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

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

Aims. The aim of this study was to report health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and joint-specific function in patients waiting for total hip or knee arthroplasty surgery (THA or TKA) in Northern Ireland, compared to published literature and a matched normal population. Secondary aims were to report emergency department (ED) and out-of-hours general practitioner (OOH GP) visits, new prescriptions of strong opioids, and new prescriptions of antidepressants while waiting. Methods. This was a cohort study of 991 patients on the waiting list for arthroplasty in a single Northern Ireland NHS trust: 497 on the waiting list for ≤ three months; and 494 waiting ≥ three years. Postal surveys included the EuroQol five-dimension five-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L), visual analogue scores (EQ-VAS), and Oxford Hip and Knee scores to assess HRQoL and joint-specific function. Electronic records determined prescriptions since addition to the waiting list and patient attendances at OOH GP/EDs. Results. Overall, 712/991 (71.8%) responded at ≤ three months for THA (n = 164) and TKA (n = 199), and ≥ three years for THA (n = 88) and TKA (n = 261). The median EQ-5D-5L score in those waiting ≤ three months was 0.155 (interquartile range (IQR) -0.118 to 0.375) and 0.189 (IQR -0.130 to 0.377) for ≥ three years. Matched controls had a median EQ-5D-5L 0.837 (IQR 0.728 to 1.000). Compared to matched controls, EQ-5D-5L scores were significantly lower in both waiting cohorts (p < 0.001) with significant differences found in every domain. Negative scores, indicating a state “worse than death”, were present in 40% at ≤ three months and 38% at ≥ three years. Patients waiting ≥ three years had significantly more opioid (28.4% vs 15.2%; p < 0.001) and antidepressant prescriptions (15.2% vs 9.9%; p = 0.034) and significantly more joint-related attendances at unscheduled care (11.7% vs 0% with ≥ one ED attendance (p < 0.001) and (25.5% vs 2.5% ≥ one OOH GP attendance (p < 0.001)). Conclusion. Patients on waiting lists in Northern Ireland are severely disabled with the worst HRQoL and functional scores studied. The lack of deterioration in EQ-5D-5L and joint-specific scores between patients waiting ≤ three months and ≥ three years likely reflects floor effects of these scores. Prolonged waits were associated with increased dependence on strong opiates, depression, and attendances at unscheduled care. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(7):783–794

Aims. Histology is widely used for diagnosis of persistent infection during reimplantation in two-stage revision hip and knee arthroplasty, although data on its utility remain scarce. Therefore, this study aims to assess the predictive value of permanent sections at reimplantation in relation to reinfection risk, and to compare results of permanent and frozen sections. Methods. We retrospectively collected data from 226 patients (90 hips, 136 knees) with periprosthetic joint infection who underwent two-stage revision between August 2011 and September 2021, with a minimum follow-up of one year. Histology was assessed via the SLIM classification. First, we analyzed whether patients with positive permanent sections at reimplantation had higher reinfection rates than patients with negative histology. Further, we compared permanent and frozen section results, and assessed the influence of anatomical regions (knee versus hip), low- versus high-grade infections, as well as first revision versus multiple prior revisions on the histological result at reimplantation. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), chi-squared tests, and Kaplan-Meier estimates were calculated. Results. Overall, the reinfection rate was 18%. A total of 14 out of 82 patients (17%) with positive permanent sections at reimplantation experienced reinfection, compared to 26 of 144 patients (18%) with negative results (p = 0.996). Neither permanent sections nor fresh frozen sections were significantly associated with reinfection, with a sensitivity of 0.35, specificity of 0.63, PPV of 0.17, NPV of 0.81, and accuracy of 58%. Histology was not significantly associated with reinfection or survival time for any of the analyzed sub-groups. Permanent and frozen section results were in agreement for 91% of cases. Conclusion. Permanent and fresh frozen sections at reimplantation in two-stage revision do not serve as a reliable predictor for reinfection. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(4):372–379

Aims. Elective orthopaedic services have had to adapt to significant system-wide pressures since the emergence of COVID-19 in December 2019. Length of stay is often recognized as a key marker of quality of care in patients undergoing arthroplasty. Expeditious discharge is key in establishing early rehabilitation and in reducing infection risk, both procedure-related and from COVID-19. The primary aim was to determine the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic length of stay following hip and knee arthroplasty at a high-volume, elective orthopaedic centre. Methods. A retrospective cohort study was performed. Patients undergoing primary or revision hip or knee arthroplasty over a six-month period, from 1 July to 31 December 2020, were compared to the same period in 2019 before the COVID-19 pandemic. Demographic data, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, wait to surgery, COVID-19 status, and length of hospital stay were recorded. Results. A total of 1,311 patients underwent hip or knee arthroplasty in the six-month period following recommencement of elective services in 2020 compared to 1,527 patients the year before. Waiting time to surgery increased in post-COVID-19 group (137 days vs 78; p < 0.001). Length of stay also significantly increased (0.49 days; p < 0.001) despite no difference in age or ASA grade. There were no cases of postoperative COVID-19 infection. Conclusion. Time to surgery and length of hospital stay were significantly higher following recommencement of elective orthopaedic services in the latter part of 2020 in comparison to a similar patient cohort from the year before. Longer waiting times may have contributed to the clinical and radiological deterioration of arthritis and general musculoskeletal conditioning, which may in turn have affected immediate postoperative rehabilitation and mobilization, as well as increasing hospital stay. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(8):655–660

Aims. Hip and knee arthroplasty is commonly performed for end-stage arthritis. There is limited information to guide golfers on the impact this procedure will have postoperatively. This study aimed to determine the impact of lower limb arthroplasty on amateur golfer performance and return to play. Methods. A retrospective observational study was designed to collect information from golfers following arthroplasty. Data were collected from 18 April 2019 to 30 April 2019 and combined a patient survey with in-app handicap data. Results. A total of 2,198 responses were analyzed (1,097 hip and 1,101 knee). Of the respondents, 1,763 (80%) were male and the mean age was 70 years (26 to 92). Hip arthroplasty was associated with a mean increase in handicap of 1.03 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.25). No difference was seen between isolated leading or trailing leg (p = 0.428). Bilateral hip arthroplasty increased handicap (p < 0.001). Overall, 1,025 (94%) maintained or increased the amount of golf played, 258 (23.5%) returned to iron shots at six weeks, 883 (80%) returned to club competitions at six months, 18 (1.6%) had persistent pain, and 19 (1.7%) were unable to return to play. Knee arthroplasty was associated with a mean increase in handicap of 1.18 (95% CI 0.99 to 1.38). Trailing leg arthroplasty alone was associated with higher postoperative handicap (p = 0.002) as was bilateral surgery (p = 0.009). Overall, 1,009 (92%) maintained or increased the amount of golf played, 270 (25%) returned to iron shots at six weeks, 842 (76%) returned to club competition at six months, 66 (6%) had persistent pain, and 18 (1.6%) were unable to return to play. Conclusion. Hip and knee arthroplasty enables patients to maintain or increase the amount of golf played. The majority return to competitions within one year. Return to iron shots occurs from six weeks. A small increase in handicap following surgery is expected and is larger in patients undergoing bilateral surgery or those with knee arthroplasty to their trailing leg. Patients may still experience pain when playing golf. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(6):510–514

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

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

Aims

A substantial fraction of patients undergoing knee arthroplasty (KA) or hip arthroplasty (HA) do not achieve an improvement as high as the minimal clinically important difference (MCID), i.e. do not achieve a meaningful improvement. Using three patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), our aim was: 1) to assess machine learning (ML), the simple pre-surgery PROM score, and logistic-regression (LR)-derived performance in their prediction of whether patients undergoing HA or KA achieve an improvement as high or higher than a calculated MCID; and 2) to test whether ML is able to outperform LR or pre-surgery PROM scores in predictive performance.

Aims

The aim of this study was to conduct a cross-sectional, observational cohort study of patients presenting for revision of a total hip, or total or unicompartmental knee arthroplasty, to understand current routes to revision surgery and explore differences in symptoms, healthcare use, reason for revision, and the revision surgery (surgical time, components, length of stay) between patients having regular follow-up and those without.

Aims

The aims were to assess whether preoperative joint-specific function (JSF) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) were associated with level of clinical frailty in patients waiting for a primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) or knee arthroplasty (KA).

Aims

Routinely collected patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have been useful to quantify and quality-assess provision of total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in the UK for the past decade. This study aimed to explore whether the outcome following primary THA and TKA had improved over the past seven years.

Aims

The aim of this study was to estimate the 90-day periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) rates following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and total hip arthroplasty (THA) for osteoarthritis (OA).

Aims

The overall aim of this study was to determine the impact of deprivation with regard to quality of life, demographics, joint-specific function, attendances for unscheduled care, opioid and antidepressant use, having surgery elsewhere, and waiting times for surgery on patients awaiting total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA).

Aims

Tranexamic acid (TXA) is now commonly used in major surgical operations including orthopaedics. The TRAC-24 randomized control trial (RCT) aimed to assess if an additional 24 hours of TXA postoperatively in primary total hip (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) reduced blood loss. Contrary to other orthopaedic studies to date, this trial included high-risk patients. This paper presents the results of a cost analysis undertaken alongside this RCT.

Aims. This study aimed to investigate patients’ attitudes towards day-case hip and knee arthroplasty and to describe patient characteristics associated with different attitudes, with the purpose of providing an insight into the information requirements for patients that surgeons should address when informing patients about day-case surgery. Methods. A total of 5,322 patients scheduled for hip or knee arthroplasty between 2016 and 2022 were included in the study. Preoperatively, patients were asked if they were interested in day-case surgery (‘Yes’, ‘Do not know’, ‘No’). Patient demographics including age, BMI, sex, and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) such as the EuroQol five-dimension three-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L) were examined within each attitude group. Additionally, changes in attitude were assessed among patients who had completed the questionnaire in association with prior hip or knee arthroplasty. Results. Of the surveyed patients, 41.8% were interested in day-case surgery (n = 2,222), 20.8% responded ‘Do not know’ (n = 1,105), and 37.5% were not interested (n = 1,995). Patients who were not interested had a higher mean age (‘No’, 70.2 years (SD 10.0) vs ‘Yes’, 65.2 years (SD 10.7)), with a majority being female (‘No’, 71.9% female (n = 1,434) vs ‘Yes’, 48.6% female (n = 1,081)). Approximately 20% of patients responded ‘Do not know’ regardless of age, sex, and PROMs. Patients reporting anxiety/depression based on EQ-5D-3L more frequently answered ‘No’ (56.9%; 66/116) compared to those not experiencing anxiety/depression (34.9%; 1,356/3,890). Among patients who responded ‘Do not know’ before their first surgery, over 70% changed their attitude to either ‘Yes’ (29.9%; 38/127) or ‘No’ (40.9%; 52/127) at their subsequent surgery. Conclusion. From 2016 to 2022, 58.3% of hip and knee arthroplasty patients expressed uncertainty or no interest in day-case surgery. In connection with current initiatives to increase the number of day-case arthroplasty procedures, there should be a focus on informing patients to address the prevalent negative or uncertain attitude. Further research is needed to investigate what preoperative information patients consider crucial in their decision-making process regarding day-case surgery. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(3 Supple A):3–9

Aims. The influence of metabolic syndrome (MetS) on the outcome after hip and knee arthroplasty is debated. We aimed to investigate the change in patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) scores after hip and knee arthroplasty, comparing patients with and without MetS. Methods. From 1 May 2017 to 30 November 2019, a prospective cohort of 2,586 patients undergoing elective unilateral hip and knee arthroplasty was established in Denmark. Data from national registries and a local database were used to determine the presence of MetS. Patients’ scores on Oxford Hip Score (OHS) or Oxford Knee Score (OKS), EuroQol five-dimension five-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L), University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Activity Scale, and Forgotten Joint Score (FJS) at baseline, three, 12, and 24 months after surgery were collected. Primary outcome was the difference between groups from baseline to 12 months in OHS and OKS. Secondary outcomes were scores of OHS and OKS at three and 24 months and EQ-5D-5L, UCLA Activity Scale, and FJS at three, 12, and 24 months after surgery. Generalized linear mixed model was applied, adjusting for age, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and smoking to present marginal mean and associated 95% CIs. Results. A total of 62.3% (1,611/2,586) of the cohort met the criteria for MetS. Both groups showed similar increase in mean OHS (MetS group 22.5 (95% CI 21.8 to 23.1), non-MetS group 22.1 (21.3 to 22.8); p = 0.477) and mean OKS (MetS group 18.0 (17.4 to 18.6), non-MetS group 17.8 (17.0 to 18.7); p = 0.722) at 12 months' follow-up. Between groups, similar improvements were seen for OHS and OKS at three and 24 months postoperatively and for the mean EQ-5D-5L, EuroQol-visual analogue scale (EQ-VAS), UCLA Activity Scale, and FJS at every timepoint. Conclusion. Patients meeting the criteria for MetS obtain the same improvement in PROM scores as individuals without MetS up to 24 months after hip and knee arthroplasty. This is important for the clinician to take into account when assessing and advising patients with MetS. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(10):1074–1083

Aims. To review the evidence and reach consensus on recommendations for follow-up after total hip and knee arthroplasty. Methods. A programme of work was conducted, including: a systematic review of the clinical and cost-effectiveness literature; analysis of routine national datasets to identify pre-, peri-, and postoperative predictors of mid-to-late term revision; prospective data analyses from 560 patients to understand how patients present for revision surgery; qualitative interviews with NHS managers and orthopaedic surgeons; and health economic modelling. Finally, a consensus meeting considered all the work and agreed the final recommendations and research areas. Results. The UK poSt Arthroplasty Follow-up rEcommendations (UK SAFE) recommendations apply to post-primary hip and knee arthroplasty follow-up. The ten-year time point is based on a lack of robust evidence beyond ten years. The term 'complex cases' refers to individual patient and surgical factors that may increase the risk for arthroplasty failure. For Orthopaedic Data Evaluation Panel (ODEP) 10A* minimum implants, it is safe to disinvest in routine follow-up from one to ten years post-non-complex hip and knee arthroplasty provided there is rapid access to orthopaedic review. For ODEP 10A* minimum implants in complex cases, or non-ODEP 10A* minimum implants, periodic follow-up post-hip and knee arthroplasty may be required from one to ten years. At ten years post-hip and knee arthroplasty, clinical and radiological evaluation is recommended. After ten years post-hip and knee arthroplasty, frequency of further follow-up should be based on the ten-year assessment; ongoing rapid access to orthopaedic review is still required. Conclusion. Complex cases, implants not meeting the ODEP 10A* criteria, and follow-up after revision surgery are not covered by this recommendation. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(2):72–78

Aims. Access to joint replacement is being restricted for patients with comorbidities in a number of high-income countries. However, there is little evidence on the impact of comorbidities on outcomes. The purpose of this study was to determine the safety and effectiveness of hip and knee arthroplasty in patients with and without comorbidities. Methods. In total, 312,079 hip arthroplasty and 328,753 knee arthroplasty patients were included. A total of 11 common comorbidities were identified in administrative hospital records. Safety risks were measured by assessing length of hospital stay (LOS) and 30-day emergency readmissions and mortality. Effectiveness outcomes were changes in Oxford Hip or Knee Scores (OHS/OKS) (scale from 0 (worst) to 48 (best)) and in health-related quality of life (EQ-5D) (scale from 0 (death) to 1 (full health)) from immediately before, to six months after, surgery. Regression analysis was used to estimate adjusted mean differences (LOS, change in OHS/OKS/EQ-5D) and risk differences (readmissions and mortality). Results. Patients with comorbidities had a longer LOS and higher readmission and mortality rates than patients without. In hip arthroplasty patients with heart disease, for example, LOS was 1.20 days (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.15 to 1.25) longer and readmission rate was 1.52% (95% CI 1.34% to 1.71%) and mortality 0.19% (95% CI 0.15% to 0.23%) higher. Similar patterns were observed for knee arthroplasty patients. Patients without comorbidities reported large improvements in function (mean improvement OHS 21.3 (SD 9.91) and OKS 15.9 (SD 10.0)). Patients with comorbidities reported only slightly smaller improvements. In patients with heart disease, mean improvement in OHS was 0.39 (95% CI 0.27 to 0.51) and in OKS 0.56 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.67) less than in patients without comorbidities. There were no significant differences in EQ-5D improvement. Conclusion. Comorbidities were associated with small increases in adverse safety risks but they have little impact on pain or function in patients undergoing hip or knee arthroplasty. These results do not support restricting access to hip and knee arthroplasty for patients with common comorbidities. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(1):56–64