Cementless knee arthroplasty has seen a recent resurgence in popularity due to conceptual advantages, including improved osseointegration providing biological fixation, increased surgical efficiency, and reduced systemic complications associated with cement impaction and wear from cement debris. Increasingly younger and higher demand patients are requiring knee arthroplasty, and as such, there is optimism cementless fixation may improve implant survivorship and functional outcomes. Compared to cemented implants, the National Joint Registry (NJR) currently reports higher revision rates in cementless total knee arthroplasty (TKA), but lower in unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA). However, recent studies are beginning to show excellent outcomes with cementless implants, particularly with UKA which has shown superior performance to cemented varieties. Cementless TKA has yet to show long-term benefit, and currently performs equivalently to cemented in short- to medium-term cohort studies. However, with novel concepts including 3D-printed coatings, robotic-assisted surgery, radiostereometric analysis, and kinematic or functional knee alignment principles, it is hoped they may help improve the outcomes of cementless TKA in the long-term. In addition, though cementless implant costs remain higher due to novel implant coatings, it is speculated cost-effectiveness can be achieved through greater surgical efficiency and potential reduction in revision costs. There is paucity of level one data on long-term outcomes between fixation methods and the cost-effectiveness of modern cementless knee arthroplasty. This review explores recent literature on cementless knee arthroplasty, with regards to clinical outcomes, implant survivorship, complications, and cost-effectiveness; providing a concise update to assist clinicians on implant choice. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2021;2(1):48–57

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. 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

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. This study aimed to describe the use of revision knee arthroplasty in Australia and examine changes in lifetime risk over a decade. Methods. De-identified individual-level data on all revision knee arthroplasties performed in Australia from 2007 to 2017 were obtained from the Australian Orthopaedic Association National Joint Replacement Registry. Population data and life tables were obtained from the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The lifetime risk of revision surgery was calculated for each year using a standardized formula. Separate calculations were undertaken for males and females. Results. In total, 43,188 revision knee arthroplasty procedures were performed in Australia during the study period, with a median age at surgery of 69 years (interquartile range (IQR) 62 to 76). In 2017, revision knee arthroplasty rates were highest for males aged 70 to 79 years (102.9 procedures per 100,000 population). Lifetime risk of revision knee arthroplasty for females increased slightly from 1.61% (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.53% to 1.69%) in 2007 to 2.22% (95% CI 2.13% to 2.31%) in 2017. A similar pattern was evident for males, with a lifetime risk of 1.43% (95% CI 1.36% to 1.51%) in 2007 and 2.02% (95% CI 1.93% to 2.11%) in 2017. A decline in procedures performed for loosening/lysis (from 41% in 2007 to 24% in 2017) and pain (from 14% to 9%) was evident, while infection became an increasingly common indication (from 19% in 2007 to 29% in 2017). Conclusion. Well-validated national registry data can help us understand the epidemiology of revision knee arthroplasty, including changing clinical indications. Despite a small increase over a decade, the lifetime risk of revision knee arthroplasty in Australia is low at one in 45 females and one in 50 males. These methods offer a population-level approach to quantifying revision burden that can be used for ongoing national surveillance and between-country comparisons. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(5):613–619

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

We obtained pre-operative and six-month post-operative Oxford hip (OHS) and knee scores (OKS) for 1523 patients who underwent total hip replacement and 1784 patients who underwent total knee replacement. They all also completed a six-month satisfaction question. . Scatter plots showed no relationship between pre-operative Oxford scores and six-month satisfaction scores. Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients were -0.04 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.09 to 0.01) between OHS and satisfaction and 0.04 (95% CI -0.01 to 0.08) between OKS and satisfaction. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to identify a cut-off point for the pre-operative OHS/OKS that identifies whether or not a patient is satisfied with surgery. We obtained an area under the ROC curve of 0.51 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.56) for hip replacement and 0.56 (95% CI 0.51 to 0.60) for knee replacement, indicating that pre-operative Oxford scores have no predictive accuracy in distinguishing satisfied from dissatisfied patients. In the NHS widespread attempts are being made to use patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) data for the purpose of prioritising patients for surgery. Oxford hip and knee scores have no predictive accuracy in relation to post-operative patient satisfaction. This evidence does not support their current use in prioritising access to care

Aims. Approximately 10% to 20% of knee arthroplasty patients are not satisfied with the result, while a clear indication for revision surgery might not be present. Therapeutic options for these patients, who often lack adequate quadriceps strength, are limited. Therefore, the primary aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical effect of a novel rehabilitation protocol that combines low-load resistance training (LL-RT) with blood flow restriction (BFR). Methods. Between May 2022 and March 2024, we enrolled 45 dissatisfied knee arthroplasty patients who lacked any clear indication for revision to this prospective cohort study. All patients were at least six months post-surgery and had undergone conventional physiotherapy previously. The patients participated in a supervised LL-RT combined with BFR in 18 sessions. Primary assessments included the following patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs): Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS); Knee Society Score: satisfaction (KSSs); the EuroQol five-dimension five-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L); and the pain catastrophizing scale (PCS). Functionality was assessed using the six-minute walk Test (6MWT) and the 30-second chair stand test (30CST). Follow-up timepoints were at baseline, six weeks, three months, and six months after the start. Results. Six weeks of BFR with LL-RT improved all the PROMs except the sports subscale of the KOOS compared to baseline. Highest improvements after six weeks were found for quality of life (QoL) (mean 28.2 (SD 17.2) vs 19 (SD 14.7); p = 0.002), activities of daily living (mean 54.7 (SD 18.7) vs 42.9 (SD 17.3); p < 0.001), and KSSs (mean 17.1 (SD 8.8) vs 12.8 (SD 6.7); p < 0.001). PROMs improvements continued to be present at three-month and six-month follow-up compared to baseline. However, no significant differences were observed in the paired comparisons of the six-week, three-month, and six-month follow-up. The same trends are observed for the 6MWT and 30CST. Conclusion. The reported regime demonstrates improved QoL and function of dissatisfied knee arthroplasty patients. In light of this, the pathway described may provide a valuable and safe treatment option for dissatisfied knee arthroplasty patients for whom therapeutic options are limited. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2024;106-B(12):1416–1425

Aims. Prolonged waits for hip and knee arthroplasty have raised questions about the equity of current approaches to waiting list prioritization for those awaiting surgery. We therefore set out to understand key stakeholder (patient and surgeon) preferences for the prioritization of patients awaiting such surgery, in order to guide future waiting list redesign. Methods. A combined qualitative/quantitative approach was used. This comprised a Delphi study to first inform which factors patients and surgeons designate as important for prioritization of patients on hip and knee arthroplasty waiting lists, followed by a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to determine how the factors should be weighed against each other. Coefficient values for each included DCE attribute were used to construct a ‘priority score’ (weighted benefit score) that could be used to rank individual patients waiting for surgery based on their respective characteristics. Results. In total, 43 people participated in the initial round of the Delphi study (16 patients and 27 surgeons), with a 91% completion rate across all three rounds. Overall, 73 surgeons completed the DCE. Following the final consensus meeting of the Delphi component, the seven final factors designated for inclusion were Pain, Mobility/Function, Activities of Daily Living, Inability to Work/Care, Length of Time Waited, Radiological Severity, and Mental Wellbeing. Output from the adjusted multinomial regression revealed radiological severity to be the most significant factor (coefficient 2.27 (SD 0.31); p < 0.001), followed by pain (coefficient 1.08 (SD 0.13); p < 0.001) and time waited (coefficient for one month additional wait 0.12 (SD 0.02); p < 0.001). Conclusion. These results present a new robust method for determining comparative priority for those on primary hip and knee hip arthroplasty waiting lists. Evaluation of potential implementation in clinical practice is now required. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2025;107-B(1):89–96

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 determine the risk of tibial eminence avulsion intraoperatively for bi-unicondylar knee arthroplasty (Bi-UKA), with consideration of the effect of implant positioning, overstuffing, and sex, compared to the risk for isolated medial unicondylar knee arthroplasty (UKA-M) and bicruciate-retaining total knee arthroplasty (BCR-TKA). Methods. Two experimentally validated finite element models of tibia were implanted with UKA-M, Bi-UKA, and BCR-TKA. Intraoperative loads were applied through the condyles, anterior cruciate ligament (ACL), medial collateral ligament (MCL), and lateral collateral ligament (LCL), and the risk of fracture (ROF) was evaluated in the spine as the ratio of the 95. th. percentile maximum principal elastic strains over the tensile yield strain of proximal tibial bone. Results. Peak tensile strains occurred on the anterior portion of the medial sagittal cut in all simulations. Lateral translation of the medial implant in Bi-UKA had the largest increase in ROF of any of the implant positions (43%). Overstuffing the joint by 2 mm had a much larger effect, resulting in a six-fold increase in ROF. Bi-UKA had ~10% increased ROF compared to UKA-M for both the male and female models, although the smaller, less dense female model had a 1.4 times greater ROF compared to the male model. Removal of anterior bone akin to BCR-TKA doubled ROF compared to Bi-UKA. Conclusion. Tibial eminence avulsion fracture has a similar risk associated with Bi-UKA to UKA-M. The risk is higher for smaller and less dense tibiae. To minimize risk, it is most important to avoid overstuffing the joint, followed by correctly positioning the medial implant, taking care not to narrow the bone island anteriorly. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2022;11(8):575–584

Aims. Our main aim was to describe the trend in the comorbidities of patients undergoing elective total hip arthroplasties (THAs) and knee arthroplasties (KAs) between 1 January 2005 and 31 December 2018 in England. Methods. We combined data from the National Joint Registry (NJR) on primary elective hip and knee arthroplasties performed between 2005 and 2018 with pre-existing conditions recorded at the time of their primary operation from Hospital Episodes Statistics. We described the temporal trend in the number of comorbidities identified using the Charlson Comorbidity Index, and how this varied by age, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, index of multiple deprivation, and type of KA. Results. We included 696,504 and 833,745 elective primary THAs and KAs respectively, performed for any indication. Between 2005 and 2018, the proportion of elective THA and KA patients with one or more comorbidity at the time of their operation increased substantially (THA: 20% to 38%, KA: 22% to 41%). This was driven by increases in four conditions: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (2018: ~17%), diabetes without complications (2018: THA 10%, KA 14%), myocardial infarction (2018: 4%), and renal disease (2018: ~8%). Notably, renal disease prevalence increased from < 1% in 2005 to ~8% in 2018. Conclusion. Between 2005 and 2018 there were significant changes in the number of comorbidities recorded in patients having elective primary THAs and KAs. Renal disease is now one of the most prevalent comorbidities in this patient population. Future research should explore whether this comorbidity trend has increased the burden on other medical specialities to optimize these patients before surgery and to provide additional postoperative care. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(9):1052–1059

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. The metabolic equivalent of task (MET) score examines patient performance in relation to energy expenditure before and after knee arthroplasty. This study assesses its use in a knee arthroplasty population in comparison with the widely used Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and EuroQol five-dimension index (EQ-5D), which are reported to be limited by ceiling effects. Methods. A total of 116 patients with OKS, EQ-5D, and MET scores before, and at least six months following, unilateral primary knee arthroplasty were identified from a database. Procedures were performed by a single surgeon between 2014 and 2019 consecutively. Scores were analyzed for normality, skewness, kurtosis, and the presence of ceiling/floor effects. Concurrent validity between the MET score, OKS, and EQ-5D was assessed using Spearman’s rank. Results. Postoperatively the OKS and EQ-5D demonstrated negative skews in distribution, with high kurtosis at six months and one year. The OKS demonstrated a ceiling effect at one year (15.7%) postoperatively. The EQ-5D demonstrated a ceiling effect at six months (30.2%) and one year (39.8%) postoperatively. The MET score did not demonstrate a skewed distribution or ceiling effect either at six months or one year postoperatively. Weak-moderate correlations were noted between the MET score and conventional scores at six months and one year postoperatively. Conclusion. In contrast to the OKS and EQ-5D, the MET score was normally distributed postoperatively with no ceiling effect. It is worth consideration as an arthroplasty outcome measure, particularly for patients with high expectations. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2023;4(3):129–137

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

Aims. The aim of this study was to identify variables associated with time to revision, demographic details associated with revision indication, and type of prosthesis employed, and to describe the survival of hinge knee arthroplasty (HKA) when used for first-time knee revision surgery and factors that were associated with re-revision. Methods. Patient demographic details, BMI, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, indication for revision, surgical approach, surgeon grade, implant type (fixed and rotating), time of revision from primary implantation, and re-revision if undertaken were obtained from the National Joint Registry data for England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and the Isle of Man over an 18-year period (2003 to 2021). Results. There were 3,855 patient episodes analyzed with a median age of 73 years (interquartile range (IQR) 66 to 80), and the majority were female (n = 2,480, 64.3%). The median time to revision from primary knee arthroplasty was 1,219 days (IQR 579 to 2,422). Younger age (p < 0.001), decreasing ASA grade (p < 0.001), and indications for revision of sepsis (p < 0.001), unexplained pain (p < 0.001), non-polyethylene wear (p < 0.001), and malalignment (p < 0.001) were all associated with an earlier time to revision from primary implantation. The median follow-up was 4.56 years (range 0.00 to 17.52), during which there were 410 re-revisions. The overall unadjusted probability of re-revision for all revision HKAs at one, five, and ten years after surgery were 2.7% (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.2 to 3.3), 10.7% (95% CI 9.6 to 11.9), and 16.2% (95% CI 14.5 to 17.9), respectively. Male sex (p < 0.001), younger age (p < 0.001), revision for septic indications (p < 0.001) or implant fracture (p = 0.010), a fixed hinge (p < 0.001), or surgery performed by a non-consultant grade (p = 0.023) were independently associated with an increased risk of re-revision. Conclusion. There were several factors associated with time to first revision. The re-revision rate was 16.2% at ten years; however, the risk factors associated with an increased risk of re-revision could be used to counsel patients regarding their outcome. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2023;105-B(1):47–55

Aims. To map the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and High Activity Arthroplasty Score (HAAS) items to a common scale, and to investigate the psychometric properties of this new scale for the measurement of knee health. Methods. Patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) data measuring knee health were obtained from the NHS PROMs dataset and Total or Partial Knee Arthroplasty Trial (TOPKAT). Assumptions for common scale modelling were tested. A graded response model (fitted to OKS item responses in the NHS PROMs dataset) was used as an anchor to calibrate paired HAAS items from the TOPKAT dataset. Information curves for the combined OKS-HAAS model were plotted. Bland-Altman analysis was used to compare common scale scores derived from OKS and HAAS items. A conversion table was developed to map between HAAS, OKS, and the common scale. Results. We included 3,329 response sets from 528 patients undergoing knee arthroplasty. These generally met the assumptions of unidimensionality, monotonicity, local independence, and measurement invariance. The HAAS items provided more information than OKS items at high levels of knee health. Combining both instruments resulted in higher test-level information than either instrument alone. The mean error between common scale scores derived from the OKS and HAAS was 0.29 logits. Conclusion. The common scale allowed more precise measurement of knee health than use of either the OKS or HAAS individually. These techniques for mapping PROM instruments may be useful for the standardization of outcome reporting, and pooling results across studies that use either PROM in individual-patient meta-analysis. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2023;12(10):624–635

Aims. The aim of this study was to determine satisfaction rates after hip and knee arthroplasty in patients who did not respond to postoperative patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), characteristics of non-responders, and contact preferences to maximize response rates. Methods. A prospective cohort study of patients planned to undergo hip arthroplasty (n = 713) and knee arthroplasty (n = 737) at a UK university teaching hospital who had completed preoperative PROMs questionnaires, including the EuroQol five-dimension health-related quality of life score, and Oxford Hip Score (OHS) and Oxford Knee Score (OKS). Follow-up questionnaires were sent by post at one year, including satisfaction scoring. Attempts were made to contact patients who did not initially respond. Univariate, logistic regression, and receiver operator curve analysis was performed. Results. At one year, 667 hip patients (93.5%) and 685 knee patients (92.9%) had undergone surgery and were alive. No response was received from 151/667 hip patients (22.6%), 83 (55.0%) of whom were ultimately contacted); or from 108/685 knee patients (15.8%), 91 (84.3%) of whom were ultimately contacted. There was no difference in satisfaction after arthroplasty between initial non-responders and responders for hips (74/81 satisfied vs 476/516 satisfied; p = 0.847) or knees (81/93 satisfied vs 470/561 satisfied; p = 0.480). Initial non-response and persistent non-response was associated with younger age, higher BMIs, and worse preoperative PROMs for both hip and knee patients (p < 0.050). Being in employment was associated with persistent non-response for hip patients (p = 0.047). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that younger age (p < 0.038), higher BMI (p = 0.018), and poorer preoperative OHS (p = 0.031) were independently associated with persistent non-response to hip PROMs. No independent associations were identified for knees. Using a threshold of > 66.4 years predicted a preference for contact by post (area under the curve 0.723 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.647 to 0.799; p < 0.001, though this CI crosses the 0.7 limit considered reliable). Conclusion. The majority of initial non-responders were ultimately contactable with effort. Satisfaction rates were not inferior in patients who did not initially respond to PROMs. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(4):275–283

Aims. To investigate whether chronic kidney disease (CKD) is associated with the risk of all-cause revision or revision due to a periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after primary hip or knee arthroplasty. Methods. This retrospective cohort study comprised 18,979 consecutive hip and knee arthroplasties from a single high-volume academic hospital. At a median of 5.6 years (interquartile range (IQR) 3.5 to 8.1), all deaths and revisions were counted. To overcome the competing risk of death, competing risk analysis using the cumulative incidence function (CIF) was applied to analyze the association between different stages of CKD and revisions. Confounding factors such as diabetes and BMI were considered using either a stratified CIF or the Fine and Gray model. Results. There were 2,111 deaths (11.1%) and 677 revisions (3.6%) during the follow-up period. PJI was the reason for revision in 162 cases (0.9%). For hip arthroplasty, 3.5% of patients with CKD stage 1 (i.e. normal kidney function, NKF), 3.8% with CKD stage 2, 4.2% with CKD stage 3, and 0% with CKD stage 4 to 5 had undergone revision within eight years. For knee arthroplasty, 4.7% with NKF, 2.7% with CKD stage 2, 2.4% with CKD stage 3, and 7% of CKD stage 4 to 5 had had undergone revision. With the exception of knee arthroplasty patients in whom normal kidney function was associated with a greater probability of all-cause revision, there were no major differences in the rates of all-cause revisions or revisions due to PJIs between different CKD stages. The results remained unchanged when diabetes and BMI were considered. Conclusion. We found no strong evidence that CKD was associated with an increased risk of all-cause or PJI-related revision. Selection bias probably explains the increased amount of all-cause revision operations in knee arthroplasty patients with normal kidney function. The effect of stage 4 to 5 CKD was difficult to evaluate because of the small number of patients. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(4):689–695

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