The August 2023 Hip & Pelvis Roundup. 360. looks at: Using machine learning to predict venous thromboembolism and major bleeding events following total joint arthroplasty; Antibiotic length in revision total hip arthroplasty; Preoperative colonization and worse outcomes; Short stem cemented total hip arthroplasty; What are the outcomes of one- versus two-stage revisions in the UK?; To cement or not to cement? The best approach in hemiarthroplasty; Similar re-revisions in cemented and cementless femoral revisions for periprosthetic femoral fractures in total hip arthroplasty; Are hip precautions still needed?

The December 2024 Hip & Pelvis Roundup. 360. looks at: Total hip arthroplasty after femoral neck fractures versus osteoarthritis at one-year follow-up: a comparative, retrospective study; Excellent mid-term survival of a monoblock conical prosthesis in treating atypical and complex femoral anatomy with total hip arthroplasty; Hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement improves sexual function; Fast-track hip arthroplasty does not increase complication rates; Ten-year experience with same-day discharge outpatient total hip arthroplasty: patient demographics changed, but safe outcomes were maintained

The October 2023 Hip & Pelvis Roundup. 360. looks at: Femoroacetabular impingement syndrome at ten years – how do athletes do?; Venous thromboembolism in patients following total joint replacement: are transfusions to blame?; What changes in pelvic sagittal tilt occur 20 years after total hip arthroplasty?; Can stratified care in hip arthroscopy predict successful and unsuccessful outcomes?; Hip replacement into your nineties; Can large language models help with follow-up?; The most taxing of revisions – proximal femoral replacement for periprosthetic joint infection – what’s the benefit of dual mobility?

The April 2024 Hip & Pelvis Roundup. 360. looks at: Impaction bone grafting for femoral revision hip arthroplasty with the Exeter stem; Effect of preoperative corticosteroids on postoperative glucose control in total joint replacement; Tranexamic acid in patients with a history of venous thromboembolism; Bisphosphonate use may be associated with an increased risk of periprosthetic hip fracture; A balanced approach: exploring the impact of surgical techniques on hip arthroplasty outcomes; A leap forward in hip arthroplasty: dual-mobility bearings reduce groin pain; A new perspective on complications: the link between blood glucose and joint infection risks

Aims. To examine the long-term outcome of arthrodesis of the hip undertaken in a paediatric population in treating painful arthritis of the hip. In our patient population, most of whom live rurally in hilly terrain and have limited healthcare access and resources, hip arthrodesis has been an important surgical option for the monoarticular painful hip in a child. Methods. A follow-up investigation was undertaken on a cohort of 28 children previously reported at a mean of 4.8 years. The present study looked at 26 patients who had an arthrodesis of the hip as a child at a mean follow-up of 20 years (15 to 29). Results. The mean Harris Hip Score (HHS) increased from 39.60 (SD 11.06) preoperatively to 81.02 (SD 8.86; p = 0.041) at final review. At latest follow-up, the HHS was found to be excellent in four patients (15%), good in 11 (42%), and fair in 11 (42%). A total of 16 patients (62%) reported mild low back pain, five (19%) had moderate pain, and five (19%) patients had no back pain. Mild ipsilateral knee pain was reported by 19 (73%), moderate pain by one (4%), and no pain by six (23%) patients. Mild contralateral hip pain was reported by ten patients (38%), and no pain by 16 (62%). The 36-Item Short Form Health Survey scores were very good in four patients (15%), good in 18 (70%), and poor in four (15%), with a mean score of 70.92 (SD 12.65). Of 13 female patients who had given birth, 12 did so with uncomplicated vaginal delivery. All patients had to modify their posture for toileting, putting on lower body clothes, foot care, and putting on shoes. Conclusion. Our results show that with hip arthrodesis, most patients have relatively good function at long-term follow-up, although some pain is experienced in adjacent joints, and modification in some activities of daily living is common. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(9):1089–1094

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

The February 2024 Hip & Pelvis Roundup. 360. looks at: Trial of vancomycin and cefazolin as surgical prophylaxis in arthroplasty; Is preoperative posterior femoral neck tilt a risk factor for fixation failure? Cemented versus uncemented hemiarthroplasty for displaced intracapsular fractures of the hip; Periprosthetic fractures in larger hydroxyapatite-coated stems: are collared stems a better alternative for total hip arthroplasty?; Postoperative periprosthetic fracture following hip arthroplasty with a polished taper slip versus composite beam stem; Is oral tranexamic acid as good as intravenous?; Stem design and the risk of early periprosthetic femur fractures following THA in elderly patients; Does powered femoral broaching compromise patient safety in total hip arthroplasty?

The April 2023 Hip & Pelvis Roundup. 360. looks at: Do technical errors determine outcomes of operatively managed femoral neck fractures in younger adults?; Single-stage or two-stage revision for hip prosthetic joint infection (INFORM); Fixation better than revision in type B periprosthetic fractures of taper slip stems; Can you maximize femoral head size at the expense of liner thickness?; Plasma D-dimer for periprosthetic joint infection?; How important is in vivo oxidation?; Total hip arthroplasty for HIV patients with osteonecrosis

The October 2024 Hip & Pelvis Roundup. 360. looks at: Does the primary surgical approach matter when choosing the approach for revision total hip arthroplasty?; Time to achieve the minimal clinically important difference in primary total hip arthroplasty: comparison of anterior and posterior surgical approaches; To scope or not to scope: arthroscopy as an adjunct to PAO does not provide better clinical outcomes at one year than PAO alone; Re-exploring horizons in hip resurfacing: two-year results of a ceramic-on-ceramic hip resurfacing; Association between tranexamic acid and decreased periprosthetic joint infection risk in patients undergoing total hip and knee arthroplasty; Octogenarians fare well: in revision for infection age is not a bar

The December 2022 Hip & Pelvis Roundup. 360. looks at: Fix and replace: simultaneous fracture fixation and hip arthroplasty for acetabular fractures in older patients; Is the revision rate for femoral neck fracture lower for total hip arthroplasty than for hemiarthroplasty?; Femoral periprosthetic fractures: data from the COMPOSE cohort study; Dual-mobility cups and fracture of the femur; What’s the deal with outcomes for hip and knee arthroplasty outcomes internationally?; Osteochondral lesions of the femoral head: is costal cartilage the answer?

Aims. The aims of this study were to assess quality of life after hip fractures, to characterize respondents to patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), and to describe the recovery trajectory of hip fracture patients. Methods. Data on 35,206 hip fractures (2014 to 2018; 67.2% female) in the Norwegian Hip Fracture Register were linked to data from the Norwegian Patient Registry and Statistics Norway. PROMs data were collected using the EuroQol five-dimension three-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L) scoring instrument and living patients were invited to respond at four, 12, and 36 months post fracture. Multiple imputation procedures were performed as a model to substitute missing PROM data. Differences in response rates between categories of covariates were analyzed using chi-squared test statistics. The association between patient and socioeconomic characteristics and the reported EQ-5D-3L scores was analyzed using linear regression. Results. The median age was 83 years (interquartile range 76 to 90), and 3,561 (10%) lived in a healthcare facility. Observed mean pre-fracture EQ-5D-3L index score was 0.81 (95% confidence interval 0.803 to 0.810), which decreased to 0.66 at four months, to 0.70 at 12 months, and to 0.73 at 36 months. In the imputed datasets, the reduction from pre-fracture was similar (0.15 points) but an improvement up to 36 months was modest (0.01 to 0.03 points). Patients with higher age, male sex, severe comorbidity, cognitive impairment, lower income, lower education, and those in residential care facilities had a lower proportion of respondents, and systematically reported a lower health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The response pattern of patients influenced scores significantly, and the highest scores are found in patients reporting scores at all observation times. Conclusion. Hip fracture leads to a persistent reduction in measured HRQoL, up to 36 months. The patients’ health and socioeconomic status were associated with the proportion of patients returning PROM data for analysis, and affected the results reported. Observed EQ-5D-3L scores are affected by attrition and selection bias mechanisms and motivate the use of statistical modelling for adjustment. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(4):394–400

Aims. Hip fracture commonly affects the frailest patients, of whom many are care-dependent, with a disproportionate risk of contracting COVID-19. We examined the impact of COVID-19 infection on hip fracture mortality in England. Methods. We conducted a cohort study of patients with hip fracture recorded in the National Hip Fracture Database between 1 February 2019 and 31 October 2020 in England. Data were linked to Hospital Episode Statistics to quantify patient characteristics and comorbidities, Office for National Statistics mortality data, and Public Health England’s SARS-CoV-2 testing results. Multivariable Cox regression examined determinants of 90-day mortality. Excess mortality attributable to COVID-19 was quantified using Quasi-Poisson models. Results. Analysis of 102,900 hip fractures (42,630 occurring during the pandemic) revealed that among those with COVID-19 infection at presentation (n = 1,120) there was a doubling of 90-day mortality; hazard ratio (HR) 2.09 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.89 to 2.31), while the HR for infections arising between eight and 30 days after presentation (n = 1,644) the figure was greater at 2.51 (95% CI 2.31 to 2.73). Malnutrition (1.45 (95% CI 1.19 to 1.77)) and nonoperative treatment (2.94 (95% CI 2.18 to 3.95)) were the only modifiable risk factors for death in COVID-19-positive patients. Patients who had tested positive for COVID-19 more than two weeks prior to hip fracture initially had better survival compared to those who contracted COVID-19 around the time of their hip fracture; however, survival rapidly declined and by 365 days the combination of hip fracture and COVID-19 infection was associated with a 50% mortality rate. Between 1 January and 30 June 2020, 1,273 (99.7% CI 1,077 to 1,465) excess deaths occurred within 90 days of hip fracture, representing an excess mortality of 23% (99.7% CI 20% to 26%), with most deaths occurring within 30 days. Conclusion. COVID-19 infection more than doubles the rate of early hip fracture mortality. Those contracting infection between 8 and 30 days after initial presentation are at even higher mortality risk, signalling the potential for targeted interventions during this period to improve survival. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(10):1156–1167

Aims. Prior to the availability of vaccines, mortality for hip fracture patients with concomitant COVID-19 infection was three times higher than pre-pandemic rates. The primary aim of this study was to determine the 30-day mortality rate of hip fracture patients in the post-vaccine era. Methods. A multicentre observational study was carried out at 19 NHS Trusts in England. The study period for the data collection was 1 February 2021 until 28 February 2022, with mortality tracing until 28 March 2022. Data collection included demographic details, data points to calculate the Nottingham Hip Fracture Score, COVID-19 status, 30-day mortality, and vaccination status. Results. A total of 337 patients tested positive for COVID-19. The overall 30-day mortality in these patients was 7.7%: 5.5% in vaccinated patients and 21.7% in unvaccinated patients. There was no significant difference between post-vaccine mortality compared with pre-pandemic 2019 controls (7.7% vs 5.0%; p = 0.068). Independent risk factors for mortality included unvaccinated status, Abbreviated Mental Test Score ≤ 6, male sex, age > 80 years, and time to theatre > 36 hours, in decreasing order of effect size. Conclusion. The vaccination programme has reduced 30-day mortality rates in hip fracture patients with concomitant COVID-19 infection to a level similar to pre-pandemic. Mortality for unvaccinated patients remained high. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(12):1362–1368

Aims. This study aimed to evaluate the relationship between hip shape and mid-term function in Perthes’ disease. It also explored whether the modified three-group Stulberg classification can offer similar prognostic information to the five-group system. Methods. A total of 136 individuals aged 12 years or older who had Perthes’ disease in childhood completed the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Mobility score (function), Nonarthritic Hip Score (NAHS) (function), EuroQol five-dimension five-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) score (quality of life), and the numeric rating scale for pain (NRS). The Stulberg class of the participants’ hip radiographs were evaluated by three fellowship-trained paediatric orthopaedic surgeons. Hip shape and Stulberg class were compared to PROM scores. Results. A spherical hip was associated with the highest function and quality of life, and lowest pain. Conversely, aspherical hips exhibited the lowest functional scores and highest pain. The association between worsening Stulberg class (i.e. greater deviation from sphericity) and worse outcome persisted after adjustment for age and sex in relation to PROMIS (predicted mean difference -1.77 (95% confidence interval (CI) -2.70 to -0.83)), NAHS (-5.68 (95% CI -8.45 to -2.90)), and NRS (0.61 (95% CI 0.14 to 1.08)), but not EQ-5D-5L (-0.03 (95% CI -0.72 to 0.11)). Conclusion. Patient-reported outcomes identify lower function, quality of life, and higher pain in aspherical hips. The magnitude of symptoms deteriorated with time. Hip sphericity (i.e. the modified three-group classification of spherical, oval, and aspherical) appeared to offer similar levels of detail to the five-group Stulberg classification. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(6):711–716

Aims. In countries with social healthcare systems, such as Canada, patients may experience long wait times and a decline in their health status prior to their operation. The aim of this study is to explore the association between long preoperative wait times (WT) and acute hospital length of stay (LoS) for primary arthroplasty of the knee and hip. Methods. The study population was obtained from the provincial Patient Access Registry Nova Scotia (PARNS) and the Canadian national hospital Discharge Access Database (DAD). We included primary total knee and hip arthroplasties (TKA, THA) between 2011 and 2017. Patients waiting longer than the recommended 180 days Canadian national standard were compared to patients waiting equal or less than the standard WT. The primary outcome measure was acute LoS postoperatively. Secondarily, patient demographics, comorbidities, and perioperative parameters were correlated with LoS with multivariate regression. Results. A total of 11,833 TKAs and 6,627 THAs were included in the study. Mean WT for TKA was 348 days (1 to 3,605) with mean LoS of 3.6 days (1 to 98). Mean WT for THA was 267 days (1 to 2,015) with mean LoS of 4.0 days (1 to 143). There was a significant increase in mean LoS for TKA waiting longer than 180 days (2.5% (SE 1.1); p = 0.028). There was no significant association for THA. Age, sex, surgical year, admittance from home, rural residence, household income, hospital facility, the need for blood transfusion, and comorbidities were all found to influence LoS. Conclusion. Surgical WT longer than 180 days resulted in increased acute LoS for primary TKA. Meeting a shorter WT target may be cost-saving in a social healthcare system by having shorter LoS. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(8):679–684

Aims. This study evaluated variation in the surgical treatment of stable (A1) and unstable (A2) trochanteric hip fractures among an international group of orthopaedic surgeons, and determined the influence of patient, fracture, and surgeon characteristics on choice of implant (intramedullary nailing (IMN) versus sliding hip screw (SHS)). Methods. A total of 128 orthopaedic surgeons in the Science of Variation Group evaluated radiographs of 30 patients with Type A1 and A2 trochanteric hip fractures and indicated their preferred treatment: IMN or SHS. The management of Type A3 (reverse obliquity) trochanteric fractures was not evaluated. Agreement between surgeons was calculated using multirater kappa. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to assess whether patient, fracture, and surgeon characteristics were independently associated with choice of implant. Results. The overall agreement between surgeons on implant choice was fair (kappa = 0.27 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25 to 0.28)). Factors associated with preference for IMN included USA compared to Europe or the UK (Europe odds ratio (OR) 0.56 (95% CI 0.47 to 0.67); UK OR 0.16 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.22); p < 0.001); exposure to IMN only during training compared to surgeons that were exposed to both (only IMN during training OR 2.6 (95% CI 2.0 to 3.4); p < 0.001); and A2 compared to A1 fractures (Type A2 OR 10 (95% CI 8.4 to 12); p < 0.001). Conclusion. In an international cohort of orthopaedic surgeons, there was a large variation in implant preference for patients with A1 and A2 trochanteric fractures. This is due to surgeon bias (country of practice and aspects of training). The observation that surgeons favoured the more expensive implant (IMN) in the absence of convincing evidence of its superiority suggests that surgeon de-biasing strategies may be a useful focus for optimizing patient outcomes and promoting value-based healthcare. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(4):775–781