During total knee replacement (TKR), surgeons can choose whether or not to resurface the patella, with advantages and disadvantages of each approach. Recently, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommended always resurfacing the patella, rather than never doing so. NICE found insufficient evidence on selective resurfacing (surgeon’s decision based on intraoperative findings and symptoms) to make recommendations. If effective, selective resurfacing could result in optimal individualized patient care. This protocol describes a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of primary TKR with always patellar resurfacing compared to selective patellar resurfacing. The PAtellar Resurfacing Trial (PART) is a patient- and assessor-blinded multicentre, pragmatic parallel two-arm randomized superiority trial of adults undergoing elective primary TKR for primary osteoarthritis at NHS hospitals in England, with an embedded internal pilot phase (ISRCTN 33276681). Participants will be randomly allocated intraoperatively on a 1:1 basis (stratified by centre and implant type (cruciate-retaining vs cruciate-sacrificing)) to always resurface or selectively resurface the patella, once the surgeon has confirmed sufficient patellar thickness for resurfacing and that constrained implants are not required. The primary analysis will compare the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) one year after surgery. Secondary outcomes include patient-reported outcome measures at three months, six months, and one year (Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, OKS, EuroQol five-dimension five-level questionnaire, patient satisfaction, postoperative complications, need for further surgery, resource use, and costs). Cost-effectiveness will be measured for the lifetime of the patient. Overall, 530 patients will be recruited to obtain 90% power to detect a four-point difference in OKS between the groups one year after surgery, assuming up to 40% resurfacing in the selective group.Aims
Methods
Ankle fracture is one of the most common musculoskeletal injuries sustained in the UK. Many patients experience pain and physical impairment, with the consequences of the fracture and its management lasting for several months or even years. The broad aim of ankle fracture treatment is to maintain the alignment of the joint while the fracture heals, and to reduce the risks of problems, such as stiffness. More severe injuries to the ankle are routinely treated surgically. However, even with advances in surgery, there remains a risk of complications; for patients experiencing these, the associated loss of function and quality of life (Qol) is considerable. Non-surgical treatment is an alternative to surgery and involves applying a cast carefully shaped to the patient’s ankle to correct and maintain alignment of the joint with the key benefit being a reduction in the frequency of common complications of surgery. The main potential risk of non-surgical treatment is a loss of alignment with a consequent reduction in ankle function. This study aims to determine whether ankle function, four months after treatment, in patients with unstable ankle fractures treated with close contact casting is not worse than in those treated with surgical intervention, which is the current standard of care. This trial is a pragmatic, multicentre, randomized non-inferiority clinical trial with an embedded pilot, and with 12 months clinical follow-up and parallel economic analysis. A surveillance study using routinely collected data will be performed annually to five years post-treatment. Adult patients, aged 60 years and younger, with unstable ankle fractures will be identified in daily trauma meetings and fracture clinics and approached for recruitment prior to their treatment. Treatments will be performed in trauma units across the UK by a wide range of surgeons. Details of the surgical treatment, including how the operation is done, implant choice, and the recovery programme afterwards, will be at the discretion of the treating surgeon. The non-surgical treatment will be close-contact casting performed under anaesthetic, a technique which has gained in popularity since the publication of the Ankle Injury Management (AIM) trial. In all, 890 participants (445 per group) will be randomly allocated to surgical or non-surgical treatment. Data regarding ankle function, QoL, complications, and healthcare-related costs will be collected at eight weeks, four and 12 months, and then annually for five years following treatment. The primary outcome measure is patient-reported ankle function at four months from treatment.Aims
Methods
We compared the risks of re-revision and mortality between two-stage and single-stage revision surgeries among patients with infected primary hip arthroplasty. Patients with a periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of their primary arthroplasty revised with single-stage or two-stage procedure in England and Wales between 2003 and 2014 were identified from the National Joint Registry. We used Poisson regression with restricted cubic splines to compute hazard ratios (HRs) at different postoperative periods. The total number of revisions and re-revisions undergone by patients was compared between the two strategies.Aims
Methods
Periprosthetic hip-joint infection is a multifaceted and highly detrimental outcome for patients and clinicians. The incidence of prosthetic joint infection reported within two years of primary hip arthroplasty ranges from 0.8% to 2.1%. Costs of treatment are over five-times greater in people with periprosthetic hip joint infection than in those with no infection. Currently, there are no national evidence-based guidelines for treatment and management of this condition to guide clinical practice or to inform clinical study design. The aim of this study is to develop guidelines based on evidence from the six-year INFection and ORthopaedic Management (INFORM) research programme. We used a consensus process consisting of an evidence review to generate items for the guidelines and online consensus questionnaire and virtual face-to-face consensus meeting to draft the guidelines.Aims
Methods
We compared the risks of re-revision and mortality between two-stage revision surgery and single-stage revision surgery among patients with infected primary knee arthroplasty. Patients with a periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) of their primary knee arthroplasty, initially revised with a single-stage or a two-stage procedure in England and Wales between 2003 and 2014, were identified from the National Joint Registry. We used Poisson regression with restricted cubic splines to compute hazard ratios (HR) at different postoperative periods. The total number of revisions and re-revisions undergone by patients was compared between the two strategies.Aims
Methods
The aim of this modified Delphi process was to create a structured Revision Hip Complexity Classification (RHCC) which can be used as a tool to help direct multidisciplinary team (MDT) discussions of complex cases in local or regional revision networks. The RHCC was developed with the help of a steering group and an invitation through the British Hip Society (BHS) to members to apply, forming an expert panel of 35. We ran a mixed-method modified Delphi process (three rounds of questionnaires and one virtual meeting). Round 1 consisted of identifying the factors that govern the decision-making and complexities, with weighting given to factors considered most important by experts. Participants were asked to identify classification systems where relevant. Rounds 2 and 3 focused on grouping each factor into H1, H2, or H3, creating a hierarchy of complexity. This was followed by a virtual meeting in an attempt to achieve consensus on the factors which had not achieved consensus in preceding rounds.Aims
Methods
Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is an uncommon but serious complication of hip replacement. Over 1,000 operations are performed annually in the United Kingdom for PJI following hip replacement, using either one- or two-stage revision arthroplasty. It is unclear which is preferred by patients and which has the best long-term outcome. This qualitative study aims to describe patient experiences of treatment and recovery following one- and two-stage revision arthroplasty for PJI within the context of a pragmatic randomised controlled trial comparing these two approaches. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 32 patients undergoing one- or two-stage revision treatment for PJI as part of a UK multi-centre randomised controlled trial. Patients were recruited from 12 participating National Health Service (NHS) Orthopaedic Departments and were interviewed 2–4 months after their first revision surgery and again approximately 18 months later. Final sample size was justified on the basis of thematic saturation. All patients consented to the interview being audio-recorded, transcribed, anonymised and analysed using an inductive thematic approach. Ethical approval was provided by NRES Committee South-West Frenchay, 14/SW/116. Patients in both the one- and two-stage treatment groups described prolonged hospital stays, with burdensome antibiotics and brief physiotherapy treatment. However, following discharge home and during recovery, participants undergoing two-stage revision with an ‘empty hip' or with a spacer reported being physically restricted in almost every aspect of their daily life, resulting in inactivity and confinement to home. Mobility aids were not sufficiently available through the health service for these patients. A key difference is that those with a spacer reported more pain than those without. Approximately one year following their second-stage revision, participants described being more independent and active, but two directly attributed muscle weakness to the lengthy period without a hip and described resulting falls or dislocations that had complicated their recovery. In contrast, those undergoing one-stage revision and CUMARS appeared to be more alike, reporting better mobility, functionality and independence, although still limited. Participants in these groups also reported minimal or no pain following their revision. A key difference between CUMARS and one-stage revision was the uncertainty of whether a second operation was necessary, which participants described as “hanging over them”, while those in the two-stage empty hip or spacer group described a more positive anticipation of a second definitive operation as it marked an end to what was described as a detachment from life. Our findings highlight the differences between patient experiences of recovery following revision arthroplasty, and how this is influenced by the surgical approach and presence or lack of spacers. An understanding of lived experiences following one- and two-stage surgical interventions will complement knowledge about the clinical effectiveness of these different types of revision surgery.
To devise a method to quantify and optimize tightness when inserting cortical screws, based on bone characterization and screw geometry. Cortical human cadaveric diaphyseal tibiae screw holes (n = 20) underwent destructive testing to firstly establish the relationship between cortical thickness and experimental stripping torque (Tstr), and secondly to calibrate an equation to predict Tstr. Using the equation’s predictions, 3.5 mm screws were inserted (n = 66) to targeted torques representing 40% to 100% of Tstr, with recording of compression generated during tightening. Once the target torque had been achieved, immediate pullout testing was performed.Aims
Methods
Patients with knee prosthetic joint infection (PJI) frequently receive one- or two-stage revision. To explore the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing methods, we analysed a UK registry, interviewed patients and surgeons, systematically reviewed literature, held a consensus meeting, and assessed progress of an RCT in hip PJI. In 2014, in England and Wales, knee PJI was treated with one- or two-stage procedures in 19% and 71% of patients respectively. Between 2007 and 2014, use of one-stage procedures doubled and, in major centres, up to 42% of treatments were one-stage. We conducted in-depth interviews with 16 patients with knee PJI and 11 surgeons performing one- or two-stage revision. Patients considered randomisation acceptable with appropriate counselling and, depending on infecting organisms and health status, surgeons would randomise treatments. In meta-analysis, two-year re-infection rates in 10 one-stage series (423 patients) and 108 two-stage series (5,129 patients) were 7.6% (95%CI 3.4,13.1) and 8.8% (7.2,10.6) respectively. In a series of patients with knee PJI, surgeons from 2 major centres considered 6/15 patients eligible for either treatment, with 4 more potentially eligible after treatment of soft tissue infection. In an ongoing RCT of surgical treatment of hip PJI, 116 patients have been randomised at 14 centres in 3 years. Randomising patients with PJI is feasible but, as knee PJI is uncommon, a multicentre RCT would be required. Based on WOMAC score outcome and appropriate assumptions on eligibility and acceptability, 170 patients would need to be randomised over 4 years at 14 major centres.
We used the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man (NJR) to investigate the risk of revision due to prosthetic joint infection (PJI) for patients undergoing primary and revision hip arthroplasty, the changes in risk over time, and the overall burden created by PJI. We analysed revision total hip arthroplasties (THAs) performed due to a diagnosis of PJI and the linked index procedures recorded in the NJR between 2003 and 2014. The cohort analysed consisted of 623 253 index primary hip arthroplasties, 63 222 index revision hip arthroplasties and 7585 revision THAs performed due to a diagnosis of PJI. The prevalence, cumulative incidence functions and the burden of PJI (total procedures) were calculated. Overall linear trends were investigated with log-linear regression.Objectives
Methods
Modular junctions are ubiquitous in contemporary hip arthroplasty. The head-trunnion junction is implicated in the failure of large diameter metal-on-metal (MoM) hips which are the currently the topic of one the largest legal actions in the history of orthopaedics (estimated costs are stated to exceed $4 billion). Several factors are known to influence the strength of these press-fit modular connections. However, the influence of different head sizes has not previously been investigated. The aim of the study was to establish whether the choice of head size influences the initial strength of the trunnion-head connection. Ti-6Al-4V trunnions (n = 60) and two different sizes of cobalt-chromium (Co-Cr) heads (28 mm and 36 mm; 30 of each size) were used in the study. Three different levels of assembly force were considered: 4 kN; 5 kN; and 6 kN (n = 10 each). The strength of the press-fit connection was subsequently evaluated by measuring the pull-off force required to break the connection. The statistical differences in pull-off force were examined using a Kruskal–Wallis test and two-sample Mann–Whitney U test. Finite element and analytical models were developed to understand the reasons for the experimentally observed differences.Objectives
Materials and Methods
Total hip replacement causes a short-term increase
in the risk of mortality. It is important to quantify this and to identify
modifiable risk factors so that the risk of post-operative mortality
can be minimised. We performed a systematic review and critical
evaluation of the current literature on the topic. We identified
32 studies published over the last 10 years which provide either
30-day or 90-day mortality data. We estimate the pooled incidence
of mortality during the first 30 and 90 days following hip replacement
to be 0.30% (95% CI 0.22 to 0.38) and 0.65% (95% CI 0.50 to 0.81),
respectively. We found strong evidence of a temporal trend towards
reducing mortality rates despite increasingly co-morbid patients.
The risk factors for early mortality most commonly identified are
increasing age, male gender and co-morbid conditions, particularly
cardiovascular disease. Cardiovascular complications appear to have
overtaken fatal pulmonary emboli as the leading cause of death after
hip replacement. Cite this article:
