients. We prospectively collected data on patient demographics, ASA grade, preoperative and postoperative haematological features, number of units of packed red cells transfused and the volume of intraoperative reinfused cell salvaged blood. Total inpatient stay and any postoperative adverse events were recorded. Results:. No patients in the cell salvage group required postoperative allogenic blood transfusion compared to three patients (7.7%) in the conventional group. Postoperative decrease in haemoglobin was less in the cell salvage group (2.57 vs. 3.3 g/dL). The mean length of postoperative inpatient stay was shorter in the cell salvage group (5.1 vs. 6.41 days). Three patients in the cell salvage group had adverse events (1 UTI, 1 hyponatraemia, 1 colonic pseudo-obstruction). Three patients in the conventional group experienced adverse events (2 superficial wound infections, 1 DVT). An average of 361 mls of cell salvaged blood was reinfused (110–900 mls). Conclusions:. We have found that the use of intraoperative cell salvage in patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty reduces the need for post operative allogenic blood transfusion with no increase in adverse events when compared to conventional measures of blood preserving techniques

Intraoperative cell salvage involves the collection of blood directly from the operative field. The purpose of this study was to determine if its use reduces the need for postoperative allogenic blood transfusion, assess any adverse events and its effect on duration of postoperative stay in primary hip arthroplasty. We prospectively examined the effect of intraoperative cell salvage on the need for postoperative allogenic blood transfusion. Between February 2009 and August 2010, a total of 77 patients who underwent primary total hip arthroplasty were included in the study, under the care of the senior author (KB). All patients had a diagnosis of osteoarthritis. Intraoperative cell salvage was used in 38 patients and not used in 39 patients. We prospectively collected data on patient demographics, ASA grade, preoperative and postoperative haematological features, number of units of packed red cells transfused and the volume of intraoperative reinfused cell salvaged blood was. Total inpatient stay and any postoperative adverse events were recorded. No patients in the cell salvage group required postoperative allogenic blood transfusion compared to three patients (7.7%) in the conventional group. Postoperative decrease in haemoglobin was less in the cell salvage group (2.57 vs. 3.3 g/dL). The mean length of postoperative inpatient stay was shorter in the cell salvage group (5.1 vs. 6.41 days). Three patients in the cell salvage group had adverse events (1 UTI, 1 hyponatraemia, 1 colonic pseudo-obstruction). Three patients in the conventional group experienced adverse events (2 superficial wound infections, 1 DVT). An average of 361mls of cell salvaged blood was reinfused (110–900mls). We have found that the use of intraoperative cell salvage in patients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty reduces the need for post operative allogenic blood transfusion with no increase in adverse events when compared to conventional measures of blood preserving techniques

Hyponatraemia is a potentially preventable post-operative complication following hip arthroplasty. There is a paucity of literature reporting its incidence and guidelines for prevention - unlike AKI which has been prioritised to great success. Hyponatraemia is now rife in elective orthopaedics causing multiple symptoms that delay ambulation and increase the length of hospital stay. We aim to assess the incidence of hyponatraemia and AKI as a benchmark following elective primary total hip arthroplasty (THA), as well as identify patients most at risk in a high volume arthroplasty centre.

Between April 2018 and September 2018 all primary THA surgeries performed in one hospital were retrospectively reviewed. Pre-operative and 1 day post operative bloods were analysed. Patients included had normal pre-operative sodium.

A total of 221 patients underwent THA. The mean age was 73.6 and ASA 2.1. No patients had a recorded AKI, however 42% of patients had a new post operative hyponatraemia. Of the hyponatraemia cases, 75% were mild, 18% were moderate, and 7% were severe. There was correlation between increased age and increased severity of hyponatraemia. The mean age of patients with mild hyponatraemia was 72.1, moderate was 77.7, and severe was 78.8. An association between ASA and severity of hyponatraemia was noted. In patients who had an ASA of 4 and hyponatraemia, 66% were moderate or severe, ASA 3 was 25%, ASA 2 was 24% and ASA 1 was 0%. The patients who had severe hyponatraemia received on average 3.5L fluid input perioperatively.

Rates of post op hyponatraemia are significantly higher than AKI in primary THA. Severity of hyponatraemia increases with age and ASA. Due to its negative outcomes on recovery the high levels of hyponatraemia are worrying. We have identified which patient cohorts are more at risk and recommend more care should be taken in their perioperative fluid balance. It may be beneficial to consider successful AKI prevention and management campaigns and apply them to the prevention of hyponatraemia following hip arthroplasty.

Introduction: With the rising number of primary hip arthroplasties performed each year, patient selection criteria is becoming increasingly pertinent. There is growing concern that patients with a high body mass index (BMI) have worse outcomes following hip replacement surgery. However the evidence base is equivocal. Our aim is to assess whether BMI has an impact on clinical and radiological outcomes of primary total hip arthroplasties. Methods: This is a prospective study of 92 patients, undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty, recruited from two hospitals. Data was collected by the operating surgical team and independent physiotherapists at the preoperative assessment clinic, intraoperatively and at six weeks post-operative follow up. BMI was recorded. Patients were divided into 2 groups: those with a BMI less than 30 (considered nonobese) and those 30 or above (obese). Outcomes assessed included blood loss and requirement blood transfusion, fat thickness, operation duration, complications and surgeon’s perception of the difficulty of operation (scored on a VAS). In addition functional capacity was assessed using the Oxford Hip scores pre and post-operatively. Radiographs were scored independently according to Dorr and Barrack. Results: Of our 92 patients, 36 were obese and 56 were non-obese. There was no significant difference found in blood loss, blood transfusion requirements, operation duration and complications between the two groups, With regards to the Oxford Hip scores, the obese patients had greater differences between their pre- and post-operative scores but this difference was not significant (p=0.09). We found a significant difference (p=0.003) in surgeons’ perception of the difficulty of operation with VAS scores for obese patients being higher than non-obese patients. Our Dorr and Barrack scores revealed no significant difference in radiological outcome between our two groups. Conclusion: Our study would suggest that obese patients do not have worse outcomes following primary total hip arthroplasty than non-obese patients

Aims: The original M.E. Mueller straight stem is used as standard implant for primary hip replacement with cement fixation in our hospital since 1982. Methods: During the last 20 years in our department 5110 Mueller straight stems were implanted for hip replacement. 4054 cases of arthritis of the hip joint, 883 femoral neck fractures and 173 cases of revision were treated with this implant. 109 patients out of 1982 and 1983 were re-examined after 5 years clinical and radiological. After 20 years dates out of 128 patients of a group of 200 (65%) from 1982/83 are available. In a third group from 489 femur neck fractures cases between 1987 and 1996 101 patients could be verified and their complications analysed Results: After 5 years from 158 patients 26 had deceased and 23 were lost. In the remaining group were 9 local and 8 general complications. Two cases had revisions. After 20 years 72 out of 200 were lost 65 had deceased. From 128 patients in this trial 19 had a revision of stem. 109 patients still lived with their first replacement. The surveillance rate is 82,5%. In the group of 101 re-examined patients with straight stems after femur neck fracture 3 cases had revision, 2 out of dislocation and 1 with deep infection. Conclusions: With the experience of 5110 implantations of Mueller straight stems during the last 20 years, a very small rate of complications and a surveillance of 82,5% this implant is a standard in cemented fixation in primary hip replacement

Introduction. Total hip arthroplasty is one of the most successful operations performed by an orthopaedic surgeon. There are three surgical approaches in use since Charnley popularised the trans-trochanteric approach. Opinion has been divided as to which approach is superior. Aim. This study was designed to examine the difference in morbidity between the classical Charnley trans-tro-chanteric approach and the antero-lateral trans-gluteal (Hardinge) approach in primary hip arthroplasty. Methods. Information on 891 patients, who underwent primary total hip arthroplasty performed by a single surgeon, was collected prospectively between 1998–2003 using a modified SF-36 form, pre-operatively, intra-operatively, and at three months. Information collected includes patient demographics, diagnosis, intra-operative blood-loss, and post-operative satisfaction and range of motion. Information was collected on the Excel database and analysed using Minitab statistical package. Results. The two groups were statistically similar for gender and side of pathology. There was no statistical difference in blood-loss between the groups. There was higher morbidity in the TT group. More patients were doubtful or dissatisfied with the THR in the TT group. There was a greater range of motion in the Hardinge group. Conclusion. In this study population, the trans-trochanteric approach was associated with higher morbidity, a lower patient satisfaction rating and a lower range of motion

With an increasing ageing population and a rise in the number of primary hip arthroplasty, peri-prosthetic fracture (PPF) reconstructive surgery is becoming more commonplace. The Swedish National Hip Registry reported that, in 2002, 5.1% of primary total hip replacements required revision due to PPF. Laboratory studies have indicated that age, bone quality and BMI all contribute to an increased risk of PPF. Osteolysis and aseptic loosening contribute to the formation of loosening zones as described by Gruen, with subsequent increased risk of fracture. The aim of the study was to identify significant risk factors for PPF in patients who have undergone primary total hip replacement (THR). Logbooks of three Consultant hip surgeons were filtered for patients who had THR-PPF fixation subsequent to trauma. Risk factors evaluated included sex, age, bone density (Singhs index), loosening zones, Vancouver classification, prosthesis stem angle relative to the axis of the femur, and length of time from THR to fracture. A control group of uncomplicated primary THR patients was also scrutinised. Forty-six PPF were identified representing 2.59% of THR workload. The male: female ratios in both groups were not significantly different (1:1.27 and 1:1.14 respectively). Average age of PPF was 72.1, which was significantly older than the control group (54.7, p>0.05). The commonest type of PPF was Vancouver type B. Whilst stem position in the AP plane was similar in both groups, in lateral views the PPF stem angle demonstrated significant antero-grade leg position compared to the non-PPF group (p.0.05). The PPF group demonstrated a greater number of loosening zones in pre-fracture radiographs compared to the control group (2.59 and 1.39 respectively, p>0.05). Our workload from PPF reflects that seen in Europe. Age, stem position and the degree of stem loosening appear to contribute to the risk of a peri-prosthetic fracture

Structural bulk autografts restore the severe bone loss at primary hip arthroplasty in dysplastic hips and have shown to have good long term outcomes. There are only a few reports of revision arthroplasty for these sockets that fail eventually. We report on a series of such primary hips which underwent cemented revision of the socket for aseptic loosening and their outcomes. A retrospective review was performed from our database to identify fifteen acetabular revisions after previous bulk autograft. The mean age at revision was 53.9 years (range 31–72.1). The mean duration between the primary and revision arthroplasty was 12.4 years (range 6.6 – 20.3). All procedures were done using trochanteric osteotomy and three hips also needed the femoral component revision. All fifteen hips needed re-bone grafting at the revision surgery to restore the new socket to the level of the true acetabulum. Of these ten hips had morsellised impaction allograft, and the remaining five also needing a structural bulk allograft. Two sockets underwent re-revision at mean 7.5 years for aseptic loosening. One patient had a dislocation that was reduced closed. At a mean follow up of 5.7 years, one socket showed superior migration, but was stable and did not need further intervention. Two other sockets also showed radiological evidence of loosening, and are being closely monitored. The medium term results of cemented acetabular revision in this younger age group are satisfactory, with repeat bone grafting being required to restore the true acetabular position. Though the primary arthroplasty with bulk bone graft recreates the acetabular bone stock, significant bone loss due to the mechanical loosening of the socket needs to be anticipated in revision surgery

Introduction. This is a retrospective review of the incidence of deep venous thrombosis (DVT) in 679 consecutive unilateral primary hip arthroplasty procedures performed between January 2007 and December 2010 managed with no anticoagulants. Mean age at operation was 58 years. Mean BMI was 26. The prophylaxis regimen included hypotensive epidural anesthesia, compression stockings, intermittent calf compression, early mobilization and an antiplatelet agent. Methods. 562 hybrid hip resurfacing procedures and 117 uncemented THRs, all performed through a posterior incision were included. Doppler ultrasound screening for DVT was performed in all patients between the fourth and sixth post-operative days. Patients were reviewed clinicoradiologically 6 to 10 weeks after operation and with a postal questionnaire at the end of 12 weeks to detect symptomatic VTE incidence following discharge. 14 patients with pre-existent VTE, coagulation disorders or cardiac problems requiring anticoagulant usage were excluded. Results. There were no symptomatic DVTs. Ten cases (1.5%) of asymptomatic below-knee DVT and 1 above-knee asymptomatic DVT (0.15%) were detected on USG. One patient had non-fatal pulmonary embolism but no evidence of lower limb DVT on repeated USG examinations. On investigation he was found to have Prothrombin 20210A mutation. The incidence of DVT was 1.6% (9 of 562) in the resurfacing group and 1.7% (2 of 117) in the THA group, an overall incidence of 1.6% (11/679) in the whole group. Fourteen patients (2.1%) needed a blood transfusion including 9 resurfacings (1.6%) and 5 THAs (4.3%). Discussion and Conclusion. This combination regimen which offers the prospect of low incidence of venous thromboembolism, without subjecting patients to the higher risks of bleeding associated with anticoagulant usage

The aim of this study was to investigate the possible benefit of large-head metal-on-metal bearing on a stem for primary hip replacement compared with a 28 mm diameter conventional metal-on-polyethylene bearing in a prospective randomised controlled trial. We investigated cemented stem behaviour between these two different bearings using Einzel-Bild-Röntgen-Analyse, clinical and patient reported measures (Harris hip score, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index, Short Form-36 and satisfaction) and whole blood metal ion levels at two years. A power study indicated that 50 hips were needed in each group to detect subsidence of > 5 mm at two years with a p-value of < 0.05. . Significant improvement (p < 0.001) was found in the mean clinical and patient reported outcomes at two years for both groups. Comparison of outcomes between the groups at two years showed no statistically significant difference for mean stem migration, clinical and patient reported outcomes; except overall patient satisfaction which was higher for metal-on-metal group (p = 0.05). Metal ion levels were raised above the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency advised safety level (7 µg per litre) in 20% of the metal-on-metal group and in one patient in metal-on-polyethylene group (who had a metal-on-metal implant on the contralateral side). Two patients in the metal-on-metal group were revised, one for pseudotumour and one for peri-prosthetic fracture. . Use of large modular heads is associated with a risk of raised whole blood metal ion levels despite using a proven bearing from resurfacing. The head-neck junction or excess stem micromotion are possibly the weak links warranting further research

To establish the incidence of early dislocation following primary total hip arthroplasty performed through a direct lateral approach when no post-operative restrictions on patient positioning or mobilization were imposed. 499 primary total hip arthroplasties performed in 483 patients between October 1997 and July 2000 were studied prospectively. Surgery was performed through a direct lateral (Hardinge) approach with the patient in a supine or lateral position according to surgeon preference. An Exeter femoral stem with a 26mm head (Howmedica) and an Ogee socket (Depuy) were both cemented. Post-operatively abduction pillows were not used. Patients were specifically advised both pre- and post-operatively by their surgeon, nurses and physiotherapist that no restrictions were placed on their mobilization. They were encouraged to move in any way that they found comfortable and adopt any position they chose. They were allowed to sleep in their usual position and bathe or shower normally. Mean patient age was 72 (range 35–95). 304 patients (61%) were female. The grade of operating surgeon was consultant in 326 (65%) cases, staff grade in 122 (25%) and specialist registrar in 51 (10%). 284 (57%) operations were performed with the patient placed in the lateral position. No patients were lost to follow-up. There were three dislocations within six weeks of surgery (defined as ‘early’), a rate of 0. 6%. All were reduced closed and managed conservatively. One hip dislocated for a second time eleven days later but every patient subsequently achieved stability without further intervention. There were no late dislocations. Our results suggest that a very low early dislocation rate can be achieved when performing primary hip arthroplasty through a direct lateral approach without the need to impose restrictions on post-operative mobilization which patients often find intrusive

Introduction: The most important cause of prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is the contamination of the wound during the surgery. Nowadays, it doesn’t exist any image or laboratory test for early detection of prosthesis with a higher risk of developing a PJI. Aim: The primary aim was to evaluate the usefulness of different intraoperative samples during the surgery of implantation of a primary hip arthroplasty (PHA) as a predicting factor of PJI. Methods: A prospective cohort study was performed. All patients (n= 278) who underwent a PHA from January ’06 to November ’08 were included. Three samples: a piece of articular capsule (TS), a swab (S) and synovial fluid (SF) inoculated into blood flask were taken in each patient during the first 45 minutes of surgery. Other possible risk factors of PJI like age, sex, ASA, comorbidity and surgical time were registered. Results: A total of 278 patients were included. 30 cultures (8 SF, 13 TS and 9 S) were positive in 29 patients. The most frequent microorganism isolated was Coagulase-negative staphylococci (CNS) (66.6%). The rate of PJI (early and late) in the subgroup of patients with positive intraoperative cultures for CNS was 25% while in the subgroup with all negative cultures was 5.2% (RR=4.8; p=0.007). Other factors significantly associated with a higher rate of PJI in the univariate analysis were: ASA III (RR=9.12; p=0.02), cardiopathy (RR= 2.82; p=0.04), obstructive pulmonary chronic disease (RR=5; p=0.02) and rheumatoid arthritis (RR=4.16; p=0.04). Multivariate analysis found ASA III (Odds ratio 10.9; CI 95% 1.27–94.6; p=0.02) and a positive intraoperative culture for CNS (Odds ratio 5.92; CI 95%=1.8–19.85; p=0.03) as independent risk factors for PJI. Conclusion: Positive intraoperative culture for CNS during PHA was independently associated with the development of PJI

We determined the association between frailty and 30-day mortality following total hip arthroplasty (THA) and the impact of THA on 30-day mortality compared to a control population.

We used primary care data (Clinical Practice Research Datalink), linked secondary care data (Hospital Episode Statistics) and Office for National Statistics mortality data. Frailty was assessed using a validated frailty index based on coded data in the primary care record and categorised as fit, mild, moderate, and severe frailty. The association between frailty and 30-day mortality following THA due to osteoarthritis was assessed using Cox regression, adjusted for year of birth, sex, quintile of index of multiple deprivation and year of surgery. Mortality following THA was also compared to a control population who had osteoarthritis but no previous THA, matched on year of birth, sex, and quintile of index of multiple deprivation.

103,563 cases who had a THA and their matched controls contributed data. Among those who had THA, compared to fit participants, 30-day mortality increased with increasing frailty; adjusted hazard ratio (HR) (95% CI) among mild frailty, 0.87 (0.66, 1.15); moderate frailty 1.73 (1.26, 2.38); and severe frailty, 2.85 (1.84, 4.39).

Compared to fit controls who did not have surgery, 30-day mortality was higher among fit people who had THA, adjusted HR 1.60 (1.15, 2.21). There was, however, no statistically significant difference in 30-day mortality among cases with mild, moderate and severe frailty compared to controls in the same frailty category.

Among people who had THA, 30-day mortality increased with increasing frailty. While 30-day mortality was increased among fit individuals who had THA compared to fit controls who did not have surgery, there did not appear to be increased mortality among individuals with mild, moderate or severe frailty compared to controls in the same frailty category. A healthy surgery (selection) effect may have impacted on the comparison of mortality among cases and controls.