Return to driving post upper or lower extremity orthopaedic surgical procedures: a scoping review of current published literature.

Patients undergoing planned or unplanned orthopaedic procedures involving their upper or lower extremity can prevent them from safe and timely return to driving, where they commonly ask, 'Doctor, when can I drive?' Driving recommendations after such procedures are varied. The current evidence available is based on a heterogenous data set with varying degrees of sample size and markedly differing study designs. This instructional review article provides a scoping overview of studies looking at return to driving after upper or lower extremity surgery in both trauma and elective settings and, where possible, to provide clinical recommendations for return to driving. Medline, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and Web of Science databases were searched according to a defined search protocol to elicit eligible studies. Articles were included if they reviewed adult drivers who underwent upper or lower extremity orthopaedic procedures, were written in English, and offered recommendations about driving. A total of 68 articles were included in the analysis, with 36 assessing the lower extremity and 37 reviewing the upper extremity. The evidence available from the studies reviewed was of poor methodological quality. There was a lack of adequately powered, high quality, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with large sample sizes to assess safe return to driving for differing subset of injuries. Many articles provide generic guidelines on return to driving when patients feel safe to perform an emergency stop procedure with adequate steering wheel control. In future, RCTs should be performed to develop definitive return to driving protocols in patients undergoing upper and lower extremity procedures.

"Wearable Sensors to Guide Remote Rehabilitation Following Knee Arthroplasty Surgery".

Background: Total knee arthroplasty requires effective rehabilitation to achieve optimal results, but institutions often rely on unsupervised home exercises due to cost constraints. Wearable sensors have become increasingly popular as a potential method of monitoring patients remotely to ensure efficacy and compliance. This review assesses the current evidence for their use in remotely monitored rehabilitation following knee arthroplasty. Methods: A systematic review of the literature from 1st January 2000 to 17th February 2022 was undertaken. Devices were categorised as joint-specific or physical activity sensors. Studies were classified as those providing remotely supervised rehabilitation as an additional or as an alternative intervention. Results: Remotely supervised rehabilitation using wearable sensors demonstrated similar outcomes when provided as an alternative to standard care in most studies. One group found improved outcomes for knee-specific sensors compared with standard care. There were improved physical activity and healthcare resource use outcomes described in the literature where sensors were used in addition to standard care. Discussion: This review found evidence for the use of wearable sensors in remotely supervised rehabilitation following knee arthroplasty surgery. This included methodological heterogeneity, differing definitions of standard care, and variable follow-up periods. Robust randomised control trial data with a longer follow-up period are needed.

"Smart Knee Implants: An Overview of Current Technologies and Future Possibilities".

Background: This article focuses on clinical implementation of smart knee implants for total knee replacement and the future development of smart implant technology. With the number of total knee replacements undertaken growing worldwide, smart implants incorporating embedded sensor technology offer opportunity to improve post-operative recovery, reducing implant failure rates, and increasing overall patient satisfaction. Methods: A literature review on smart implants, historical prototypes, current clinically available smart implants, and the future potential for conventional implant instrumentation with embedded sensors and electronics was undertaken. Results: The overview of current and future technology describes use cases for various diagnostic and therapeutic treatment solutions. Conclusion: Smart knee implants are at an early development stage, with the first generation of smart implants being available to patients and with more novel technologies under development.

Comparison of axial-rotational postoperative periprosthetic fracture of the femur in composite osteoporotic femur versus human cadaveric specimens: A validation study.

Postoperative periprosthetic femoral fracture following hip replacement has been the subject of many varied experimental approaches. Cadaveric samples offer realistic fit and fracture patterns but are subject to large between-sample variation. Composite femurs have not yet been validated for this purpose. We compared the results of composite femurs to cadaveric femurs using an established methodology. In vitro postoperative periprosthetic fracture results using axial-rotational loading were compared between 12 composite femurs and nine fresh frozen femurs, which were implanted with an otherwise identical collarless (6 composite vs 4 cadaveric) or collared (6 composite vs 5 cadaveric) cementless femoral stem using identical methodology. Fracture torque and rotational displacement were measured and torsional stiffness and rotational work prior to fracture were estimated. Fractures patterns were graded according to the Unified Classification System. Fracture torque, displacement, torsional stiffness and fracture patterns for cadaveric and composite femurs were similar between groups. There was a trend for a greater rotational displacement in the cadaveric groups, which lead to a decrease in torsional stiffness and a significantly greater rotational work prior to fracture for all cadaveric specimens (collarless stems: 10.51 [9.71 to 12.57] vs 5.21 [4.25 to 6.04], p = 0.01 and for collared stems: 15.38 [14.01 to 17.05] vs 5.76 [4.92 to 6.64], p = 0.01). Given comparable fracture torque and the similarity in fracture patterns for fracture trials using composite samples versus cadaveric femurs, the use of composite femur models may be a reasonable choice for postoperative periprosthetic femoral fracture studies within certain limitations.

Efficacy of Liposomal Bupivacaine and Bupivacaine Hydrochloride vs Bupivacaine Hydrochloride Alone as a Periarticular Anesthetic for Patients Undergoing Knee Replacement: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: More than half of patients who undergo knee replacement surgery report substantial acute postoperative pain. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of periarticular liposomal bupivacaine for recovery and pain management after knee replacement. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter, patient-blinded, pragmatic, randomized clinical superiority trial involved 533 participants at 11 institutions within the National Health Service in England. Adults undergoing primary unilateral knee replacement for symptomatic end-stage osteoarthritis were enrolled between March 29, 2018, and February 29, 2020, and followed up for 1 year after surgery. Follow-up was completed March 1, 2021. A per-protocol analysis for each coprimary outcome was performed in addition to the main intention-to-treat analysis. Interventions: Two hundred sixty-six milligrams of liposomal bupivacaine admixed with 100 mg of bupivacaine hydrochloride compared with 100 mg of bupivacaine hydrochloride alone (control) administered by periarticular injection at the time of surgery. Main Outcome and Measures: The coprimary outcomes were Quality of Recovery 40 (QoR-40) score at 72 hours and pain visual analog scale (VAS) score area under the curve (AUC) from 6 to 72 hours. Secondary outcomes included QoR-40 and mean pain VAS at days 0 (evening of surgery), 1, 2, and 3; cumulative opioid consumption for 72 hours; functional outcomes and quality of life at 6 weeks, 6 months, and 1 year; and cost-effectiveness for 1 year. Adverse events and serious adverse events up to 12 months after randomization were also assessed. Results: Among the 533 participants included in the analysis, the mean (SD) age was 69.0 (9.7) years; 287 patients were women (53.8%) and 246 were men (46.2%). Baseline characteristics were balanced between study groups. There was no difference between the liposomal bupivacaine and control groups in QoR-40 score at 72 hours (adjusted mean difference, 0.54 [97.5% CI, -2.05 to 3.13]; P = .64) or the pain VAS score AUC at 6 to 72 hours (-21.5 [97.5% CI, -46.8 to 3.8]; P = .06). Analyses of pain VAS and QoR-40 scores demonstrated only 1 statistically significant difference, with the liposomal bupivacaine arm having lower pain scores the evening of surgery (adjusted difference -0.54 [97.5% CI, -1.07 to -0.02]; P = .02). No difference in cumulative opioid consumption and functional outcomes was detected. Liposomal bupivacaine was not cost-effective compared with the control treatment. No difference in adverse or serious adverse events was found between the liposomal bupivacaine and control groups. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found no difference in postoperative recovery or pain associated with the use of periarticular liposomal bupivacaine compared with bupivacaine hydrochloride alone in patients who underwent knee replacement surgery. Trial Registration: isrctn.com Identifier: ISRCTN54191675.

Periprosthetic femoral fracture type and location are influenced by the presence of an ipsilateral knee arthroplasty implant: A case-control study of 84 interprosthetic femoral fractures.

BACKGROUND: This multicentre case-control study compares Vancouver Classification System (VCS) grade and Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Osteosynthesefragen/Orthopaedic Trauma Association (AO/OTA) fracture type in interprosthetic femoral fractures (IPFFs) between primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) and ipsilateral total knee arthroplasty (TKA) to periprosthetic femoral fracture (PFF) without ipsilateral TKA. METHODS: Data were collected following institutional approval. Eighty-four IPFFs were assessed for VCS grade and AO/OTA type. Each IPFF case (84) was matched to five PFF controls (360) by age, gender and stem fixation philosophy (SMD<0.1). VCS grade and AO/OTA type were compared between the IPFF and PFF groups using weighted proportions and medians. RESULTS: Median (IQR) age of IPFF patients was 81.75 (76.57-85.33) years and 61 (72.6%) were female. The commonest VCS grade was B1 (34, 40.5%). The commonest AO/OTA type was spiral (51.8% of VCS B fractures; 50.0% of VCS C fractures). A greater proportion of fractures occurred distal to the stem in IPFF patients versus PFF patients (33.3% versus 18.2%, p = 0.003). VCS grade was significantly different between groups (p = 0.015). For VCS C fractures, twice as many AO/OTA transverse and wedge fractures occurred in the IPFF group compared to the PFF group (25.0% versus 12.6% and 7.1% versus 3.3%, respectively) although the overall difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.407). CONCLUSION: The presence of an ipsilateral TKA affects the location of PFF with more fractures occurring distal to the stem. A greater proportion of bending type fractures occurred when an ipsilateral TKA was present. These unstable fractures often require more complex surgery.

Comparison of Mechanical Performance between Circular Frames and Biplanar Distraction Devices for Knee Joint Distraction.

AIM AND OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to test and compare the mechanical performance of the biplanar ArthroSave KneeReviver and a circular frame construct with the intended use of providing a mechanically favourable environment for cartilage regeneration across a knee joint. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three similar constructs of the two devices were applied to biomechanical testing sawbones, with the knee distracted by 8 mm. The constructs were vertically loaded to 800 N in an Instron testing machine at 20 mm/minute. Tests were conducted in neutral hip flexion and at 12° of hip flexion and extension, to mimic leg position in gait. Displacement measurements were taken from the Instron machine, and three-dimensional joint motion was recorded using an Optotrak Certus motion capture system. RESULTS: Overall axial rigidity was similar between the two devices (circular frame, 81.6 N/mm ± 5.9; and KneeReviver, 79.5 N/mm ± 25.1 with hip neutral) and similar in different hip positions. At the point of joint contact, the overall rigidity of the circular frame increased significantly more than the KneeReviver (491 N/mm ± 27 and 93 N/mm ± 32, respectively, p <0.001). There was more variability between models in the KneeReviver. There was more off-axis motion in the KneeReviver, mainly due to increasing knee flexion on loading. This was exacerbated with the hip in flexion and extension but remained small, with the maximal off-axis displacement being 7 mm/3°. CONCLUSION: The circular frame provides a similar mechanical environment to the novel KneeReviver device, for which most clinical data are available. These findings suggest that both devices appear a viable option for knee joint distraction (KJD). Further clinical data will help inform mode of application. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: KJD is a relatively novel technique for use in osteoarthritis (OA), and it remains unclear which distraction devices provide appropriate mechanics. Our testing gives evidence to support either option for further use. HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE: Chowdhury JMY, Lineham B, Pallett M, et al. Comparison of Mechanical Performance between Circular Frames and Biplanar Distraction Devices for Knee Joint Distraction. Strategies Trauma Limb Reconstr 2021;16(2):71-77.

Early Recovery Following Total and Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty Assessed Using Novel Patient-Reported Measures.

BACKGROUND: The early postoperative recovery period following unicompartmental (UKA) and total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is an important area for research with increasingly sensitive metrics and new technologies. This study uses 2 recently developed patient-reported scores to compare the recovery following UKA and TKA. METHODS: Two consecutive cohorts of 37 UKAs and 33 TKAs completed the Oxford Arthroplasty Early Recovery Score (OARS) and the Oxford Arthroplasty Early Change Score (OACS) on days 1, 2, 3, 7, 14, and week 6. The Short Form-36 version 2 was also completed on weeks 1, 2, and 6. Improvements within cohorts and comparisons between cohorts were assessed. RESULTS: For both UKA and TKA the speed of recovery was rapid early on and then progressively decreased. At all time points, the UKA cohort reported similar or significantly better scores than the TKA cohort. The overall OARS (P < .001) showed that UKA recovered, shown as improvement on the OARS, 2-3 times faster than TKA. OARS subscales demonstrated that UKA had better Function/Mobility (P = .003) particularly early in the recovery, and better Nausea/Feeling Unwell (P < .001) and Fatigue/Sleep (P = .009) later in the recovery. UKA also had less pain at 2 weeks (P = .03). There was no significant difference between UKA and TKA OACS. UKA had significantly better scores in 3 of the 8 Short Form-36 domains, with the largest difference being in Role-Emotional (P = .003). CONCLUSION: The OARS is useful for the assessment of postoperative recovery. This study provides direct evidence that recovery following UKA is better and 2-3 times faster than following TKA. All differences may be explained by the less invasive nature of UKA.

Calcar-collar contact during simulated periprosthetic femoral fractures increases resistance to fracture and depends on the initial separation on implantation: A composite femur in vitro study.

BACKGROUND: A calcar collar may reduce risk of periprosthetic fracture of the femur, through collar contact. We estimated the effect of collar contact on periprosthetic fracture mechanics using a collared fully coated cementless femoral stem and then estimated the effect of initial calcar-collar separation on the likelihood of collar contact. METHODS: Three groups of six composite left femurs with increasing calcar-collar separation in each group, underwent periprosthetic fracture simulation in a materials testing machine. Fracture torque and rotational displacement were measured and torsional stiffness and rotational work prior to fracture were estimated. Calcar collar contact prior to fracture was identified using high speed camera footage. FINDINGS: Where calcar-collar contact occurred fracture torque was greater (47.33 [41.03 to 50.45] Nm versus 38.26 [33.70 to 43.60] Nm, p = 0.05), Rotational displacement was less (16.6 [15.5 to 22.3] degrees versus 21.2 [18.9 to 28.1] degrees, p = 0.07), torsional stiffness was greater (151.38 [123.04 to 160.42] rad.Nm-1 versus 96.86 [84.65 to 112.98] rad.Nm-1, p < 0.01) and rotational work was similar (5.88 [4.67, 6.90] J versus 5.31 [4.40, 6.56] J, p = 0.6). Odds ratio (OR) of not achieving collar contact (95% confidence interval) increased 3.8 fold (95% CI 1.6 to 30.2, p < 0.05) for each millimetre of separation in the regression model. 95% chance of collar contact was associated with a separation of 1 mm or less. INTERPRETATION: Surgeons should reduce calcar-collar separation at stem implantation to a maximum of 1 mm to increase the chance of calcar-collar contact during injury and reduce the risk of early post-operative femoral fracture.

Development of a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) and change measure for use in early recovery following hip or knee replacement.

BACKGROUND: Hip and knee replacement are effective procedures for end-stage arthritis that has not responded to medical management. However, until now, there have been no validated, patient-reported tools to measure early recovery in this growing patient population. The process of development and psychometric evaluation of the Oxford Arthroplasty Early Recovery Score (OARS), a 14-item patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) measuring health status, and the Oxford Arthroplasty Early Change Score (OACS) a 14-item measure to assess change during the first 6 weeks following surgery is reported. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A five-phased, best practice, iterative approach was used. From a literature based starting point, qualitative interviews with orthopaedic healthcare professionals, were then performed ascertaining if and how clinicians would use such a PROM and change measure. Analysis of in-depth patient-interviews in phase one identified important patient-reported factors in early recovery which were used to provide questionnaire themes. In Phase two, candidate items from Phase One interviews were generated and pilot questionnaires developed and tested. Exploratory factor analysis with item reduction and final testing of the questionnaires was performed in phase three. Phase Four involved validation testing. RESULTS: Qualitative interviews (n = 22) with orthopaedic healthcare professionals, helped determine views of potential users, and guide structure. In Phase One, factors from patient interviews (n = 30) were used to find questionnaire themes and generate items. Pilot questionnaires were developed and tested in Phase Two. Items were refined in the context of cognitive debrief interviews (n = 34) for potential inclusion in the final tools. Final testing of questionnaire properties with item reduction (n = 168) was carried out in phase three. Validation of the OARS and OACS was performed in phase four. Both measures were administered to consecutive patients (n = 155) in an independent cohort. Validity and reliability were assessed. Psychometric testing showed positive results, in terms of internal consistency and sensitivity to change, content validity and relevance to patients and clinicians. In addition, these measures have been found to be acceptable to patients throughout early recovery with validation across the 6 week period. CONCLUSIONS: These brief, easy-to-use tools could be of great use in assessing recovery pathways and interventions in arthroplasty surgery.

Postoperative periprosthetic femoral fracture around total hip replacements: current concepts and clinical outcomes.

The rising incidence of postoperative periprosthetic femoral fracture (PFF) presents a significant clinical and economic burden.A detailed understanding of risk factors is required in order to guide preventative strategies.Different femoral stems have unique characteristics and management strategies must be tailored appropriately.Consensus regarding treatment of PFFs around well-fixed stems is lacking, but revision surgery may provide more predictable outcomes for unstable fracture patterns and fractures around polished taper-slip stems.Future research should focus on implant-related risk factors, treatment of concurrent metabolic bone disease and the use of large endoprostheses. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2020;5:558-567. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.5.200003.

How Accurate is the Use of Contralateral Implant Size as a Template in Bilateral Hemiarthroplasty?

PURPOSE: Accurately predicting implant size for hemiarthroplasties offers an important contribution to theatre efficiency and patients' intraoperative care. However, pre-operative sizing using templating of implants in hip fracture patients requiring a hemiarthroplasty is often difficult due to non-standard radiographs, absence of a calibration marker, poor marker placement, variable patient position, and in many institutions a lack of templating facilities. In patients who have previously undergone a hemiarthroplasty on the contralateral side, surgeons can use the contralateral implant size for pre-operative planning purposes. However, the accuracy of doing this has not previously been reported. The aim of this study was to investigate the reliability of using an in situ contralateral implant as a predictor of implant size on the contralateral side. METHODS: A retrospective review of our local neck of femur fracture (NOF) database was undertaken to identify patients who had bilateral hip hemiarthroplasty. Operative records were reviewed to establish the size of prostheses used at operation. Correlation, agreement, and reliability analysis were performed using the least squares, Bland-Altman plot, and intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) methods, respectively. RESULTS: Operative records were identified for 45 patients who had bilateral hemiarthroplasties. There was a difference in implant size used in 58% of cases. Of these 77% required a larger implant on the right. Implant sizes were within 1 mm of the contralateral side in 78% and within 2 mm in 91% of patients. However, in 9% of patients, there was a discrepancy greater than 2 mm with some cases having up to 6 mm discrepancy. Correlation coefficient was 0.83 and the ICC 0.90. CONCLUSIONS: The findings in this study indicated that using the size of a contralateral implant can be used as a reliable indicator of head size in cases of bilateral hemiarthroplasty. However, the surgeon should remain cautious as there is a one in ten chance of there being a 3 mm or more difference in implant size.

Oxford domed lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty.

AIMS: To report mid- to long-term results of Oxford mobile bearing domed lateral unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA), and determine the effect of potential contraindications on outcome. METHODS: A total of 325 consecutive domed lateral UKAs undertaken for the recommended indications were included, and their functional and survival outcomes were assessed. The effects of age, weight, activity, and the presence of full-thickness erosions of cartilage in the patellofemoral joint on outcome were evaluated. RESULTS: Median follow-up was seven years (3 to 14), and mean age at surgery was 65 years (39 to 90). Median Oxford Knee Score (OKS) was 43 (interquartile range (IQR) 37 to 47), with 260 (80%) achieving a good or excellent score (OKS > 34). Revisions occurred in 34 (10%); 14 (4%) were for dislocation, of which 12 had no recurrence following insertion of a new bearing, and 12 (4%) were revised for medial osteoarthritis (OA). Ten-year survival was 85% (95% confidence interval (CI) 79 to 90, at risk 72). Age, weight, activity, and patellofemoral erosions did not have a significant effect on the clinical outcome or survival. CONCLUSION: Domed lateral UKA provides a good alternative to total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in the management of lateral compartment OA. Although dislocation is relatively easy to treat successfully, the dislocation rate of 4% is high. It is recommended that the stability of the bearing is assessed intraoperatively. If the bearing can easily be displaced, the fixed rather than the mobile bearing version of the Oxford lateral tibial component should be inserted instead. Younger age, heavier weight, high activity, and patellofemoral erosions did not detrimentally affect outcome, so should not be considered contraindications. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(8):1033-1040.

Correction to: Osteoarthritis Preoperative Package for care of Orthotics, Rehabilitation, Topical and oral agent Usage and Nutrition to Improve ouTcomes at a Year (OPPORTUNITY); a feasibility study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

After publication of our article [1] we have been notified that two of the author names have been mistakenly removed from the authorship list: Colin R. Howie and Nicholas D. Clement.

Osteoarthritis Preoperative Package for care of Orthotics, Rehabilitation, Topical and oral agent Usage and Nutrition to Improve ouTcomes at a Year (OPPORTUNITY); a feasibility study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients' pre-operative health and physical function is known to influence their post-operative outcomes. In patients with knee osteoarthritis, pharmacological and non-pharmacological options are often not optimised prior to joint replacement. This results in some patients undergoing surgery when they are not as fit as they could be. The aim of this study is to assess the feasibility and acceptability of a pre-operative package of non-operative care versus standard care prior to joint replacement. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a multicentre, randomised controlled feasibility trial of patients undergoing primary total knee replacement for osteoarthritis. Sixty patients will be recruited and randomised (2:1) to intervention or standard care arms. Data will be collected at baseline (before the start of the intervention), around the end of the intervention period and a minimum of 90 days after the planned date of surgery. Adherence will be reviewed each week during the intervention period (by telephone or in person). Participants will be randomised to a pre-operative package of non-operative care or standard care. The non-operative care will consist of (1) a weight-loss programme, (2) a set of exercises, (3) provision of advice on analgesia use and (4) provision of insoles. The intervention will be started as soon as possible after patients have been added to the waiting list for joint replacement surgery to take advantage of the incentive for behavioural change that this will create. The primary outcomes of this study are feasibility outcomes which will indicate whether the intervention and study protocol is feasible and acceptable and whether a full-scale effectiveness trial is warranted. The following will be measured and used to inform study feasibility: rate of recruitment, rate of retention at 90-day follow-up review after planned surgery date, and adherence to the intervention estimated through review questionnaires and weight change (for those receiving the weight-loss aspect of intervention). In addition the following information will be assessed qualitatively: analysis of qualitative interviews exploring acceptability, feasibility, adherence and possible barriers to implementing the intervention, and acceptability of the different outcome measures. DISCUSSION: The aims of the study specifically relate to testing the feasibility and acceptability of the proposed effectiveness trial intervention and the feasibility of the trial methods. This study forms the important first step in developing and assessing whether the intervention has the potential to be assessed in a future fully powered effectiveness trial. The findings will also be used to refine the design of the effectiveness trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry, ID: ISRCTN96684272. Registered on 18 April 2018.

Most unicompartmental knee replacement revisions could be avoided: a radiographic evaluation of revised Oxford knees in the National Joint Registry.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to understand why the revision rate of unicompartmental knee replacement (UKR) in the National Joint Registry (NJR) is so high. Using radiographs, the appropriateness of patient selection for primary surgery, surgical technique, and indications for revision were determined. In addition, the alignment of the radiographs was assessed. METHODS: Oxford UKR registered with the NJR between 2006 and 2010 and subsequently revised were identified by the NJR. A blinded review was undertaken of pre-primary, post-primary, and pre-revision anteroposterior and lateral radiographs of a sample of 107 cases from multiple centres. RESULTS: The recommended indications were satisfied in 70%, with 29% not demonstrating bone-on-bone arthritis. Major technical errors, likely leading to revision, were seen in 6%. Pre-revision radiographs were malaligned and, therefore, difficult to interpret in 53%. No reason for revision was seen in 67%. Reasons for revision included lateral compartment arthritis (10%), tibial loosening (7%), bearing dislocation (7%), infection (6%), femoral loosening (3%), and peri-prosthetic fracture (2%, one femoral, one tibial). CONCLUSIONS: Only 20% of the revised UKR were implanted for the recommended indications, using appropriate surgical technique and had a mechanical problem necessitating revision. One-third of primary surgeries were undertaken in patients with early arthritis, which is contraindicated. Two-thirds were presumably revised for unexplained pain, which is not advised as it tends not to help the pain. This study suggests that variable and inappropriate indications for primary and revision surgery are responsible for the high rates of revision seen in registries. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III, Therapeutic study.

Study of Peri-Articular Anaesthetic for Replacement of the Knee (SPAARK): study protocol for a patient-blinded, randomised controlled superiority trial of liposomal bupivacaine.

BACKGROUND: Optimising the management of peri-operative pain and recovery following knee replacement has been identified as a patient priority. Current pain relief strategies use opiate-based analgesia; however, up to 50% of patients experience significant side effects. Local anaesthetic incisional infiltration is one alternative. The length of the duration of action is a major limiting factor of current local anaesthetic techniques. Liposomal bupivacaine has been reported to be effective for up to 72 h. This randomised controlled trial will evaluate the clinical and cost effectiveness of liposomal bupivacaine. METHODS: SPAARK is a patient-blinded, multi-centre, active comparator, superiority, two-arm, parallel-group randomised controlled trial. Five hundred patients undergoing knee replacement will be recruited and randomised to liposomal bupivacaine plus bupivacaine hydrochloride or bupivacaine hydrochloride alone. The co-primary outcomes are the Quality of Recovery 40 measured at 72 h post-surgery and also cumulative pain measured daily using a 0-10 visual analogue scale for the first 3 days following surgery. Secondary outcomes include cumulative opioid consumption, fitness for discharge, functional outcomes assessed using the Oxford Knee Score and American Knee Society Score, the EuroQol five dimensions instrument and complications. A cost utility analysis is also planned. DISCUSSION: The clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of liposomal bupivacaine have yet to be evaluated in the National Health Service, making this trial appropriate and timely. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN54191675. Registered on 14 November 2017.

Patient and implant survival following intraoperative periprosthetic femoral fractures during primary total hip arthroplasty: an analysis from the national joint registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man.

AIMS: We compared implant and patient survival following intraoperative periprosthetic femoral fractures (IOPFFs) during primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) with matched controls. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study compared 4831 hips with IOPFF and 48 154 propensity score matched primary THAs without IOPFF implanted between 2004 and 2016, which had been recorded on a national joint registry. Implant and patient survival rates were compared between groups using Cox regression. RESULTS: Ten-year stem survival was worse in the IOPFF group (p < 0.001). Risk of revision for aseptic loosening increased 7.2-fold following shaft fracture and almost 2.8-fold after trochanteric fracture (p < 0.001). Risk of periprosthetic fracture of the femur revision increased 4.3-fold following calcar-crack and 3.6-fold after trochanteric fracture (p < 0.01). Risk of instability revision was 3.6-fold after trochanteric fracture and 2.4-fold after calcar crack (p < 0.001). Risk of 90-day mortality following IOPFF without revision was 1.7-fold and 4.0-fold after IOPFF with early revision surgery versus uncomplicated THA (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: IOPFF increases risk of stem revision and mortality up to ten years following surgery. The risk of revision depends on IOPFF subtype and mortality risk increases with subsequent revision surgery. Surgeons should carefully diagnose and treat IOPFF to minimize fracture progression and implant failure. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2019;101-B:1199-1208.

Has the threshold for revision surgery for adverse reactions to metal debris changed in metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty patients? A cohort study of 239 patients using an adapted risk-stratification algorithm.

Background and purpose - A risk-stratification algorithm for metal-on-metal hip arthroplasty (MoMHA) patients was devised by US experts to help clinicians make management decisions. However, the proposed algorithm did not cover all potential patient or surgical abnormalities. Therefore we adapted the US risk-stratification algorithm in MoMHA patients revised for adverse reactions to metal debris (ARMD) to determine the variability in the revision threshold, and also whether high-risk patients had inferior outcomes following revision.Patients and methods - We analysed 239 MoMHA revisions for ARMD between 2001 and 2016 from 2 centres with pre-revision blood metal ions and imaging. Patients were stratified (low risk, moderate risk, high risk) using pre-revision factors (implant, radiographic, blood metal ions, cross-sectional imaging) by adapting a published algorithm. The risk categories for each factor were assessed against revision year, revision centre, and post-revision outcomes (re-revision surgery, and any poor outcome).Results - Compared with hips revised before 2012, hips revised from 2012 onwards included more high-risk implants (44% vs. 17% pre-2012), high-risk radiographic features (85% vs. 69% pre-2012), and low-risk metal ions (41% vs. 19% pre-2012). 1 centre more frequently revised patients with high-risk implants (48% vs. 14%) and low-risk blood metal ions (45% vs. 15%) compared with the other. All these comparisons were statistically significant (p < 0.05). With the limited sample size available, implant, radiographic, blood metal ion, and cross-sectional imaging risk groups did not statistically significantly affect the rates of re-revision surgery or frequency of poor outcomes post-revision.Interpretation - When applying the adapted risk-stratification algorithm the threshold for ARMD revision changed over time, presumably due to increasing evidence, patient surveillance, and investigation since 2012. Lower blood metal ion thresholds were used from 2012 for ARMD revisions; however, there was evidence that centres attached different importance to metal ions when managing patients. High-risk patients did not have inferior outcomes following ARMD revision.