Aims. The present study aimed to investigate whether patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) undergoing joint arthroplasty have a higher incidence of adverse outcomes than those without IBD. Methods. A comprehensive literature search was conducted to identify eligible studies reporting postoperative outcomes in IBD patients undergoing joint arthroplasty. The primary outcomes included postoperative complications, while the secondary outcomes included unplanned readmission, length of stay (LOS), joint reoperation/implant revision, and cost of care. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model when heterogeneity was substantial. Results. Eight retrospective studies involving 29,738 patients with IBD were included. Compared with non-IBD controls, patients with IBD were significantly more likely to have overall complications (OR 2.11 (95% CI 1.67 to 2.66), p < 0.001), medical complications (OR 2.15 (95% CI 1.73 to 2.68), p < 0.001), surgical complications (OR 1.43 (95% CI 1.21 to 1.70), p < 0.001), and 90-day readmissions (OR 1.42 (95% CI 1.23 to 1.65), p < 0.001). The presence of IBD was positively associated with the development of venous thromboembolism (OR 1.60 (95% CI 1.30 to 1.97), p < 0.001) and postoperative infection (OR 1.95 (95% CI 1.51 to 2.51), p < 0.001). In addition, patients with IBD tended to experience longer LOS and higher costs of care. Conclusion. The findings suggest that IBD is associated with an increased risk of postoperative complications and readmission after joint arthroplasty, resulting in longer hospital stay and greater financial burden. Surgeons should inform their patients of the possibility of adverse outcomes prior to surgery and make appropriate risk adjustments to minimize potential complications. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2023;12(6):362–371

Aims. Fungal periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) are rare, but their diagnosis and treatment are highly challenging. The purpose of this study was to investigate the clinical outcomes of patients with fungal PJIs treated with two-stage exchange knee arthroplasty combined with prolonged antifungal therapy. Methods. We reviewed our institutional joint arthroplasty database and identified 41 patients diagnosed with fungal PJIs and treated with two-stage exchange arthroplasty after primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) between January 2001 and December 2020, and compared them with those who had non-fungal PJIs during the same period. After propensity score matching based on age, sex, BMI, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, and Charlson Comorbidity Index, 40 patients in each group were successfully matched. The surgical and antimicrobial treatment, patient demographic and clinical characteristics, recurrent infections, survival rates, and relevant risk factors that affected joint survivorship were analyzed. We defined treatment success as a well-functioning arthroplasty without any signs of a PJI, and without antimicrobial suppression, at a minimum follow-up of two years from the time of reimplantation. Results. The fungal PJI group demonstrated a significantly worse treatment success rate at the final follow-up than the non-fungal PJI group (65.0% (26/40) vs 85.0% (34/40); p < 0.001). The mean prosthesis-free interval was longer in the fungal PJI group than in the non-fungal PJI group (6.7 weeks (SD 5.8) vs 4.1 weeks (SD 2.5); p = 0.020). The rate of survivorship free from reinfection was worse in the fungal PJI group (83.4% (95% confidence interval (CI) 64.1 to 92.9) at one year and 76.4% (95% CI 52.4 to 89.4) at two years) than in the non-fungal PJI group (97.4% (95% CI 82.7 to 99.6) at one year and 90.3% (95% CI 72.2 to 96.9) at two years), but the differences were not significant (p = 0.270). Cox proportional hazard regression analysis identified the duration of the prosthesis-free interval as a potential risk factor for failure (hazard ratio 1.128 (95% CI 1.003 to 1.268); p = 0.043). Conclusion. Fungal PJIs had a lower treatment success rate than non-fungal PJIs despite two-stage revision arthroplasty and appropriate antifungal treatment. Our findings highlight the need for further developments in treating fungal PJIs. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(12):1286–1293

Literature surrounding artificial intelligence (AI)-related applications for hip and knee arthroplasty has proliferated. However, meaningful advances that fundamentally transform the practice and delivery of joint arthroplasty are yet to be realized, despite the broad range of applications as we continue to search for meaningful and appropriate use of AI. AI literature in hip and knee arthroplasty between 2018 and 2021 regarding image-based analyses, value-based care, remote patient monitoring, and augmented reality was reviewed. Concerns surrounding meaningful use and appropriate methodological approaches of AI in joint arthroplasty research are summarized. Of the 233 AI-related orthopaedics articles published, 178 (76%) constituted original research, while the rest consisted of editorials or reviews. A total of 52% of original AI-related research concerns hip and knee arthroplasty (n = 92), and a narrative review is described. Three studies were externally validated. Pitfalls surrounding present-day research include conflating vernacular (“AI/machine learning”), repackaging limited registry data, prematurely releasing internally validated prediction models, appraising model architecture instead of inputted data, withholding code, and evaluating studies using antiquated regression-based guidelines. While AI has been applied to a variety of hip and knee arthroplasty applications with limited clinical impact, the future remains promising if the question is meaningful, the methodology is rigorous and transparent, the data are rich, and the model is externally validated. Simple checkpoints for meaningful AI adoption include ensuring applications focus on: administrative support over clinical evaluation and management; necessity of the advanced model; and the novelty of the question being answered. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(12):1292–1303

The February 2023 Research Roundup. 360. looks at: Clinical and epidemiological features of scaphoid fracture nonunion; Routine sterile glove and instrument change at the time of abdominal wound closure to prevent surgical site infection (ChEETAh); Characterization of genetic risk of end-stage knee osteoarthritis treated with total knee arthroplasty; Platelet-rich plasma or autologous blood injection for plantar fasciitis; Volume and outcomes of joint arthroplasty; The hazards of absolute belief in the p-value laid bare

Aims. The Birmingham Hip Resurfacing (BHR) arthroplasty has been used as a surgical treatment of coxarthrosis since 1997. We present 20-year results of 234 consecutive BHRs performed in our unit. Methods. Between 1999 and 2001, there were 217 patients: 142 males (65.4%), mean age 52 years (18 to 68) who had 234 implants (17 bilateral). They had patient-reported outcome measures collected, imaging (radiograph and ultrasound), and serum metal ion assessment. Survivorship analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier estimates. Revision for any cause was considered as an endpoint for the analysis. Results. Mean follow-up was 20.9 years (19.3 to 22.4). Registry data revealed that 19 hips (8.1%) had been revised and 26 patients (12%) had died from causes unrelated to the BHR. Among the remaining 189 hips, 61% were available for clinical follow-up at 20 years (n = 115) and 70% of patients had biochemical follow-up (n = 132). The cumulative implant survival rate at 20 years for male patients was 96.5% (95% confidence interval (CI) 93.5 to 99.6), and for female patients 87% (95% CI 79.7 to 94.9). The difference was statistically significant (p = 0.029). The mean Oxford Hip Score, Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, and Forgotten Joint Score were 45 (29 to 48), 89 (43 to 100), and 84 (19 to 100), respectively. The mean scores for each of the five domains of the EuroQol five-dimension three-level questionnaire were 1.2, 1.0, 1.2, 1.3, and 1.1, and mean overall score 82.6 (50 to 100). Ultrasound showed no pseudotumour. Mean cobalt and chromium levels were 32.1 nmol/l (1 to 374) and 45.5 nmol/l (9 to 408), respectively. Conclusion. This study shows that BHRs provide excellent survivorship and functional outcomes in young male patients. At 20 years, soft-tissue imaging and serum metal ion studies suggest that a metal-on-metal resurfacing implant can be well tolerated in a group of young patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(9):946–952

Aims. Machine learning (ML), a branch of artificial intelligence that uses algorithms to learn from data and make predictions, offers a pathway towards more personalized and tailored surgical treatments. This approach is particularly relevant to prevalent joint diseases such as osteoarthritis (OA). In contrast to end-stage disease, where joint arthroplasty provides excellent results, early stages of OA currently lack effective therapies to halt or reverse progression. Accurate prediction of OA progression is crucial if timely interventions are to be developed, to enhance patient care and optimize the design of clinical trials. Methods. A systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. We searched MEDLINE and Embase on 5 May 2024 for studies utilizing ML to predict OA progression. Titles and abstracts were independently screened, followed by full-text reviews for studies that met the eligibility criteria. Key information was extracted and synthesized for analysis, including types of data (such as clinical, radiological, or biochemical), definitions of OA progression, ML algorithms, validation methods, and outcome measures. Results. Out of 1,160 studies initially identified, 39 were included. Most studies (85%) were published between 2020 and 2024, with 82% using publicly available datasets, primarily the Osteoarthritis Initiative. ML methods were predominantly supervised, with significant variability in the definitions of OA progression: most studies focused on structural changes (59%), while fewer addressed pain progression or both. Deep learning was used in 44% of studies, while automated ML was used in 5%. There was a lack of standardization in evaluation metrics and limited external validation. Interpretability was explored in 54% of studies, primarily using SHapley Additive exPlanations. Conclusion. Our systematic review demonstrates the feasibility of ML models in predicting OA progression, but also uncovers critical limitations that currently restrict their clinical applicability. Future priorities should include diversifying data sources, standardizing outcome measures, enforcing rigorous validation, and integrating more sophisticated algorithms. This paradigm shift from predictive modelling to actionable clinical tools has the potential to transform patient care and disease management in orthopaedic practice. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(11):1216–1222

Aims. With increasing burden of revision hip arthroplasty (THA), one of the major challenges is the management of proximal femoral bone loss associated with previous multiple surgeries. Proximal femoral arthroplasty (PFA) has already been popularized for tumour surgeries. Our aim was to describe the outcome of using PFA in these demanding non-neoplastic cases. Methods. A retrospective review of 25 patients who underwent PFA for non-neoplastic indications between January 2009 and December 2015 was undertaken. Their clinical and radiological outcome, complication rates, and survival were recorded. All patients had the Stanmore Implant – Modular Endo-prosthetic Tumour System (METS). Results. At mean follow-up of 5.9 years, there were no periprosthetic fractures. Clearance of infection was achieved in 63.6% of cases. One hip was re-revised to pseudo arthroplasty for deep infection. Instability was noted in eight of the hips (32%), of which seven needed further surgery. Out of these eight hips with instability, five had preoperative infection. Deep infection was noted in five of the hips (20%), of which four were primarily revised for infection. One patient had aseptic loosening of the femoral component and awaits revision surgery. The Kaplan-Meier survivorship free of revision of any component for any reason was 72% (95% confidence interval (CI) 51.3% to 92.7%), and for revisions of only femoral component for any reason was 96% (95% CI 86.3% to 105.7%) at five years. Conclusion. Dislocation and infection remain the major cause for failure, particularly in patients with pre-existing infection. The use of dual mobility cups, silver-coated implants, and less aggressive postoperative rehabilitation regimens would possibly aid in the reduction of complications. PFA performed in patients with periprosthetic fracture seem to fair better. This study supports the judicious use of PFA in non-oncological revision hip arthroplasties, and that they be performed by experienced revision arthroplasty surgeons. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(3):229–235

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

The October 2024 Arthroplasty Roundup. 360. looks at: Breaking the mould: female representation in arthroplasty surgery remains low, with elbow leading the way; Post COVID-19: where are we with the 'catch up' in England and Wales?; Prevalence and clinical impact of sarcopenia in patients undergoing total joint replacement: a systematic review and a meta-analysis; Total joint replacement and sleep: the state of the evidence

Aims. To compare complication-related reoperation rates following primary arthroplasty for proximal humerus fractures (PHFs) versus secondary arthroplasty for failed open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF). Patients and Methods. We identified patients aged 50 years and over, who sustained a PHF between 2004 and 2015, from linkable datasets. We used intervention codes to identify patients treated with initial ORIF or arthroplasty, and those treated with ORIF who returned for revision arthroplasty within two years. We used multilevel logistic regression to compare reoperations between groups. Results. We identified 1624 patients who underwent initial arthroplasty for PHF, and 98 patients who underwent secondary arthroplasty following failed ORIF. In total, 72 patients (4.4%) in the primary arthroplasty group had a reoperation within two years following arthroplasty, compared with 19 patients (19.4%) in the revision arthroplasty group. This difference was significantly different (p < 0.001) after covariable adjustment. Conclusion. The number of reoperations following arthroplasty for failed ORIF of PHF is significantly higher compared with primary arthroplasty. This suggests that primary arthroplasty may be a better choice for patients whose prognostic factors suggest a high reoperation rate following ORIF. Prospective clinical studies are required to confirm these findings. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:1272–1279

Aims

The aim of this study was to determine the effectiveness of home-based prehabilitation on pre- and postoperative outcomes in participants awaiting total knee (TKA) and hip arthroplasty (THA).

Aims

Despite the increasing numbers of ankle arthroplasties, there are limited studies on their survival and comparisons between different implants. The primary aim of this study was to determine the failure rates of primary ankle arthroplasties commonly used in the UK.

Aims. Cementing in arthroplasty for hip fracture is associated with improved postoperative function, but may have an increased risk of early mortality compared to uncemented fixation. Quantifying this mortality risk is important in providing safe patient care. This study investigated the association between cement use in arthroplasty and mortality at 30 days and one year in patients aged 50 years and over with hip fracture. Methods. This retrospective cohort study used linked data from the Australian Hip Fracture Registry and the National Death Index. Descriptive analysis and Kaplan-Meier survival curves tested the unadjusted association of mortality between cemented and uncemented procedures. Multilevel logistic regression, adjusted for covariates, tested the association between cement use and 30-day mortality following arthroplasty. Given the known institutional variation in preference for cemented fixation, an instrumental variable analysis was also performed to minimize the effect of unknown confounders. Adjusted Cox modelling analyzed the association between cement use and mortality at 30 days and one year following surgery. Results. The 30-day mortality was 6.9% for cemented and 4.9% for uncemented groups (p = 0.003). Cement use was significantly associated with 30-day mortality in the Kaplan-Meier survival curve (p = 0.003). After adjusting for covariates, no significant association between cement use and 30-day mortality was shown in the adjusted multilevel logistic regression (odd rati0 (OR) 1.1, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.9 to 1.5; p = 0.366), or in the instrumental variable analysis (OR 1.0, 95% CI 0.9 to 1.0, p=0.524). There was no significant between-group difference in mortality within 30days (hazard ratio (HR) 0.9, 95% CI 0.7to 1.1; p = 0.355) or one year (HR 0.9 95% CI 0.8 to 1.1; p = 0.328) in the Cox modelling. Conclusion. No statistically significant difference in patient mortality with cement use in arthroplasty was demonstrated in this population, once adjusted for covariates. This study concludes that cementing in arthroplasty for hip fracture is a safe means of surgical fixation. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(3):198–204

Aims

The principles of evidence-based medicine (EBM) are the foundation of modern medical practice. Surgeons are familiar with the commonly used statistical techniques to test hypotheses, summarize findings, and provide answers within a specified range of probability. Based on this knowledge, they are able to critically evaluate research before deciding whether or not to adopt the findings into practice. Recently, there has been an increased use of artificial intelligence (AI) to analyze information and derive findings in orthopaedic research. These techniques use a set of statistical tools that are increasingly complex and may be unfamiliar to the orthopaedic surgeon. It is unclear if this shift towards less familiar techniques is widely accepted in the orthopaedic community. This study aimed to provide an exploration of understanding and acceptance of AI use in research among orthopaedic surgeons.

The December 2024 Arthroplasty Roundup. 360. looks at: Aspirin for hip and knee arthroplasty?; VTE prophylaxis; VTE prophylaxis part II

Aims. The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted the provision of arthroplasty services in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. This study aimed to quantify the backlog, analyze national trends, and predict time to recovery. Methods. We performed an analysis of the mandatory prospective national registry of all independent and publicly funded hip, knee, shoulder, elbow, and ankle replacements in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland between January 2019 and December 2022 inclusive, totalling 729,642 operations. The deficit was calculated per year compared to a continuation of 2019 volume. Total deficit of cases between 2020 to 2022 was expressed as a percentage of 2019 volume. Sub-analyses were performed based on procedure type, country, and unit sector. Results. Between January 2020 and December 2022, there was a deficit of 158,994 joint replacements. This is equivalent to over two-thirds of a year of normal expected operating activity (71.6%). There were 104,724 (-47.1%) fewer performed in 2020, 41,928 (-18.9%) fewer performed in 2021, and 12,342 (-5.6%) fewer performed in 2022, respectively, than in 2019. Independent-sector procedures increased to make it the predominant arthroplasty provider (53% in 2022). NHS activity was 73.2% of 2019 levels, while independent activity increased to 126.8%. Wales (-136.3%) and Northern Ireland (-121.3%) recorded deficits of more than a year’s worth of procedures, substantially more than England (-66.7%). It would take until 2031 to eliminate this deficit with an immediate expansion of capacity over 2019 levels by 10%. Conclusion. The arthroplasty deficit following the COVID-19 pandemic is now equivalent to over two-thirds of a year of normal operating activity, and continues to increase. Patients awaiting different types of arthroplasty, in each country, have been affected disproportionately. A rapid and significant expansion in services is required to address the deficit, and will still take many years to rectify. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(8):834–841

This annotation reviews current concepts on the three most common surgical approaches used for proximal interphalangeal joint arthroplasty: dorsal, volar, and lateral. Advantages and disadvantages of each are highlighted, and the outcomes are discussed. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(12):1329–1333