Aims. The primary aim of this prospective, multicentre study is to describe the rates of returning to golf following hip, knee, ankle, and shoulder arthroplasty in an active golfing population. Secondary aims will include determining the timing of return to golf, changes in ability, handicap, and mobility, and assessing joint-specific and health-related outcomes following surgery. Methods. This is a multicentre, prospective, longitudinal study between the Hospital for Special Surgery, (New York City, New York, USA) and Edinburgh Orthopaedics, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, (Edinburgh, UK). Both centres are high-volume arthroplasty centres, specializing in upper and lower limb arthroplasty. Patients undergoing hip, knee, ankle, or shoulder arthroplasty at either centre, and who report being golfers prior to arthroplasty, will be included. Patient-reported outcome measures will be obtained at six weeks, three months, six months, and 12 months. A two-year period of recruitment will be undertaken of arthroplasty patients at both sites. Conclusion. The results of this prospective study will provide clinicians with accurate data to deliver to patients with regard to the likelihood of return to golf and timing of when they can expect to return to golf following their hip, knee, ankle, or shoulder arthroplasty, as well as their joint-specific functional outcomes. This will help patients to manage their postoperative expectations and plan their postoperative recovery pathway. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(7):490–495

Aims. Periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) and fracture-related infections (FRIs) are associated with a significant risk of adverse events. However, there is a paucity of data on cardiac complications following revision surgery for PJI and FRI and how they impact overall mortality. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the risk of perioperative myocardial injury (PMI) and mortality in this patient cohort. Methods. We prospectively included consecutive patients at high cardiovascular risk (defined as age ≥ 45 years with pre-existing coronary, peripheral, or cerebrovascular artery disease, or any patient aged ≥ 65 years, plus a postoperative hospital stay of > 24 hours) undergoing septic or aseptic major orthopaedic surgery between July 2014 and October 2016. All patients received a systematic screening to reliably detect PMI, using serial measurements of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T. All-cause mortality was assessed at one year. Multivariable logistic regression models were applied to compare incidence of PMI and mortality between patients undergoing septic revision surgery for PJI or FRI, and patients receiving aseptic major bone and joint surgery. Results. In total, 911 consecutive patients were included. The overall perioperative myocardial injury (PMI) rate was 15.4% (n = 140). Septic revision surgery for PJI was associated with a significantly higher PMI rate (43.8% (14/32) vs 14.5% (57/393); p = 0.001) and one-year mortality rate (18.6% (6/32) vs 7.4% (29/393); p = 0.038) compared to aseptic revision or primary arthroplasty. The association with PMI persisted in multivariable analysis with an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 4.7 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.1 to 10.7; p < 0.001), but was not statistically significant for one-year mortality (aOR 1.9 (95% CI 0.7 to 5.4; p = 0.240). PMI rate (15.2% (5/33) vs 14.1% (64/453)) and one-year mortality (15.2% (5/33) vs 9.1% (41/453)) after FRI revision surgery were comparable to aseptic long-bone fracture surgery. Conclusion. Patients undergoing revision surgery for PJI were at a risk of PMI and death compared to those undergoing aseptic arthroplasty surgery. Screening for PMI and treatment in specialized multidisciplinary units should be considered in major bone and joint infections. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(6):696–702

Aims. National joint registries under-report revisions for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). We aimed to validate PJI reporting to the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Arthroplasty Registry (AOANJRR) and the factors associated with its accuracy. We then applied these data to refine estimates of the total national burden of PJI. Methods. A total of 561 Australian cases of confirmed PJI were captured by a large, prospective observational study, and matched to data available for the same patients through the AOANJRR. Results. In all, 501 (89.3%) cases of PJI recruited to the prospective observational study were successfully matched with the AOANJRR database. Of these, 376 (75.0%) were captured by the registry, while 125 (25.0%) did not have a revision or reoperation for PJI recorded. In a multivariate logistic regression analysis, early (within 30 days of implantation) PJIs were less likely to be reported (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.56; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34 to 0.93; p = 0.020), while two-stage revision procedures were more likely to be reported as a PJI to the registry (OR 5.3 (95% CI 2.37 to 14.0); p ≤ 0.001) than debridement and implant retention or other surgical procedures. Based on this data, the true estimate of the incidence of PJI in Australia is up to 3,900 cases per year. Conclusion. In Australia, infection was not recorded as the indication for revision or reoperation in one-quarter of those with confirmed PJI. This is better than in other registries, but suggests that registry-captured estimates of the total national burden of PJI are underestimated by at least one-third. Inconsistent PJI reporting is multifactorial but could be improved by developing a nested PJI registry embedded within the national arthroplasty registry. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(5):367–373

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

To investigate the experience and emotional impact of prosthetic joint infection (PJI) on orthopaedic surgeons and identify holistic strategies to improve the management of PJI and protect surgeons’ wellbeing.

The aim of this study was to evaluate whether coating titanium discs with selenium in the form of sodium selenite decreased bacterial adhesion of Staphylococcus aureus and Staph. epidermidis and impeded osteoblastic cell growth.

In order to evaluate bacterial adhesion, sterile titanium discs were coated with increasing concentrations of selenium and incubated with bacterial solutions of Staph. aureus (ATCC 29213) and Staph. epidermidis (DSM 3269) and stained with Safranin-O. The effect of selenium on osteoblastic cell growth was also observed. The adherence of MG-63 cells on the coated discs was detected by staining with Safranin-O. The proportion of covered area was calculated with imaging software.

The tested Staph. aureus strain showed a significantly reduced attachment on titanium discs with 0.5% (p = 0.011) and 0.2% (p = 0.02) selenium coating. Our test strain from Staph. epidermidis showed a highly significant reduction in bacterial adherence on discs coated with 0.5% (p = 0.0099) and 0.2% (p = 0.002) selenium solution. There was no inhibitory effect of the selenium coating on the osteoblastic cell growth.

Selenium coating is a promising method to reduce bacterial attachment on prosthetic material.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2013;95-B:678–82.

Bone cements produced by different manufacturers vary in their mechanical properties and antibiotic elution characteristics. Small changes in the formulation of a bone cement, which may not be apparent to surgeons, can also affect these properties. The supplier of Palacos bone cement with added gentamicin changed in 2005. We carried out a study to examine the mechanical characteristics and antibiotic elution of Schering-Plough Palacos, Heraeus Palacos and Depuy CMW Smartset bone cements.

Both Heraeus Palacos and Smartset bone cements performed significantly better than Schering-Plough Palacos in terms of mechanical characteristics, with and without additional vancomycin (p < 0.001). All cements show a deterioration in flexural strength with increasing addition of vancomycin, albeit staying above ISO minimum levels. Both Heraeus Palacos and Smartset elute significantly more gentamicin cumulatively than Schering-Plough Palacos. Smartset elutes significantly more vancomycin cumulatively than Heraeus Palacos.

The improved antibiotic elution characteristics of Smartset and Heraeus Palacos are not associated with a deterioration in mechanical properties. Although marketed as the ‘original’ Palacos, Heraeus Palacos has significantly altered mechanical and antibiotic elution characteristics compared with the most commonly-used previous version.

We have assessed the effect of a variety of implants commonly used in fracture fixation and joint replacement on the activation of metal detectors at airport security gates. A volunteer with metal implants strapped on and patients with implants in situ walked through the device. Implants used in fixation do not activate it, except for Richards cannulated screws. An Austin-Moore prosthesis does set off the detector, but a single joint replacement does not. Three or four joint replacements activate the alarm and patients with these implants should be warned of this possibility.

We studied the detection of joint replacements at airport security checks in relation to their weight, using two types of detector arch. A single-source, unilateral detector showed different sensitivities for implants on different sides of a test subject.

All implants weighing more than 145 g were detected by one of the arches. The degree of detection was directly related to the logarithm of the weight of the prosthesis in patients, with a linear correlation (r² = 0.61). A bilateral arch detected all prostheses weighing over 195 g.

With their usual sensitivity settings many joint replacements were detectable; an identification pass containing the site and weight of such prostheses would help to avoid the need for body-search procedures.

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. It is unclear whether mortality outcomes differ for patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA) surgery who are readmitted to the index hospital where their surgery was performed, or to another hospital. Methods. We analyzed linked hospital and death records for residents of New South Wales, Australia, aged ≥ 18 years who had an emergency readmission within 90 days following THA or TKA surgery between 2003 and 2022. Multivariable modelling was used to identify factors associated with non-index readmission and to evaluate associations of readmission destination (non-index vs index) with 90-day and one-year mortality. Results. Of 394,248 joint arthroplasty patients (THA = 149,456; TKA = 244,792), 9.5% (n = 37,431) were readmitted within 90 days, and 53.7% of these were admitted to a non-index hospital. Non-index readmission was more prevalent among patients who underwent surgery in private hospitals (60%). Patients who were readmitted for non-orthopaedic conditions (62.8%), were more likely to return to a non-index hospital compared to those readmitted for orthopaedic complications (39.5%). Factors associated with non-index readmission included older age, higher socioeconomic status, private health insurance, and residence in a rural or remote area. Non-index readmission was significantly associated with 90 day (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.69; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.39 to 2.05) and one-year mortality (aOR 1.31; 95% CI 1.16 to 1.47). Associations between non-index readmission and mortality were similar for patients readmitted with orthopaedic and non-orthopaedic complications (90-day mortality aOR 1.61; 95% CI 0.98 to 2.64, and aOR 1.67; 95% CI 1.35 to 2.06, respectively). Conclusion. Non-index readmission was associated with increased mortality, irrespective of whether the readmission was for orthopaedic complications or other conditions. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(1):60–68

Aims. Arthroplasty has been shown to generate the most waste among all orthopaedic subspecialties, and it is estimated that hip and knee arthroplasty generate in excess of three million kg of waste annually in the UK. Infectious waste generates up to ten times more CO2 compared with recycled waste, and previous studies have shown that over 90% of waste in the infectious stream is misallocated. We assessed the effect of real-time waste segregation by an unscrubbed team member on waste generation in knee and hip arthroplasty cases, and compared this with a simple educational intervention during the ‘team brief’ at the start of the operating list across two sites. Methods. Waste was categorized into five categories: infectious, general, recycling, sharps, and linens. Each category was weighed at the end of each case using a digital weighing scale. At Site A (a tertiary orthopaedic hospital), pre-intervention data were collected for 16 total knee arthroplasy (TKA) and 15 total hip arthroplasty (THA) cases. Subsequently, for ten TKA and ten THA cases, an unscrubbed team member actively segregated waste in real-time into the correct streams. At Site B (a district general hospital), both pre- and post-intervention groups included ten TKA and ten THA cases. The intervention included reminding staff during the ‘team brief’ to segregate waste correctly. Results. Active real-time waste segregation reduced infectious waste by a mean of 2.51 kg (95% CI 1.492 to 3.542) in TKA, and 1.83 kg in THA cases (p = 0.004). Educational intervention reduced infectious waste by a mean of 3.52 kg in TKA and 2.09 kg in THA cases (p = 0.026). Total waste was significantly reduced in both groups post-intervention for TKA cases. Conclusion. Simple educational measures alone can significantly reduce the amount of infectious waste. Extrapolated nationally, our results would yield a reduction of approximately 315,004 kg to 594,577 kg of CO2 annually, which equates to 70 to 132 gasoline-powered passenger vehicles driven for a year. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2024;5(12):1119–1124

Aims. Prophylactic antibiotic regimens for elective primary total hip and knee arthroplasty vary widely across hospitals and trusts in the UK. This study aimed to identify antibiotic prophylaxis regimens currently in use for elective primary arthroplasty across the UK, establish variations in antibiotic prophylaxis regimens and their impact on the risk of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in the first-year post-index procedure, and evaluate adherence to current international consensus guidance. Methods. The guidelines for the primary and alternative recommended prophylactic antibiotic regimens in clean orthopaedic surgery (primary arthroplasty) for 109 hospitals and trusts across the UK were sought by searching each trust and hospital’s website (intranet webpages), and by using the MicroGuide app. The mean cost of each antibiotic regimen was calculated using price data from the British National Formulary (BNF). Regimens were then compared to the 2018 Philadelphia Consensus Guidance, to evaluate adherence to international guidance. Results. The primary choice and dosing of the prophylactic antimicrobial regimens varied widely. The two most used regimens were combined teicoplanin and gentamicin, and cefuroxime followed by two or three doses of cefuroxime eight-hourly, recommended by 24 centres (22.02%) each. The alternative choice and dosing of the prophylactic antimicrobial regimen also varied widely across the 83 centres with data available. Prophylaxis regimens across some centres fail to cover the likeliest causes of surgical site infection (SSI). Five centres (4.59%) recommend co-amoxiclav, which confers no Staphylococcus coverage, while 33 centres (30.28%) recommend cefuroxime, which confers no Enterococcus coverage. Limited adherence to 2018 Philadelphia Consensus Guidance was observed, with 67 centres (61.50%) not including a cephalosporin in their guidance. Conclusion. This analysis of guidance on antimicrobial prophylaxis in primary arthroplasty across 109 hospitals and trusts in the UK has identified widespread variation in primary and alternative antimicrobial regimens currently recommended. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(10):742–749

Aims. For the increasing number of working-age patients undergoing total hip or total knee arthroplasty (THA/TKA), return to work (RTW) after surgery is crucial. We investigated the association between occupational class and time to RTW after THA or TKA. Methods. Data from the prospective multicentre Longitudinal Leiden Orthopaedics Outcomes of Osteoarthritis Study were used. Questionnaires were completed preoperatively and six and 12 months postoperatively. Time to RTW was defined as days from surgery until RTW (full or partial). Occupational class was preoperatively assessed and categorized into four categories according to the International Standard Classification of Occupations 2008 (blue-/white-collar, high-/low-skilled). Cox regression analyses were conducted separately for THA and TKA patients. Low-skilled blue-collar work was used as the reference category. Results. A total of 360 THA and 276 TKA patients, preoperatively employed, were included. Patients were mainly high-skilled (THA 57%; TKA 41%) or low-skilled (THA 24%; TKA 38%) white-collar workers. Six months post-THA, RTW rates were 78% of low-skilled blue-collar workers compared to 83% to 86% within other occupational classes, increasing after 12 months to 87% to 90% in all occupational classes. Six months post-TKA, RTW rates were 58% of low-skilled and 64% of high-skilled blue-collar workers compared to 80% to 89% of white-collar workers, and after 12 months 79% of low-skilled blue-collar workers compared to 87% to 92% within other occupational classes. High-skilled white-collar workers (THA: hazard ratio (HR) 2.12 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.32 to 3.40); TKA: HR 2.31 (95% CI 1.34 to 4.00)) and low-skilled white-collar workers (TKA: HR 1.82 (95% CI 1.04 to 3.18)) had a higher hazard to RTW within six months postoperatively. Conclusion. Clear differences existed in time to RTW among both THA and TKA patients in each of the groups studied. These findings may help guide tailored patient-specific information during preoperative consultation and advice postoperatively, as well as to create awareness among workers and their employers. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(9):977–984

Aims. Revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) and revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) are complex procedures with higher rates of re-revision, complications, and mortality compared to primary TKA and THA. We report the effects of the establishment of a revision arthroplasty network (the East Midlands Specialist Orthopaedic Network; EMSON) on outcomes of rTKA and rTHA. Methods. The revision arthroplasty network was established in January 2015 and covered five hospitals in the Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire areas of the East Midlands of England. This comprises a collaborative weekly multidisciplinary meeting where upcoming rTKA and rTHA procedures are discussed, and a plan agreed. Using the Hospital Episode Statistics database, revision procedures carried out between April 2011 and March 2018 (allowing two-year follow-up) from the five network hospitals were compared to all other hospitals in England. Age, sex, and mean Hospital Frailty Risk scores were used as covariates. The primary outcome was re-revision surgery within one year of the index revision. Secondary outcomes were re-revision surgery within two years, any complication within one and two years, and median length of hospital stay. Results. A total of 57,621 rTHA and 33,828 rTKA procedures were performed across England, of which 1,485 (2.6%) and 1,028 (3.0%), respectively, were conducted within the network. Re-revision rates within one year for rTHA were 7.3% and 6.0%, and for rTKA were 11.6% and 7.4% pre- and postintervention, respectively, within the network. This compares to a pre-to-post change from 7.4% to 6.8% for rTHA and from 11.7% to 9.7% for rTKA for the rest of England. In comparative interrupted time-series analysis for rTKA there was a significant immediate improvement in one-year re-revision rates for the revision network compared to the rest of England (p = 0.024), but no significant change for rTHA (p = 0.504). For the secondary outcomes studied, there was a significant improvement in trend for one- and two-year complication rates for rTHA for the revision network compared to the rest of England. Conclusion. Re-revision rates for rTKA and complication rates for rTHA improved significantly at one and two years with the introduction of a revision arthroplasty network, when compared to the rest of England. Most of the outcomes studied improved to a greater extent in the network hospitals compared to the rest of England when comparing the pre- and postintervention periods. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(6):641–648

Aims. The COVID-19 pandemic has caused unprecedented disruption to elective orthopaedic services. The primary objective of this study was to examine changes in functional scores in patients awaiting total hip arthroplasty (THA), total knee arthroplasty (TKA), and unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). Secondary objectives were to investigate differences between these groups and identify those in a health state ‘worse than death’ (WTD). Methods. In this prospective cohort study, preoperative Oxford hip and knee scores (OHS/OKS) were recorded for patients added to a waiting list for THA, TKA, or UKA, during the initial eight months of the COVID-19 pandemic, and repeated at 14 months into the pandemic (mean interval nine months (SD 2.84)). EuroQoL five-dimension five-level health questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) index scores were also calculated at this point in time, with a negative score representing a state WTD. OHS/OKS were analyzed over time and in relation to the EQ-5D-5L. Results. A total of 174 patients (58 THA, 74 TKA, 42 UKA) were eligible, after 27 were excluded (one died, seven underwent surgery, 19 non-responders). The overall mean OHS/OKS deteriorated from 15.43 (SD 6.92), when patients were added to the waiting list, to 11.77 (SD 6.45) during the pandemic (p < 0.001). There were significantly worse EQ-5D-5L index scores in the THA group (p = 0.005), with 22 of these patients (38%) in a health state WTD, than either the TKA group (20 patients; 27% WTD), or the UKA group (nine patients; 21% WTD). A strong positive correlation between the EQ-5D-5L index score and OHS/OKS was observed (r = 0.818; p < 0.001). Receiver operating characteristic analysis revealed that an OHS/OKS lower than nine predicted a health state WTD (88% sensitivity and 73% specificity). Conclusion. OHS/OKS deteriorated significantly among patients awaiting lower limb arthroplasty during the COVID-19 pandemic. Overall, 51 patients were in a health state WTD, representing 29% of our entire cohort, which is considerably worse than existing pre-pandemic data. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(3):138–145

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. Methods. TRAC-24 was a prospective RCT on patients undergoing TKA and THA. Three groups were included: Group 1 received 1 g intravenous (IV) TXA perioperatively and an additional 24-hour postoperative oral regime, Group 2 received only the perioperative dose, and Group 3 did not receive TXA. Cost analysis was performed out to day 90. Results. Group 1 was associated with the lowest mean total costs, followed by Group 2 and then Group 3. The differences between Groups 1 and 3 (-£797.77 (95% confidence interval -1,478.22 to -117.32) were statistically significant. Extended oral dosing reduced costs for patients undergoing THA but not TKA. The reduced costs in Groups 1 and 2 resulted from reduced length of stay, readmission rates, emergency department attendances, and blood transfusions. Conclusion. This study demonstrated significant cost savings when using TXA in primary THA or TKA. Extended oral dosing reduced costs further in THA but not TKA. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(7):536–542

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). Methods. This was a data linkage study using the New South Wales (NSW) Admitted Patient Data Collection (APDC) and the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry (AOANJRR), which collect data from all public and private hospitals in NSW, Australia. Patients who underwent a TKA or THA for OA between 1 January 2002 and 31 December 2017 were included. The main outcome measures were 90-day incidence rates of hospital readmission for: revision arthroplasty for PJI as recorded in the AOANJRR; conservative definition of PJI, defined by T84.5, the PJI diagnosis code in the APDC; and extended definition of PJI, defined by the presence of either T84.5, or combinations of diagnosis and procedure code groups derived from recursive binary partitioning in the APDC. Results. The mean 90-day revision rate for infection was 0.1% (0.1% to 0.2%) for TKA and 0.3% (0.1% to 0.5%) for THA. The mean 90-day PJI rates defined by T84.5 were 1.3% (1.1% to 1.7%) for TKA and 1.1% (0.8% to 1.3%) for THA. The mean 90-day PJI rates using the extended definition were 1.9% (1.5% to 2.2%) and 1.5% (1.3% to 1.7%) following TKA and THA, respectively. Conclusion. When reporting the revision arthroplasty for infection, the AOANJRR substantially underestimates the rate of PJI at 90 days. Using combinations of infection codes and PJI-related surgical procedure codes in linked hospital administrative databases could be an alternative way to monitor PJI rates. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(9):1060–1066

Aims. Total hip arthroplasty (THA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) are common orthopaedic procedures requiring postoperative radiographs to confirm implant positioning and identify complications. Artificial intelligence (AI)-based image analysis has the potential to automate this postoperative surveillance. The aim of this study was to prepare a scoping review to investigate how AI is being used in the analysis of radiographs following THA and TKA, and how accurate these tools are. Methods. The Embase, MEDLINE, and PubMed libraries were systematically searched to identify relevant articles. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews and Arksey and O’Malley framework were followed. Study quality was assessed using a modified Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies tool. AI performance was reported using either the area under the curve (AUC) or accuracy. Results. Of the 455 studies identified, only 12 were suitable for inclusion. Nine reported implant identification and three described predicting risk of implant failure. Of the 12, three studies compared AI performance with orthopaedic surgeons. AI-based implant identification achieved AUC 0.992 to 1, and most algorithms reported an accuracy > 90%, using 550 to 320,000 training radiographs. AI prediction of dislocation risk post-THA, determined after five-year follow-up, was satisfactory (AUC 76.67; 8,500 training radiographs). Diagnosis of hip implant loosening was good (accuracy 88.3%; 420 training radiographs) and measurement of postoperative acetabular angles was comparable to humans (mean absolute difference 1.35° to 1.39°). However, 11 of the 12 studies had several methodological limitations introducing a high risk of bias. None of the studies were externally validated. Conclusion. These studies show that AI is promising. While it already has the ability to analyze images with significant precision, there is currently insufficient high-level evidence to support its widespread clinical use. Further research to design robust studies that follow standard reporting guidelines should be encouraged to develop AI models that could be easily translated into real-world conditions. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(8):929–937

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. Methods. Data were collected from participants and medical records for the 12 months prior to revision. Patients with previous revision, metal-on-metal articulations, or hip hemiarthroplasty were excluded. Participants were retrospectively classified as ‘Planned’ or ‘Unplanned’ revision. Multilevel regression and propensity score matching were used to compare the two groups. Results. Data were analyzed from 568 patients, recruited in 38 UK secondary care sites between October 2017 and October 2018 (43.5% male; mean (SD) age 71.86 years (9.93); 305 hips, 263 knees). No significant inclusion differences were identified between the two groups. For hip revision, time to revision > ten years (odds ratio (OR) 3.804, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.353 to 10.694), p = 0.011), periprosthetic fracture (OR 20.309, 95% CI (4.574 to 90.179), p < 0.001), and dislocation (OR 12.953, 95% CI (4.014 to 41.794), p < 0.001), were associated with unplanned revision. For knee, there were no associations with route to revision. Revision after ten years was more likely for those who were younger at primary surgery, regardless of route to revision. No significant differences in cost outcomes, length of surgery time, and access to a health professional in the year prior to revision were found between the two groups. When periprosthetic fractures, dislocations, and infections were excluded, healthcare use was significantly higher in the unplanned revision group. Conclusion. Differences between characteristics for patients presenting for planned and unplanned revision are minimal. Although there was greater healthcare use in those having unplanned revision, it appears unlikely that routine orthopaedic review would have detected many of these issues. It may be safe to disinvest in standard follow-up provided there is rapid access to orthopaedic review. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(1):59–67