Aims. Many patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) have severe osteoarthritis (OA) in both knees and may consider either simultaneous or staged bilateral TKA. The implications of simultaneous versus staged bilateral TKA for return to work are not well understood. We hypothesized that employed patients who underwent simultaneous bilateral TKA would have significantly fewer days missed from work compared with the sum of days missed from each operation for patients who underwent staged bilateral TKA. Methods. The prospective arthroplasty registry at the Hospital for Special Surgery was used. Baseline characteristics and patient-reported outcome scores were evaluated. We used a linear regression model, adjusting for potential confounding variables including age, sex, preoperative BMI, and type of work (sedentary, moderate, high activity, or strenuous), to analyze time lost from work after simultaneous compared with staged bilateral TKA. Results. We identified 152 employed patients who had undergone simultaneous bilateral TKA and 61 who had undergone staged bilateral TKA, and had completed the registry’s return to work questionnaire. The simultaneous group missed a mean of 46.2 days (SD 29.1) compared with the staged group who missed a mean total of 68.0 days of work (SD 46.1) when combining both operations. This difference was statistically significant (p < 0.001). In multivariate mixed regression analysis adjusted for age, sex, BMI, American Society of Anesthesiologists status, and type of work, the simultaneous group missed a mean of 16.9 (SD 5.7) fewer days of work compared with the staged group (95% confidence interval 5.8 to 28.1; p = 0.003). Conclusion. Employed patients undergoing simultaneous bilateral TKA missed a mean of 17 fewer days of work as a result of their surgical treatment and rehabilitation compared with those undergoing staged bilateral TKA. This information may be useful to surgeons counselling employed patients with bilateral OA of the knee who are considering surgical treatment. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6 Supple A):108–112

Aims. The COVID-19 pandemic posed significant challenges to healthcare systems across the globe in 2020. There were concerns surrounding early reports of increased mortality among patients undergoing emergency or non-urgent surgery. We report the morbidity and mortality in patients who underwent arthroplasty procedures during the UK first stage of the pandemic. Methods. Institutional review board approval was obtained for a review of prospectively collected data on consecutive patients who underwent arthroplasty procedures between March and May 2020 at a specialist orthopaedic centre in the UK. Data included diagnoses, comorbidities, BMI, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, length of stay, and complications. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality and secondary outcomes were prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection, medical and surgical complications, and readmission within 30 days of discharge. The data collated were compared with series from the preceding three months. Results. There were 167 elective procedures performed in the first three weeks of the study period, prior to the first national lockdown, and 57 emergency procedures thereafter. Three patients (1.3%) were readmitted within 30 days of discharge. There was one death (0.45%) due to SARS-CoV-2 infection after an emergency procedure. None of the patients developed complications of SARS-CoV-2 infection after elective arthroplasty. There was no observed spike in complications during in-hospital stay or in the early postoperative period. There was no statistically significant difference in survival between pre-COVID-19 and peri-COVID-19 groups (p = 0.624). We observed a higher number of emergency procedures performed during the pandemic within our institute. Conclusion. An international cohort has reported 30-day mortality as 28.8% following orthopaedic procedures during the pandemic. There are currently no reports on clinical outcomes of patients treated with lower limb reconstructive surgery during the same period. While an effective vaccine is developed and widely accepted, it is very likely that SARS-CoV2 infection remains endemic. We believe that this report will help guide future restoration planning here in the UK and abroad. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(5):323–329

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. Hip fracture patients have high morbidity and mortality. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) assess the quality of care of patients with hip fracture, including those with chronic cognitive impairment (CCI). Our aim was to compare PROMs from hip fracture patients with and without CCI, using the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register (NHFR). Methods. PROM questionnaires at four months (n = 34,675) and 12 months (n = 24,510) after a hip fracture reported from 2005 to 2018 were analyzed. Pre-injury score was reported in the four-month questionnaire. The questionnaires included the EuroQol five-dimension three-level (EQ-5D-3L) questionnaire, and information about who completed the questionnaire. Results. Of the 34,675 included patients, 5,643 (16%) had CCI. Patients with CCI were older (85 years vs 81 years) (p < 0.001), and had a higher American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification compared to patients without CCI. CCI was unrelated to fracture type and treatment method. EQ-5D index scores were lower in patients with CCI after four months (0.37 vs 0.60; p < 0.001) and 12 months (0.39 vs 0.64; p < 0.001). Patients with CCI had lower scores for all dimensions of the EQ-5D-3L pre-fracture and at four and 12 months. Conclusion. Patients with CCI reported lower health-related quality of life pre-fracture, at four and 12 months after the hip fracture. PROM data from hip fracture patients with CCI are valuable in the assessment of treatment. Patients with CCI should be included in future studies. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(7):454–465

Aims. In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic meant that proceeding with elective surgery was restricted to minimize exposure on wards. In order to maintain throughput of elective cases, our hospital (St Michaels Hospital, Toronto, Canada) was forced to convert as many cases as possible to same-day procedures rather than overnight admission. In this retrospective analysis, we review the cases performed as same-day arthroplasty surgeries compared to the same period in the previous 12 months. Methods. We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients undergoing total hip and knee arthroplasties over a three-month period between October and December in 2019, and again in 2020, in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic. Patient demographics, number of outpatient primary arthroplasty cases, length of stay for admissions, 30-day readmission, and complications were collated. Results. In total, 428 patient charts were reviewed for October to December of 2019 (n = 195) and 2020 (n = 233). Of those, total hip arthroplasties (THAs) comprised 60% and 58.8% for 2019 and 2020, respectively. Demographic data was comparable with no statistical difference for age, sex, contralateral joint arthroplasty, or BMI. American Society of Anesthesiologists grade I was more highly prevalent in the 2020 cohort (5.1-times increase; n = 13 vs n = 1). Degenerative disc disease and fibromyalgia were less significantly prevalent in the 2020 cohort. There was a significant increase in same day discharges for non-direct anterior approach THAs (two-times increase) and total knee arthroplasty (ten-times increase), with a reciprocal decrease in next day discharges. There were significantly fewer reported superficial wound infections in 2020 (5.6% vs 1.7%) and no significant differences in readmissions or emergency department visits (3.1% vs 3.0%). Conclusion. The COVID-19 pandemic meant that hospitals and patients were hopeful to minimize the exposure to the wards, and minimize strain on the already taxed inpatient beds. With few positives during the COVID-19 crisis, the pandemic was the catalyst to speed up the outpatient arthroplasty programme that has resulted in our institution being more efficient, and with no increase in readmissions or early complications. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(7):545–551

Aims. To determine the trajectories of patient reported pain and functional disability over five years following total hip arthroplasty (THA) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods. A prospective, longitudinal cohort sub-study within the National Joint Registry (NJR) was undertaken. In all, 20,089 patients who underwent primary THA and 22,489 who underwent primary TKA between 2009 and 2010 were sent Oxford Hip Score (OHS) and Oxford Knee Score (OKS) questionnaires at six months, and one, three, and five years postoperatively. OHS and OKS were disaggregated into pain and function subscales. A k-means clustering procedure assigned each patient to a longitudinal trajectory group for pain and function. Ordinal regression was used to predict trajectory group membership using baseline OHS and OKS score, age, BMI, index of multiple deprivation, sex, ethnicity, geographical location, and American Society of Anesthesiologists grade. Results. Data described two discrete trajectories for pain and function: ‘level 1’ responders (around 70% of cases) in whom a high level of improvement is sustained over five years, and ‘level 2’ responders who had sustained improvement, but at a lower level. Baseline patient variables were only weak predictors of pain trajectory and modest predictors of function trajectory. Those with worse baseline pain and function tended to show a greater likelihood of following a ‘level 2’ trajectory. Six-month patient-reported outcome measures data reliably predicted the class of five-year outcome trajectory for both pain and function. Conclusion. The available preoperative patient variables were not reliable predictors of postoperative pain and function after THA and TKA. Reviewing patient outcomes at six months postoperatively is a reliable indicator of outcome at five years. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6):1111–1118

Aims. Single-stage revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) is gaining popularity in treating chronic periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs). We have introduced this approach to our clinical practice and sought to evaluate rates of reinfection and re-revision, along with predictors of failure of both single- and two-stage rTKA for chronic PJI. Methods. A retrospective comparative cohort study of all rTKAs for chronic PJI between 1 April 2003 and 31 December 2018 was undertaken using prospective databases. Patients with acute infections were excluded; rTKAs were classified as single-stage, stage 1, or stage 2 of two-stage revision. The primary outcome measure was failure to eradicate or recurrent infection. Variables evaluated for failure by regression analysis included age, BMI, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, infecting organisms, and the presence of a sinus. Patient survivorship was also compared between the groups. Results. A total of 292 consecutive first-time rTKAs for chronic PJI were included: 82 single-stage (28.1%); and 210 two-stage (71.9%) revisions. The mean age was 71 years (27 to 90), with 165 females (57.4%), and a mean BMI of 30.9 kg/m. 2. (20 to 53). Significantly more patients with a known infecting organism were in the single-stage group (93.9% vs 80.47%; p = 0.004). The infecting organism was identified preoperatively in 246 cases (84.2%). At a mean follow-up of 6.3 years (2.0 to 17.6), the failure rate was 6.1% in the single-stage, and 12% in the two-stage groups. All failures occurred within four years of treatment. The presence of a sinus was an independent risk factor for failure (odds ratio (OR) 4.97; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.593 to 15.505; p = 0.006), as well as age > 80 years (OR 5.962; 95% CI 1.156 to 30.73; p = 0.033). The ten-year patient survivorship rate was 72% in the single-stage group compared with 70.5% in the two-stage group. This difference was not significant (p = 0.517). Conclusion. Single-stage rTKA is an effective strategy with a high success rate comparable to two-stage approach in appropriately selected patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(8):1373–1379

Aims. Liposomal bupivacaine (LB) as part of a periarticular injection protocol continues to be a highly debated topic in total knee arthroplasty (TKA). We evaluated the effect of discontinuing the use of LB in a periarticular protocol on immediate postoperative pain scores, opioid consumption, and objective functional outcomes. Methods. On 1 July 2019, we discontinued the use of intraoperative LB as part of a periarticular injection protocol. A consecutive group of patients who received LB as part of the protocol (Protocol 1) and a subsequent group who did not (Protocol 2) were compared. All patients received the same opioid-sparing protocol. Verbal rating scale (VRS) pain scores were collected from our electronic data warehouse and averaged per patient per 12-hour interval. Events relating to the opiate administration were derived as morphine milligram equivalences (MMEs) per patient per 24-hour interval. The Activity Measure for Post-Acute Care (AM-PAC) tool was used to assess the immediate postoperative function. Results. A total of 888 patients received Protocol 1 and while 789 received Protocol 2. The mean age of the patients was significantly higher in those who did not receive LB (66.80 vs 65.57 years, p = 0.006). The sex, BMI, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status score, race, smoking status, marital status, operating time, length of stay, and discharge disposition were similar in the two groups. Compared with the LB group, discontinuing LB showed no significant difference in postoperative VRS pain scores up to 72 hours (p > 0.05), opioid administration up to 96 hours (p > 0.05), or AM-PAC scores within the first 24 hours (p > 0.05). Conclusion. The control of pain after TKA with a multimodal management protocol is not improved by the addition of LB compared with traditional bupivacaine. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(6 Supple A):102–107

Aims. As our population ages, the number of octogenarians who will require a total hip arthroplasty (THA) rises. In a value-based system where operative outcomes are linked to hospital payments, it is necessary to assess the outcomes in this population. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes of elective, primary THA in patients ≥ 80 years old to those aged < 80. Methods. A retrospective review of 10,251 consecutive THA cases from 2011 to 2019 was conducted. Patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores (Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS)), as well as demographic, readmission, and complication data, were collected. Results. On average, the younger cohort (YC, n = 10,251) was a mean 61.60 years old (SD 10.71), while the older cohort (OC, n = 609) was 84.25 years old (SD 3.02) (p < 0.001). The OC had greater surgical risk based on their higher mean American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores (2.74 (SD 0.63) vs 2.30 (SD 0.63); p < 0.001) and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) scores (6.26 (SD 1.71) vs 3.87 (SD 1.98); p < 0.001). While the OC stayed in the hospital longer than the YC (mean 3.5 vs 2.5 days; p < 0.001), there were no differences in 90-day emergency visits (p = 0.083), myocardial infarctions (p = 0.993), periprosthetic joint infections (p = 0.214), dislocations (p = 0.993), or aseptic failure (p = 0.993). The YC was more likely to be readmitted within 90 days (3.88% vs 2.18%, Β = 0.57; p = 0.048). There were no observed differences in 12-week (p = 0.518) or one-year (p = 0.511) HOOS scores. Conclusion. Although patients ≥ 80 years old have a greater number of comorbidities than younger patients, they had equivalent perioperative complication rates and PRO scores. This study demonstrates the safety and success of elective THA in octogenarians. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(7):535–539

Aims. Joint registries typically use revision of an implant as an endpoint and report survival rates after a defined number of years. However, reporting lifetime risk of revision may be more meaningful, especially in younger patients. We aimed to assess lifetime risk of revision for patients in defined age groups at the time of primary surgery. Methods. The New Zealand Joint Registry (NZJR) was used to obtain rates and causes of revision for all primary total hip arthroplasties (THAs) performed between January 1999 and December 2016. The NZJR is linked to the New Zealand Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages to obtain complete and accurate data. Patients were stratified by age at primary surgery, and lifetime risk of revision calculated according to age, sex, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification. The most common causes for revision were also analyzed for each age group. Results. The overall, ten-year implant survival rate was 93.6% (95% confidence interval (CI) 93.4% to 93.8%). It was lowest in the youngest age group (46 to 50 years), rising sequentially with increasing age to 97.5% in the oldest group (90 to 95 years). Lifetime risk of revision surgery was 27.6% (95% CI 27.3% to 27.8%) in those aged 46 to 50 years, decreasing with age to 1.1% (95% CI 0.0% to 5.8%) in those aged 90 to 95 years at the time of primary surgery. Higher ASA grades were associated with an increased lifetime risk of revision across all ages. The commonest causes for revision THA were aseptic loosening, infection, periprosthetic fracture, and dislocation. Conclusion. When counselling patients preoperatively, the lifetime risk of revision may be a more meaningful and useful measure of longer-term outcome than implant survival at defined time periods. This study highlights the considerably increased likelihood of subsequent revision surgery in younger age groups. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(3):479–485

Aims. The primary objective was to determine the incidence of COVID-19 infection and 30-day mortality in patients undergoing foot and ankle surgery during the global pandemic. Secondary objectives were to determine if there was a change in infection and complication profile with changes introduced in practice. Methods. This UK-based multicentre retrospective national audit studied foot and ankle patients who underwent surgery between 13 January and 31 July 2020, examining time periods pre-UK national lockdown, during lockdown (23 March to 11 May 2020), and post-lockdown. All adult patients undergoing foot and ankle surgery in an operating theatre during the study period were included. A total of 43 centres in England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland participated. Variables recorded included demographic data, surgical data, comorbidity data, COVID-19 and mortality rates, complications, and infection rates. Results. A total of 6,644 patients were included. Of the operated patients, 0.52% (n = 35) contracted COVID-19. The overall all-cause 30-day mortality rate was 0.41%, however in patients who contracted COVID-19, the mortality rate was 25.71% (n = 9); this was significantly higher for patients undergoing diabetic foot surgery (75%, n = 3 deaths). Matching for age, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, and comorbidities, the odds ratio of mortality with COVID-19 infection was 11.71 (95% confidence interval 1.55 to 88.74; p = 0.017). There were no differences in surgical complications or infection rates prior to or after lockdown, and among patients with and without COVID-19 infection. After lockdown the COVID-19 infection rate was 0.15% and no patient died of COVID-19. Conclusion. COVID-19 infection was rare in foot and ankle patients even at the peak of lockdown. However, there was a significant mortality rate in those who contracted COVID-19. Overall surgical complications and postoperative infection rates remained unchanged during the period of this audit. Patients and treating medical personnel should be aware of the risks to enable informed decisions. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2021;2(4):216–226

Aims. Surgical costs are a major component of healthcare expenditures in the USA. Intraoperative communication is a key factor contributing to patient outcomes. However, the effectiveness of communication is only partially determined by the surgeon, and understanding how non-surgeon personnel affect intraoperative communication is critical for the development of safe and cost-effective staffing guidelines. Operative efficiency is also dependent on high-functioning teams and can offer a proxy for effective communication in highly standardized procedures like primary total hip and knee arthroplasty. We aimed to evaluate how the composition and dynamics of surgical teams impact operative efficiency during arthroplasty. Methods. We performed a retrospective review of staff characteristics and operating times for 112 surgeries (70 primary total hip arthroplasties (THAs) and 42 primary total knee arthroplasties (TKAs)) conducted by a single surgeon over a one-year period. Each surgery was evaluated in terms of operative duration, presence of surgeon-preferred staff, and turnover of trainees, nurses, and other non-surgical personnel, controlling cases for body mass index, presence of osteoarthritis, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score. Results. Turnover among specific types of operating room staff, including the anaesthesiologist (p = 0.011), circulating nurse (p = 0.027), and scrub nurse (p = 0.006), was significantly associated with increased operative duration. Furthermore, the presence of medical students and nursing students were associated with improved intraoperative efficiency in TKA (p = 0.048) and THA (p = 0.015), respectively. The presence of surgical fellows (p > 0.05), vendor representatives (p > 0.05), and physician assistants (p > 0.05) had no effect on intraoperative efficiency. Finally, the presence of the surgeon’s 'preferred' staff did not significantly shorten operative duration, except in the case of residents (p = 0.043). Conclusion. Our findings suggest that active management of surgical team turnover and composition may provide a means of improving intraoperative efficiency during THA and TKA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(2):347–352

Aims. Postoperative delirium (POD) and postoperative cognitive decline (POCD) are common surgical complications. In the UK, the Best Practice Tariff incentivizes the screening of delirium in patients with hip fracture. Further, a National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) performance indicator is the reduction in the incidence of POD. To aid in its recognition, we sought to determine factors associated with POD and POCD in patients with hip fractures. Methods. We interrogated the NHFD data on patients presenting with hip fractures to our institution from 2016 to 2018. POD was determined using the 4AT score, as recommended by the NHFD and UK Department of Health. POCD was defined as a decline in Abbreviated Mental Test Score (AMTS) of two or greater. Using logistic regression, we adjusted for covariates to identify factors associated with POD and POCD. Results. Of the 1,224 patients presenting in the study period, 1,023 had complete datasets for final analysis. POD was observed in 242 patients (25%). On multivariate analysis only preoperative AMTS and American Society of Anesthesiologists grade (ASA) were independent predictors of POD. Every point increase in AMTS was associated with a fall in the odds of POD by a factor of 0.60 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.56 to 0.63, p < 0.001). Every grade increase in ASA led to a 1.7-fold increase in the odds of POD (95% CI 1.13 to 2.50, p = 0.009). A preoperative AMTS of less than 8 was strongly predictive of POD with area under the receiver operating characteristic of 0.86 (95% CI 0.84 to 0.89). Only ASA was predictive of POCD—every grade increase in ASA led to a 2.6-fold increase in the odds of POCD (95% CI 1.7 to 4.0, p < 0.001). Conclusion. POD and POCD are common in the hip fracture patients. Preoperative AMTS and ASA are strong predictors of POD, and ASA predictive of POCD. This may aid in the earlier identification of those most at risk and suited for the patient consent and decision-making process. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(12):1675–1681

Aims. Recent improvements in surgical technique and perioperative blood management after total joint replacement (TJR) have decreased rates of transfusion. However, as many surgeons transition to outpatient TJR, obtaining routine postoperative blood tests becomes more challenging. Therefore, we sought to determine if a preoperative outpatient assessment tool that stratifies patients based on numerous medical comorbidities could predict who required postoperative haemoglobin (Hb) measurement. Methods. We performed a prospective study of consecutive unilateral primary total knee arthroplasties (TKAs) and total hip arthroplasties (THAs) performed at a single institution. Prospectively collected data included preoperative and postoperative Hb levels, need for blood transfusion, length of hospital stay, and Outpatient Arthroplasty Risk Assessment (OARA) score. Results. A total of 504 patients met inclusion criteria. Mean age at time of arthroplasty was 65.3 years (SD 10.2). Of the patients, 216 (42.9%) were THAs and 288 (57.1%) were TKAs. Six patients required a blood transfusion postoperatively (1.19%). Transfusion after surgery was associated with lower postoperative day 1 Hb (median of 8.5 (interquartile range (IQR) 7.9 to 8.6) vs 11.3 (IQR 10.4 to 12.2); p < 0.001), longer length of stay (1 day (IQR 1 to 1) vs 2 days (IQR 2 to 3); p < 0.001), higher OARA score (median of 60.0 (IQR 40 to 75) vs 5.0 (IQR 0-35); p = 0.001), and total hip arthroplasty (p < 0.001). All patients who received a transfusion had an OARA score > 34; however, this did not reach statistical significance as a screening threshold. Conclusion. Risk of blood transfusion after primary TJR was uncommon in our series, with an incidence of 1.19%. Transfusion was associated with OARA scores > 60. The OARA score, not American Society of Anesthesiologists grade, reliably identified patients at risk for postoperative blood transfusion. Selective Hb monitoring may result in substantial cost savings in the era of cost containment. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(1):65–70

Aims. The primary aim was to determine the influence of COVID-19 on 30-day mortality following hip fracture. Secondary aims were to determine predictors of COVID-19 status on presentation and later in the admission; the rate of hospital acquired COVID-19; and the predictive value of negative swabs on admission. Methods. A nationwide multicentre retrospective cohort study was conducted of all patients presenting with a hip fracture to 17 Scottish centres in March and April 2020. Demographics, presentation blood tests, COVID-19 status, Nottingham Hip Fracture Score, management, length of stay, and 30-day mortality were recorded. Results. In all, 78/833 (9.4%) patients were diagnosed with COVID-19. The 30-day survival of patients with COVID-19 was significantly lower than for those without (65.4% vs 91%; p < 0.001). Diagnosis of COVID-19 within seven days of admission (likely community acquired) was independently associated with male sex (odds ratio (OR) 2.34, p = 0.040, confidence interval (CI) 1.04 to 5.25) and symptoms of COVID-19 (OR 15.56, CI 6.61 to 36.60, p < 0.001). Diagnosis of COVID-19 made between seven and 30 days of admission to hospital (likely hospital acquired) was independently associated with male sex (OR 1.73, CI 1.05 to 2.87, p = 0.032), Nottingham Hip Fracture Score ≥ 7 (OR 1.91, CI 1.09 to 3.34, p = 0.024), pulmonary disease (OR 1.68, CI 1.00 to 2.81, p = 0.049), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade ≥ 3 (OR 2.37, CI 1.13 to 4.97, p = 0.022), and length of stay ≥ nine days (OR 1.98, CI 1.18 to 3.31, p = 0.009). A total of 38 (58.5%) COVID-19 cases were probably hospital acquired infections. The false-negative rate of a negative swab on admission was 0% in asymptomatic patients and 2.9% in symptomatic patients. Conclusion. COVID-19 was independently associated with a three times increased 30-day mortality rate. Nosocomial transmission may have accounted for approximately half of all cases during the first wave of the pandemic. Identification of risk factors for having COVID-19 on admission or acquiring COVID-19 in hospital may guide pathways for isolating or shielding patients respectively. Length of stay was the only modifiable risk factor, which emphasizes the importance of high-quality and timely care in this patient group. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(5):888–897

Aims. To determine mortality risk after first revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) for periprosthetic femoral fracture (PFF), and to compare this to mortality risk after primary and first revision THA for other common indications. Methods. The study cohort consisted of THAs recorded in the National Joint Registry between 2003 and 2015, linked to national mortality data. First revision THAs for PFF, infection, dislocation, and aseptic loosening were identified. We used a flexible parametric model to estimate the cumulative incidence function of death at 90 days, one year, and five years following first revision THA and primary THA, in the presence of further revision as a competing risk. Analysis covariates were age, sex, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade. Results. A total of 675,078 primary and 74,223 first revision THAs were included (of which 6,131 were performed for PFF). Following revision for PFF, mortality ranged from 9% at 90 days, 21% at one year, and 60% at five years in the highest risk group (males, ≥ 75 years, ASA ≥ 3) to 0.6%, 1.4%, and 5.5%, respectively, for the lowest risk group (females, < 75 years, ASA ≤ 2). Mortality was greater in all groups following first revision THA for PFF than for primary THA. Compared to mortality risk after first revision THA for infection, dislocation, or aseptic loosening, revision for PFF was associated with higher five-year mortality in all groups except males < 75 years with an ASA ≤ 2. Conclusion. Mortality risk after revision THA for PFF is high, reaching 60% at five years in the highest risk patient group. In comparison to other common indications for revision, PFF demonstrated the highest overall risk of mortality at five years. These estimates can be used in the surgical decision-making process and when counselling patients and carers regarding surgical risk. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(12):1670–1674

Aims. To develop and validate patient-centred algorithms that estimate individual risk of death over the first year after elective joint arthroplasty surgery for osteoarthritis. Methods. A total of 763,213 hip and knee joint arthroplasty episodes recorded in the National Joint Registry for England and Wales (NJR) and 105,407 episodes from the Norwegian Arthroplasty Register were used to model individual mortality risk over the first year after surgery using flexible parametric survival regression. Results. The one-year mortality rates in the NJR were 10.8 and 8.9 per 1,000 patient-years after hip and knee arthroplasty, respectively. The Norwegian mortality rates were 9.1 and 6.0 per 1,000 patient-years, respectively. The strongest predictors of death in the final models were age, sex, body mass index, and American Society of Anesthesiologists grade. Exposure variables related to the intervention, with the exception of knee arthroplasty type, did not add discrimination over patient factors alone. Discrimination was good in both cohorts, with c-indices above 0.76 for the hip and above 0.70 for the knee. Time-dependent Brier scores indicated appropriate estimation of the mortality rate (≤ 0.01, all models). Conclusion. Simple demographic and clinical information may be used to calculate an individualized estimation for one-year mortality risk after hip or knee arthroplasty (. https://jointcalc.shef.ac.uk. ). These models may be used to provide patients with an estimate of the risk of mortality after joint arthroplasty. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2020;9(11):808–820

Aims. The primary aim of this study was to assess the independent association of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on postoperative mortality for patients undergoing orthopaedic and trauma surgery. The secondary aim was to identify factors that were associated with developing COVID-19 during the postoperative period. Methods. A multicentre retrospective study was conducted of all patients presenting to nine centres over a 50-day period during the COVID-19 pandemic (1 March 2020 to 19 April 2020) with a minimum of 50 days follow-up. Patient demographics, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, priority (urgent or elective), procedure type, COVID-19 status, and postoperative mortality were recorded. Results. During the study period, 1,659 procedures were performed in 1,569 patients. There were 68 (4.3%) patients who were diagnosed with COVID-19. There were 85 (5.4%) deaths postoperatively. Patients who had COVID-19 had a significantly lower survival rate when compared with those without a proven SARS-CoV-2 infection (67.6% vs 95.8%, p < 0.001). When adjusting for confounding variables (older age (p < 0.001), female sex (p = 0.004), hip fracture (p = 0.003), and increasing ASA grade (p < 0.001)) a diagnosis of COVID-19 was associated with an increased mortality risk (hazard ratio 1.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.14 to 3.12; p = 0.014). A total of 62 patients developed COVID-19 postoperatively, of which two were in the elective and 60 were in the urgent group. Patients aged > 77 years (odds ratio (OR) 3.16; p = 0.001), with increasing ASA grade (OR 2.74; p < 0.001), sustaining a hip (OR 4.56; p = 0.008) or periprosthetic fracture (OR 14.70; p < 0.001) were more likely to develop COVID-19 postoperatively. Conclusion. Perioperative COVID-19 nearly doubled the background postoperative mortality risk following surgery. Patients at risk of developing COVID-19 postoperatively (patients > 77 years, increasing morbidity, sustaining a hip or periprosthetic fracture) may benefit from perioperative shielding. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(12):1774–1781

Aims. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement influenced the risk of revision surgery after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) for osteoarthritis. Methods. The study involved data collected by the National Joint Registry (NJR) for England and Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man between 1 September 2005 and 31 August 2017. Cox proportional hazards were used to investigate the association between use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement and the risk of revision due to prosthetic joint infection (PJI), with adjustments made for the year of the initial procedure, age at the time of surgery, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, head size, and body mass index (BMI). We looked also at the association between use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement and the risk of revision due to aseptic loosening or osteolysis. Results. The cohort included 418,857 THAs of whom 397,896 had received antibiotic-loaded bone cement and 20,961 plain cement. After adjusting for putative confounding factors, the risk of revision for PJI was lower in those in whom antibiotic-loaded bone cement was used (hazard ration (HR) 0.79; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64 to 0.98). There was also a protective effect on the risk of revision due to aseptic loosening or osteolysis, in the period of > 4.1 years after primary THA, HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.45, 0.72. Conclusion. Within the limits of registry analysis, this study showed an association between the use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement and lower rates of revision due to PJI. The findings support the continued use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement in cemented THA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(8):997–1002

Aims. The success rates of two-stage revision arthroplasty for infection have evolved since their early description. The implementation of internationally accepted outcome criteria led to the readjustment of such rates. However, patients who do not undergo reimplantation are usually set aside from these calculations. The aim of this study was to investigate the outcomes of two-stage revision arthroplasty when considering those who do not undergo reimplantation, and to investigate the characteristics of this subgroup. Methods. A retrospective cohort study was conducted. Patients with chronic hip or knee periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) treated with two-stage revision between January 2010 and October 2018, with a minimum follow-up of one year, were included. Variables including demography, morbidity, microbiology, and outcome were collected. The primary endpoint was the eradication of infection. Patients who did not undergo reimplantation were analyzed in order to characterize this subgroup better. Results. A total of 162 chronic PJIs were included in the study. After a mean follow-up of 57.3 months (12.1 to 115.7), 18 patients (11.1%) did not undergo reimplantation, due either to medical issues (10), the patient’s choice (4), or death (4). When only considering those who underwent reimplantation, the success rate was 80.6%. However, when those who did not undergo reimplantation were included, the success rate dropped to 71.6%. Advanced age, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade ≥ III, McPherson’s C host, and Gram-negative related PJI were independent risk factors for retention of the spacer. The mortality was higher in the non-reimplanted group. Conclusion. The real success rate of two-stage revision may not be as high as previously reported. The exclusion of patients who do not undergo reimplantation resulted in a 9% overestimation of the success rate in this series. Many comorbidity-related risk factors for retention of the spacer were identified, as well as higher death rates in this group. Efforts should be made to optimize these patients medically in order to increase reimplantation and success rates, while decreasing mortality. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(12):1682–1688