Search

Purpose: The aim was to compare the probability of discharge after hip fracture surgery conditional on being alive and in hospital between patients mobilised within and beyond 36-hours of surgery across groups defined by depression. Methods: Data were taken from the National Hip Fracture Database and included patients 60 years of age or older who underwent hip fracture surgery in England and Wales between 2014 and 2016. The conditional probability of postsurgical live discharge was estimated for patients mobilised early and for patients mobilised late across groups with and without depression. The association between mobilisation timing and the conditional probability of live discharge were also estimated separately through adjusted generalized linear models. Results: Data were analysed for 116,274 patients. A diagnosis of depression was present in 8.31% patients. In those with depression, 7,412 (76.7%) patients mobilised early. In those without depression, 84,085 (78.9%) patients mobilised early. By day 30 after surgery, the adjusted odds ratio of discharge among those who mobilised early compared to late was 1.79 (95% CI: 1.56–2.05, p<0.001) and 1.92 (95% CI: 1.84–2.00, p<0.001) for those with and without depression, respectively. Conclusion: A similar proportion of patients with depression mobilised early after hip fracture surgery when compared to those without a diagnosis of depression. The association between mobilisation timing and time to live discharge was observed for patients with and without depression. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background To develop and validate the stratify-hip algorithm (multivariable prediction models to predict those at low, medium, and high risk across in-hospital death, 30-day death, and residence change after hip fracture). Methods Multivariable Fine-Gray and logistic regression of audit data linked to hospital records for older adults surgically treated for hip fracture in England/Wales 2011–14 (development n  = 170 411) and 2015–16 (external validation, n  = 90 102). Outcomes included time to in-hospital death, death at 30 days, and time to residence change. Predictors included age, sex, pre-fracture mobility, dementia, and pre-fracture residence (not for residence change). Model assumptions, performance, and sensitivity to missingness were assessed. Models were incorporated into the stratify-hip algorithm assigning patients to overall low (low risk across outcomes), medium (low death risk, medium/high risk of residence change), or high (high risk of in-hospital death, high/medium risk of 30-day death) risk. Results For complete-case analysis, 6 780 of 141 158 patients (4.8%) died in-hospital, 8 693 of 149 258 patients (5.8%) died by 30 days, and 4 461 of 119 420 patients (3.7%) had residence change. Models demonstrated acceptable calibration (observed:expected ratio 0.90, 0.99, and 0.94), and discrimination (area under curve 73.1, 71.1, and 71.5; Brier score 5.7, 5.3, and 5.6) for in-hospital death, 30-day death, and residence change, respectively. Overall, 31%, 28%, and 41% of patients were assigned to overall low, medium, and high risk. External validation and missing data analyses elicited similar findings. The algorithm is available at https://stratifyhip.co.uk. Conclusions The current study developed and validated the stratify-hip algorithm as a new tool to risk stratify patients after hip fracture. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite their widespread use, the impact of commissioners' policies for body mass index (BMI) for access to elective surgery is not clear. Policy use varies by locality, and there are concerns that these policies may worsen health inequalities. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of policies for BMI on access to hip replacement surgery in England. Methods: A natural experimental study using interrupted time series and difference-in-differences analysis. We used National Joint Registry data for 480,364 patients who had primary hip replacement surgery in England between January 2009 and December 2019. Clinical commissioning group policies introduced before June 2018 to alter access to hip replacement for patients with overweight or obesity were considered the intervention. The main outcome measures were rate of surgery and patient demographics (BMI, index of multiple deprivation, independently funded surgery) over time. Results: Commissioning localities which introduced a policy had higher surgery rates at baseline than those which did not. Rates of surgery fell after policy introduction, whereas rates rose in localities with no policy. 'Strict' policies mandating a BMI threshold for access to surgery were associated with the sharpest fall in rates (trend change of − 1.39 operations per 100,000 population aged 40 + per quarter-year, 95% confidence interval − 1.81 to − 0.97, P < 0.001). Localities with BMI policies have higher proportions of independently funded surgery and more affluent patients receiving surgery, indicating increasing health inequalities. Policies enforcing extra waiting time before surgery were associated with worsening mean pre-operative symptom scores and rising obesity. Conclusions: Commissioners and policymakers should be aware of the counterproductive effects of BMI policies on patient outcomes and inequalities. We recommend that BMI policies involving extra waiting time or mandatory BMI thresholds are no longer used to reduce access to hip replacement surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite their widespread use, the impact of commissioners' policies for body mass index (BMI) for access to elective surgery is not clear. Policy use varies by locality, and there are concerns that these policies may worsen health inequalities. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of policies for BMI on access to hip replacement surgery in England. Methods: A natural experimental study using interrupted time series and difference-in-differences analysis. We used National Joint Registry data for 480,364 patients who had primary hip replacement surgery in England between January 2009 and December 2019. Clinical commissioning group policies introduced before June 2018 to alter access to hip replacement for patients with overweight or obesity were considered the intervention. The main outcome measures were rate of surgery and patient demographics (BMI, index of multiple deprivation, independently funded surgery) over time. Results: Commissioning localities which introduced a policy had higher surgery rates at baseline than those which did not. Rates of surgery fell after policy introduction, whereas rates rose in localities with no policy. 'Strict' policies mandating a BMI threshold for access to surgery were associated with the sharpest fall in rates (trend change of − 1.39 operations per 100,000 population aged 40 + per quarter-year, 95% confidence interval − 1.81 to − 0.97, P < 0.001). Localities with BMI policies have higher proportions of independently funded surgery and more affluent patients receiving surgery, indicating increasing health inequalities. Policies enforcing extra waiting time before surgery were associated with worsening mean pre-operative symptom scores and rising obesity. Conclusions: Commissioners and policymakers should be aware of the counterproductive effects of BMI policies on patient outcomes and inequalities. We recommend that BMI policies involving extra waiting time or mandatory BMI thresholds are no longer used to reduce access to hip replacement surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite their widespread use, the impact of commissioners' policies for body mass index (BMI) for access to elective surgery is not clear. Policy use varies by locality, and there are concerns that these policies may worsen health inequalities. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of policies for BMI on access to hip replacement surgery in England. Methods: A natural experimental study using interrupted time series and difference-in-differences analysis. We used National Joint Registry data for 480,364 patients who had primary hip replacement surgery in England between January 2009 and December 2019. Clinical commissioning group policies introduced before June 2018 to alter access to hip replacement for patients with overweight or obesity were considered the intervention. The main outcome measures were rate of surgery and patient demographics (BMI, index of multiple deprivation, independently funded surgery) over time. Results: Commissioning localities which introduced a policy had higher surgery rates at baseline than those which did not. Rates of surgery fell after policy introduction, whereas rates rose in localities with no policy. 'Strict' policies mandating a BMI threshold for access to surgery were associated with the sharpest fall in rates (trend change of − 1.39 operations per 100,000 population aged 40 + per quarter-year, 95% confidence interval − 1.81 to − 0.97, P < 0.001). Localities with BMI policies have higher proportions of independently funded surgery and more affluent patients receiving surgery, indicating increasing health inequalities. Policies enforcing extra waiting time before surgery were associated with worsening mean pre-operative symptom scores and rising obesity. Conclusions: Commissioners and policymakers should be aware of the counterproductive effects of BMI policies on patient outcomes and inequalities. We recommend that BMI policies involving extra waiting time or mandatory BMI thresholds are no longer used to reduce access to hip replacement surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite their widespread use, the impact of commissioners' policies for body mass index (BMI) for access to elective surgery is not clear. Policy use varies by locality, and there are concerns that these policies may worsen health inequalities. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of policies for BMI on access to hip replacement surgery in England. Methods: A natural experimental study using interrupted time series and difference-in-differences analysis. We used National Joint Registry data for 480,364 patients who had primary hip replacement surgery in England between January 2009 and December 2019. Clinical commissioning group policies introduced before June 2018 to alter access to hip replacement for patients with overweight or obesity were considered the intervention. The main outcome measures were rate of surgery and patient demographics (BMI, index of multiple deprivation, independently funded surgery) over time. Results: Commissioning localities which introduced a policy had higher surgery rates at baseline than those which did not. Rates of surgery fell after policy introduction, whereas rates rose in localities with no policy. 'Strict' policies mandating a BMI threshold for access to surgery were associated with the sharpest fall in rates (trend change of − 1.39 operations per 100,000 population aged 40 + per quarter-year, 95% confidence interval − 1.81 to − 0.97, P < 0.001). Localities with BMI policies have higher proportions of independently funded surgery and more affluent patients receiving surgery, indicating increasing health inequalities. Policies enforcing extra waiting time before surgery were associated with worsening mean pre-operative symptom scores and rising obesity. Conclusions: Commissioners and policymakers should be aware of the counterproductive effects of BMI policies on patient outcomes and inequalities. We recommend that BMI policies involving extra waiting time or mandatory BMI thresholds are no longer used to reduce access to hip replacement surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite their widespread use, the impact of commissioners' policies for body mass index (BMI) for access to elective surgery is not clear. Policy use varies by locality, and there are concerns that these policies may worsen health inequalities. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of policies for BMI on access to hip replacement surgery in England. Methods: A natural experimental study using interrupted time series and difference-in-differences analysis. We used National Joint Registry data for 480,364 patients who had primary hip replacement surgery in England between January 2009 and December 2019. Clinical commissioning group policies introduced before June 2018 to alter access to hip replacement for patients with overweight or obesity were considered the intervention. The main outcome measures were rate of surgery and patient demographics (BMI, index of multiple deprivation, independently funded surgery) over time. Results: Commissioning localities which introduced a policy had higher surgery rates at baseline than those which did not. Rates of surgery fell after policy introduction, whereas rates rose in localities with no policy. 'Strict' policies mandating a BMI threshold for access to surgery were associated with the sharpest fall in rates (trend change of − 1.39 operations per 100,000 population aged 40 + per quarter-year, 95% confidence interval − 1.81 to − 0.97, P < 0.001). Localities with BMI policies have higher proportions of independently funded surgery and more affluent patients receiving surgery, indicating increasing health inequalities. Policies enforcing extra waiting time before surgery were associated with worsening mean pre-operative symptom scores and rising obesity. Conclusions: Commissioners and policymakers should be aware of the counterproductive effects of BMI policies on patient outcomes and inequalities. We recommend that BMI policies involving extra waiting time or mandatory BMI thresholds are no longer used to reduce access to hip replacement surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Trauma in older people leads to substantial morbidity and mortality. The National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD) has driven improved practice with units compared to identify outliers. In 2013, our unit was an outlier for mortality post hip fracture (30-day mortality 12.2% vs. 8.3% nationally). This triggered external review. In 2019 the unit was highlighted as an exemplar in the UK. We describe the process that moved us from outlier to outstanding. After the initial review process, we made changes to our healthcare system, with regular reassessment of progress and care quality. Examples include a dedicated hip fracture unit, strong leadership (Nursing, Orthopaedic, Geriatrician, Anaesthetic), consultant-led in-depth monthly mortality reviews, changes to admission pathways and delirium prevention. Improvements were seen in all aspects of hip fracture care in 2019 compared with 2012. Thirty-day case-mixed adjusted mortality halved (12.2–6.1%), with substantial reductions in reoperations and pressure sores. Length of stay reduced by 5.9 days. In 2019 our unit's performance was significantly above the national average for all six indicators assessed by NHFD: prompt orthogeriatric review (97% vs. 91% national average), prompt surgery (85% vs. 68%); NICE compliant surgery (85% vs. 74%); prompt mobilisation (93% vs. 81%); not delirious postoperatively (77% vs. 69%); return to original residence (78% vs. 71%). The NHFD highlighted our Unit as one of nine (from 175 total) highly performing UK trusts. We summarise our service development and improvement work undertaken to achieve 'outstanding' status, which provides a valuable template to units managing trauma in older people. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: We describe variation across geographical regions of England in operations undertaken following presentation of hip fracture and in 30-day mortality. Some significant geographic variation in 30-day mortality was observed particularly for patients with trochanteric hip fractures and warrants further investigation of other aspects of post-hip fracture care Introduction: Mortality after hip fracture has improved considerably in the UK over recent decades. Our aim here was to describe geographical variation in type of operation performed and 30-day mortality amongst patients in England with hip fracture. Methods: The National Hip Fracture Database was used to carry out a prospective cohort study of nearly all over-60 year olds with hip fracture in England. These data were linked to Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), allowing us to explore regional variation in the operations performed for three fracture types (intracapsular, trochanteric and subtrochanteric), and use logistic regression models adjusted for demographic and clinical factors to describe associated 30-day mortality. Results: NHFD recorded data for 64,211 patients who underwent surgery in England during 2017. Most had an intracapsular (59%) or trochanteric fracture (35%), and we found significant geographical variation across regions of England in use of total hip replacement (THR) (ranging from 10.1 to 17.4%) for intracapsular fracture and in intermedullary nailing (ranging from 14.9 to 27.0%) of trochanteric fracture. Some geographical variation in mortality amongst intracapsular fracture patients was found, with slightly higher mortality in the East of England (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.22, 95% CI: 1.02–1.46). Trochanteric fractures showed slightly more variation, with higher 30-day mortality (aOR: 1.40, 95%CI: 1.05–1.88) in the East of England and significantly lower mortality in the North East (aOR: 0.65, 95%CI: 0.46–0.93). Conclusions: We have identified regional differences in operation type and 30-day mortality amongst hip fracture patients in England. The relationship between surgical approach and mortality has been explored, but the extent to which differential mortality reflects variation in approach to medical assessment, anaesthesia and other aspects of care warrants further investigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• We investigate the effect of hospital volume on health for hip replacement surgery. • Exogenous hospital volumes are derived using patient distance to the hospital. • Hospital volumes have no effect on health after accounting for volume endogeneity. • Volume-outcome associations may be driven by patient demand for hospital quality. This study investigates the causal effect of hospital volume on health gains from hip replacement surgery in the English National Health Service. We exploit a unique dataset, which links routine hospital records and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for all public hospitals in England between 2011 and 2015. PROMs assess patients' health along key dimensions of pain and mobility shortly before and six months after the surgery. We investigate whether higher hospital volume increases patient health six months post-surgery, conditioning on severity through an accurate measure of pre-surgery health, other patient medical and socioeconomic indicators and a rich set of hospital characteristics. We address possible reverse-causality bias due to hospital demand being responsive to quality by constructing a measure of predicted hospital volumes based on a patient choice model, in line with approaches adopted in the hospital competition literature. Results from a pooled OLS model show that the observed effect of volume on health outcomes in hip replacement surgery is positive and clinically small, but no longer statistically significant once we account for the endogeneity of volume. Results from an alternative specification with hospital fixed effects further confirm that hospital volume does not have a causal effect on health outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Nearly 100,000 people underwent total hip replacement (THR) in the United Kingdom in 2018, and most can expect it to last at least 25 years. However, some THRs fail and require revision surgery, which results in worse outcomes for the patient and is costly to the health service. Variation in the survival of THR implants has been observed between units and reducing this unwarranted variation is one focus of the "Getting it Right First Time" (GIRFT) program in the UK. We aimed to investigate whether the statistically improved implant survival of THRs in a high-performing unit is associated with the implants used or other factors at that unit, such as surgical skill.Methods and Findings: We analyzed a national, mandatory, prospective, cohort study (National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man [NJR]) of all THRs performed in England and Wales. We included the 664,761 patients with records in the NJR who have received a stemmed primary THR between 1 April 2003 and 31 December 2017 in one of 461 hospitals, with osteoarthritis as the only indication. The exposure was the unit (hospital) in which the THR was implanted. We compared survival of THRs implanted in the "exemplar" unit with THRs implanted anywhere else in the registry. The outcome was revision surgery of any part of the THR construct for any reason. Net failure was calculated using Kaplan-Meier estimates, and adjusted analyses employed flexible parametric survival analysis. The mean age of patients contributing to our analyses was 69.9 years (SD 10.1), and 61.1% were female. Crude analyses including all THRs demonstrated better implant survival at the exemplar unit with an all-cause construct failure of 1.7% (95% CI 1.3-2.3) compared with 2.9% (95% CI 2.8-3.0) in the rest of the country after 13.9 years (log-rank test P < 0.001). The same was seen in analyses adjusted for age, sex, and American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) score (difference in restricted mean survival time 0.12 years [95% CI 0.07-0.16; P < 0.001]). Adjusted analyses restricted to the same implants as the exemplar unit show no demonstrable difference in restricted mean survival time between groups after 13.9 years (P = 0.34). A limitation is that this study is observational and conclusions regarding causality cannot be inferred. Our outcome is revision surgery, and although important, we recognize it is not the only marker of success of a THR.Conclusions: Our results suggest that the "better than expected" implant survival results of this exemplar center are associated with implant choice. The survival results may be replicated by adopting key treatment decisions, such as implant selection. These decisions are easier to replicate than technical skills or system factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: An increasing number of patients undergoing hip or knee replacement have chronic diseases. It has been suggested that the presence of chronic diseases may affect access to this type of surgery in the English National Health Service (NHS). We examined the access to hip and knee replacement surgery in patients with and without chronic diseases according to preoperative patient-reported pain, functional status and symptom duration.Methods: We analysed data of 640,832 patients who had hip or knee surgery between 2009 and 2016 in England. Multivariable regression was used to estimate the impact of 11 chronic diseases on severity of joint problems as measured on a scale from 0 to 48 by Oxford Hip (OHS) and Knee Scores (OKS) just before surgery and on likelihood of long-standing joint problems (> 5 years pre-operatively).Results: Patients with chronic diseases reported more severe joint problems than patients without (OHS differences ranged from 1.1 [95% CI 0.93, 1.2] to 2.5 [95% CI 2.3, 2.7] and OKS differences from 0.5 [95% CI 0.3, 0.7] to 2.6 [95% CI 2.4, 2.7] for the 11 chronic diseases) but the differences remain small. When analysed separately, patients with chronic diseases reported both more severe pain and poorer functional status. Six chronic diseases in hip patients and two in knee patients increased the likelihood that they had long-standing joint problems. The severity of joint problems just before surgery increased with the number of chronic diseases (OHS differences; one chronic disease (1.5 [95% CI 1.4, 1.5]) to four or more (5.8 [95% CI 5.6, 6.0])).Conclusions: Patients with chronic diseases reported more severe joint problems immediately before hip or knee replacement surgery suggesting they have hip or knee replacement later in the course of their joint disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Positive deviance is a way of examining variation across health care settings to understand how and why high-performing clinical teams or organizations achieve their results despite facing the same constraints as others. This study explores how exceptional performance is delivered within enhanced hip and knee elective surgery in England. We were particularly interested in non-clinical factors that may influence patient outcomes. Methods: We used 28-day emergency readmissions and patient-reported outcomes to identify two hospitals providing enhanced elective hip and knee replacement surgery and who presented different levels of performance. We used ethnographic observations, in-depth interviews, focus groups and documentary analysis, conducted over eight months. The study involved 54 health care professionals from multiple professional backgrounds. Results: Five key themes were identified, which may underpin the high performance in the site identified as a positive deviant: (i) leadership and engagement that adopts a distributed approach to sustain progress and engage team members; (ii) autonomy, in particular the ability for all clinical staff to make decisions about patient care; (iii) relationships and communication, which promote clear lines of communication and a climate of shared decision making within and across teams; (iv) patient empowerment, which supports patients in managing their behaviour before and after surgery; and (v) resilience, which enables the workforce to respond to threats to maintain high performance such as those that could reduce capacity and flow, or interfere with provision and coordination. Conclusions: Our study demonstrates that it is possible to build an excellent service that meets the needs of the local population and the wider organization agenda despite constraints and rising demands. The findings can inform orthopaedic and other surgical departments on ways in which they can achieve high performance within existing resources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Metal-on-metal hip replacement (MoMHR) revision surgery for adverse reactions to metal debris (ARMD) has been associated with an increased risk of early complications and reoperation and inferior patient-reported outcome scores compared with non-ARMD revisions. As a result, early revision specifically for ARMD with adoption of a lower surgical threshold has been widely recommended with the goal of improving the subsequent prognosis after ARMD revisions. However, no large cohorts have compared the risk of complications and reoperation after MoMHR revision surgery for ARMD (an unanticipated revision indication) with those after non-ARMD revisions (which represent conventional modes of arthroplasty revision).Questions/purposes: (1) Does the risk of intraoperative complications differ between MoMHRs revised for ARMD compared with non-ARMD indications? (2) Do mortality rates differ after MoMHRs revised for ARMD compared with non-ARMD indications? (3) Do rerevision rates differ after MoMHRs revised for ARMD compared with non-ARMD indications? (4) How do implant survival rates differ after MoMHR revision when performed for specific non-ARMD indications compared with ARMD?Methods: This retrospective observational study involved all patients undergoing MoMHR from the National Joint Registry (NJR) for England and Wales subsequently revised for any indication between 2008 and 2014. The NJR achieves high levels of patient consent (93%) and linked procedures (ability to link serial procedures performed on the same patient and hip; 95%). Furthermore, recent validation studies have demonstrated that when revision procedures have been captured within the NJR, the data completion and accuracy were excellent. Revisions for ARMD and non-ARMD indications were matched one to one for multiple potential confounding factors using propensity scores. The propensity score summarizes the many patient and surgical factors that were used in the matching process (including sex, age, type of primary arthroplasty, time to revision surgery, and details about the revision procedure performed such as the approach, specific components revised, femoral head size, bearing surface, and use of bone graft) using one single score for each revised hip. The patient and surgical factors within the ARMD and non-ARMD groups subsequently became much more balanced once the groups had been matched based on the propensity scores. The matched cohort included 2576 MoMHR revisions with each study group including 1288 revisions (mean followup of 3 years for both groups; range, 1-7 years). Intraoperative complications, mortality, and rerevision surgery were compared between matched groups using univariable regression analyses. Implant survival rates in the non-ARMD group were calculated for each specific revision indication with each individual non-ARMD indication subsequently compared with the implant survival rate in the ARMD group using Cox regression analyses.Results: There was no difference between the ARMD and non-ARMD MoMHR revisions in terms of intraoperative complications (odds ratio, 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59-1.59; p = 0.900). Mortality rates were lower after ARMD revision compared with non-ARMD revision (hazard ratio [HR], 0.43; CI, 0.21-0.87; p = 0.019); however, there was no difference when revisions performed for infection were excluded from the non-ARMD indication group (HR, 0.69; CI, 0.35-1.37; p = 0.287). Rerevision rates were lower after ARMD revision compared with non-ARMD revision (HR, 0.52; CI, 0.36-0.75; p < 0.001); this difference persisted even after removing revisions performed for infection (HR, 0.59; CI, 0.40-0.89; p = 0.011). Revisions for infection (5-year survivorship = 81%; CI, 55%-93%; p = 0.003) and dislocation/subluxation (5-year survivorship = 82%; CI, 69%-90%; p < 0.001) had the lowest implant survival rates when compared with revisions for ARMD (5-year survivorship = 94%; CI, 92%-96%).Conclusions: Contrary to previous observations, MoMHRs revised for ARMD have approximately half the risk of rerevision compared with non-ARMD revisions. We suspect worldwide regulatory authorities have positively influenced rerevision rates after ARMD revision by recommending that surgeons exercise a lower revision threshold and that such revisions are now being performed at an earlier stage. The high risk of rerevision after MoMHR revision for infection and dislocation is concerning. Infected MoMHR revisions were responsible for the increased mortality risk observed after non-ARMD revision, which parallels findings in non-MoMHR revisions for infection.Level Of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Approximately 88,000 primary hip replacements are performed in England and Wales each year. Around 1% go on to develop deep prosthetic joint infection. Between one-stage and two-stage revision arthroplasty best treatment options remain unclear. Our aims were to characterise consultant orthopaedic surgeons' decisions about performing either one-stage or two-stage revision surgery for patients with deep prosthetic infection (PJI) after hip arthroplasty, and to identify whether a randomised trial comparing one-stage with two-stage revision would be feasible.Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 consultant surgeons who perform revision surgery for PJI after hip arthroplasty at 5 high-volume National Health Service (NHS) orthopaedic departments in England and Wales. Surgeons were interviewed before the development of a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Data were analysed using a thematic approach.Results: There is no single standardised surgical intervention for the treatment of PJI. Surgeons balance multiple factors when choosing a surgical strategy which include multiple patient-related factors, their own knowledge and expertise, available infrastructure and the infecting organism. Surgeons questioned whether it was appropriate that the two-stage revision remained the best treatment, and some surgeons' willingness to consider more one-stage revisions had increased over recent years and were influenced by growing evidence showing equivalence between surgical techniques, and local observations of successful one-stage revisions. Custom-made articulating spacers was a practice that enabled uncertainty to be managed in the absence of definitive evidence about the superiority of one surgical technique over the other. Surgeons highlighted the need for research evidence to inform practice and thought that a randomised trial to compare treatments was needed. Most surgeons thought that patients who they treated would be eligible for trial participation in instances where there was uncertainty about the best treatment option.Conclusions: Surgeons highlighted the need for evidence to support their choice of revision. Some surgeons' willingness to consider one-stage revision for infection had increased over time, largely influenced by evidence of successful one-stage revisions. Custom-made articulating spacers also enabled surgeons to manage uncertainty about the superiority of surgical techniques. Surgeons thought that a prospective randomised controlled trial comparing one-stage with two-stage joint replacement is needed and that randomisation would be feasible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is debate around how to treat patients with periprosthetic joint infection of the hip. When there is an ingrown component on one side of the arthroplasty and a loose component on the other, treatment is typically revision of the entire construct. There is an argument to retain an ingrown implant in instances in which removal would result in severe bone damage. However, little has been reported on the likelihood of success with this approach.Questions/purposes: Among carefully selected patients presenting with an infected total hip arthroplasty (THA) who were treated with joint débridement and at least partial implant retention: (1) What proportion remained apparently free of infection at a minimum of 5 years of followup? (2) What were the Harris hip scores of patients thus treated?Methods: Between January 2000 and December 2010, a total of 293 patients were treated surgically at one hospital for a periprosthetic joint infection of the hip. Of these, 18 (2.9%) were treated with an approach that retained either the femoral component or the acetabular component (the removed component was exchanged at this same single-stage procedure). During that time, the general indications for this approach were patients who had complex THAs with ingrown femoral stems or complex acetabular components that were well fixed with no evidence of loosening on radiographs and CT. Patients had to be free from chronic debilitating diseases, had not developed a tracking sinus, and had a positive microbial growth from the hip aspirate. In 12 of these patients, the ingrown cementless femoral component was kept in situ and the femoral head and acetabular component were exchanged. In six patients, complex acetabular reconstructions including augments and/or cages were left in situ, and femoral revision with liner exchange was performed. The technique included removal of the loose component, thorough débridement, synovectomy, and extensive lavage. The ingrown component, be it femoral or acetabular, was thoroughly cleaned, lavaged, and scrubbed. Once there was a clear field, redraping was carried out and new instruments were used to reimplant the other side. In all patients, intravenous antibiotics were used postoperatively for a minimum of 5 days and oral antibiotics for a minimum of 6 weeks based on serology, wound healing, and nutritional markers. None of the patients were lost to followup. Minimum followup was 5 years; median followup was 7.1 years (range, 5-9.9 years).Results: Reinfection occurred in three patients at 3, 9, and 10 months; all were treated by two-stage revision. No reinfection was noted in the other cases. At latest followup, the mean Harris hip score was 78 (range, 46-89).Conclusions: In some patients, staged revision of large and well-fixed components will result in bone damage and compromised function. These results suggest that partial implant retention and joint débridement may be an alternative for those patients who have complex well-fixed acetabular or femoral components, are not immunocompromised, have not developed sinus formation, and we were able to obtain a positive hip aspirate. We caution this technique should not be applied when patients have chronic illness such as diabetes or rheumatoid disease, have a negative hip aspirate for microorganisms, or show any signs of loosening on radiography, CT, or on intraoperative assessment. These results at a minimum of 5 years are reassuring in this small single-center series, but we suggest that the technique not be widely adopted until or unless larger groups of patients with longer term data have been studied.Level Of Evidence: Level IV, therapeutic study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a study which assesses the failure rates of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing in men and women and compared the survival with conventional stemmed total hip replacement (THR). The study analyzed data from the National Joint Registry for England and Wales (NJR) for primary THRs from 2003 to 2011. Results suggest that hip resurfacing has similar implant survival rates to other surgical options in men with large femoral heads but with inferior survivorship in other patients.

Presents a study that estimates the population requirement for primary total hip replacement in England. Methods; Findings; Conclusions.