Search

Aims The primary aim of this study was to compare the hip-specific functional outcome of robotic assisted total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) with manual total hip arthroplasty (mTHA) in patients with osteoarthritis (OA). Secondary aims were to compare general health improvement, patient satisfaction, and radiological component position and restoration of leg length between rTHA and mTHA. Methods A total of 40 patients undergoing rTHA were propensity score matched to 80 patients undergoing mTHA for OA. Patients were matched for age, sex, and preoperative function. The Oxford Hip Score (OHS), Forgotten Joint Score (FJS), and EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D) were collected pre- and postoperatively (mean 10 months (SD 2.2) in rTHA group and 12 months (SD 0.3) in mTHA group). In addition, patient satisfaction was collected postoperatively. Component accuracy was assessed using Lewinnek and Callanan safe zones, and restoration of leg length were assessed radiologically. Results There were no significant differences in the preoperative demographics (p ≥ 0.781) or function (p ≥ 0.383) between the groups. The postoperative OHS (difference 2.5, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.1 to 4.8; p = 0.038) and FJS (difference 21.1, 95% CI 10.7 to 31.5; p < 0.001) were significantly greater in the rTHA group when compared with the mTHA group. However, only the FJS was clinically significantly greater. There was no difference in the postoperative EQ-5D (difference 0.017, 95% CI -0.042 to 0.077; p = 0.562) between the two groups. No patients were dissatisfied in the rTHA group whereas six were dissatisfied in the mTHA group, but this was not significant (p = 0.176). rTHA was associated with an overall greater rate of component positioning in a safe zone (p ≤ 0.003) and restoration of leg length (p < 0.001). Conclusion Patients undergoing rTHA had a greater hip-specific functional outcome when compared to mTHA, which may be related to improved component positioning and restoration of leg length. However, there was no difference in their postoperative generic health or rate of satisfaction. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2021;10(1):22–30.

Aims The aims of this meta-analysis were to assess: 1) the prevalence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in hip fracture patients; 2) the associated mortality rate and risk associated with COVID-19; 3) the patient demographics associated with COVID-19; 4) time of diagnosis; and 5) length of follow-up after diagnosis of COVID-19. Methods Searches of PubMed, Medline, and Google Scholar were performed in October 2020 in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. Search terms included “hip”, “fracture”, and “COVID-19”. The criteria for inclusion were published clinical articles reporting the mortality rate associated with COVID-19 in hip fracture patients. In total, 53 articles were identified and following full text screening 28 articles satisfied the inclusion criteria. Results A total of 28 studies reported the mortality of COVID-19-positive patients, of which 21 studies reported the prevalence of COVID-19-positive patients and compared the mortality rate to COVID-19-negative patients. The prevalence of COVID-19 was 13% (95% confidence interval (CI) 11% to 16%) and was associated with a crude mortality rate of 35% (95% CI 32% to 39%), which was a significantly increased risk compared to those patients without COVID-19 (odds ratio (OR) 7.11, 95% CI 5.04 to 10.04; p < 0.001). COVID-19-positive patients were more likely to be male (OR 1.51, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.96; p = 0.002). The duration of follow-up was reported in 20 (71.4%) studies. A total of 17 studies reported whether a patient presented with COVID-19 (n = 108 patients, 35.1%) or developed COVID-19 following admission (n = 200, 64.9%), of which six studies reported a mean time to diagnosis of post-admission COVID-19 at 15 days (2 to 25). Conclusion The prevalence of COVID-19 was 13%, of which approximately one-third of patients were diagnosed on admission, and was associated with male sex. COVID-19-positive patients had a crude mortality rate of 35%, being seven times greater than those without COVID-19. Due to the heterogenicity of the reported data minimum reporting standards of outcomes associated with COVID-19 are suggested. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2020;9(12):873–883.

Aims The primary aim of the study was to compare the knee-specific functional outcome of robotic unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (rUKA) with manual total knee arthroplasty (mTKA) for the management of isolated medial compartment osteoarthritis. Secondary aims were to compare length of hospital stay, general health improvement, and satisfaction between rUKA and mTKA. Methods A powered (1:3 ratio) cohort study was performed. A total of 30 patients undergoing rUKA were propensity score matched to 90 patients undergoing mTKA for isolated medial compartment arthritis. Patients were matched for age, sex, body mass index (BMI), and preoperative function. The Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and EuroQol five-dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D) were collected preoperatively and six months postoperatively. The Forgotten Joint Score (FJS) and patient satisfaction were collected six months postoperatively. Length of hospital stay was also recorded. Results There were no significant differences in the preoperative demographics (p ⩾ 0.150) or function (p ⩾ 0.230) between the groups. The six-month OKS was significantly greater in the rUKA group when compared with the mTKA group (difference 7.7, p < 0.001). There was also a greater six-month postoperative EQ-5D (difference 0.148, p = 0.002) and FJS (difference 24.2, p < 0.001) for the rUKA when compared to the mTKA. No patient was dissatisfied in the rUKA group and five (6%) were dissatisfied in the mTKA, but this was not significant (p = 0.210). Length of stay was significantly (p < 0.001) shorter in the rUKA group (median two days, interquartile range (IQR) 1 to 3) compared to the mTKA (median four days, IQR 3 to 5). Conclusion Patients with isolated medial compartment arthritis had a greater knee-specific functional outcome and generic health with a shorter length of hospital stay after rUKA when compared to mTKA. Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2019;9(1):15–22.

Objectives Previous studies have evidenced cement-in-cement techniques as reliable in revision arthroplasty. Commonly, the original cement mantle is reshaped, aiding accurate placement of the new stem. Ultrasonic devices selectively remove cement, preserve host bone, and have lower cortical perforation rates than other techniques. As far as the authors are aware, the impact of ultrasonic devices on final cement-in-cement bonds has not been investigated. This study assessed the impact of cement removal using the Orthosonics System for Cemented Arthroplasty Revision (OSCAR; Orthosonics) on final cement-in-cement bonds. Methods A total of 24 specimens were manufactured by pouring cement (Simplex P Bone Cement; Stryker) into stainless steel moulds, with a central rod polished to Stryker Exeter V40 specifications. After cement curing, the rods were removed and eight specimens were allocated to each of three internal surface preparation groups: 1) burr; 2) OSCAR; and 3) no treatment. Internal holes were recemented, and each specimen was cut into 5 mm discs. Shear testing of discs was completed by a technician blinded to the original grouping, recording ultimate shear strengths. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was completed, inspecting surfaces of shear-tested specimens. Results The mean shear strength for OSCAR-prepared specimens (33.6 MPa) was significantly lower than for the control (46.3 MPa) and burr (45.8 MPa) groups (p < 0.001; one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Tukey’s post hoc analysis). There was no significant difference in shear strengths between control and burr groups (p = 0.57). Scanning electron microscopy of OSCAR specimens revealed evidence of porosity undiscovered in previous studies. Conclusion Results show that the cement removal technique impacts on final cement-in-cement bonds. This in vitro study demonstrates significantly weaker bonds when using OSCAR prior to recementation into an old cement mantle compared with cement prepared with a burr or no treatment. This infers that care must be taken in surgical decision-making regarding cement removal techniques used during cement-in-cement revision arthroplasty, suggesting that the risks and benefits of ultrasonic cement removal need consideration. Cite this article: A. Liddle, M. Webb, N. Clement, S. Green, J. Liddle, M. German, J. Holland. Ultrasonic cement removal in cement-in-cement revision total hip arthroplasty: What is the effect on the final cement-in-cement bond? Bone Joint Res 2019;8:246–252. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.86.BJR-2018-0313.R1.

Objectives The radiographic union score for tibial (RUST) fractures was developed by Whelan et al to assess the healing of tibial fractures following intramedullary nailing. In the current study, the repeatability and reliability of the RUST score was evaluated in an independent centre (a) using the original description, (b) after further interpretation of the description of the score, and (c) with the immediate post-operative radiograph available for comparison. Methods A total of 15 radiographs of tibial shaft fractures treated by intramedullary nailing (IM) were scored by three observers using the RUST system. Following discussion on how the criteria of the RUST system should be implemented, 45 sets (i.e. AP and lateral) of radiographs of IM nailed tibial fractures were scored by five observers. Finally, these 45 sets of radiographs were rescored with the baseline post-operative radiograph available for comparison. Results The initial intraclass correlation (ICC) on the first 15 sets of radiographs was 0.67 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.71). However, the original description was being interpreted in different ways. After agreeing on the interpretation, the ICC on the second cohort improved to 0.75. The ICC improved even further to 0.79, when the baseline post-operative radiographs were available for comparison. Conclusion This study demonstrates that the RUST scoring system is a reliable and repeatable outcome measure for assessing tibial fracture healing. Further improvement in the reliability of the scoring system can be obtained if the radiographs are compared with the baseline post-operative radiographs. Cite this article: Mr J.M. Leow. The radiographic union scale in tibial (RUST) fractures: Reliability of the outcome measure at an independent centre. Bone Joint Res 2016;5:116–121. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.54.2000628.