REST: a preoperative tailored sleep intervention for patients undergoing total knee replacement - feasibility study for a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To test the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of a novel preoperative tailored sleep intervention for patients undergoing total knee replacement. DESIGN: Feasibility two-arm two-centre RCT using 1:1 randomisation with an embedded qualitative study. SETTING: Two National Health Service (NHS) secondary care hospitals in England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: Preoperative adult patients identified from total knee replacement waiting lists with disturbed sleep, defined as a score of 0-28 on the Sleep Condition Indicator questionnaire. INTERVENTION: The REST intervention is a preoperative tailored sleep assessment and behavioural intervention package delivered by an Extended Scope Practitioner (ESP), with a follow-up phone call 4 weeks postintervention. All participants received usual care as provided by the participating NHS hospitals. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary aim was to assess the feasibility of conducting a full trial. Patient-reported outcomes were assessed at baseline, 1-week presurgery, and 3 months postsurgery. Data collected to determine feasibility included the number of eligible patients, recruitment rates and intervention adherence. Qualitative work explored the acceptability of the study processes and intervention delivery through interviews with ESPs and patients. RESULTS: Screening packs were posted to 378 patients and 57 patients were randomised. Of those randomised, 20 had surgery within the study timelines. An appointment was attended by 25/28 (89%) of participants randomised to the intervention. Follow-up outcomes measures were completed by 40/57 (70%) of participants presurgery and 15/57 (26%) postsurgery. Where outcome measures were completed, data completion rates were 80% or higher for outcomes at all time points, apart from the painDETECT: 86% complete at baseline, 72% at presurgery and 67% postsurgery. Interviews indicated that most participants found the study processes and intervention acceptable. CONCLUSIONS: This feasibility study has demonstrated that with some amendments to processes and design, an RCT to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the REST intervention is feasible. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN14233189.

Development and application of simulation modelling for orthopaedic elective resource planning in England.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to develop a simulation model to support orthopaedic elective capacity planning. METHODS: An open-source, generalisable discrete-event simulation was developed, including a web-based application. The model used anonymised patient records between 2016 and 2019 of elective orthopaedic procedures from a National Health Service (NHS) Trust in England. In this paper, it is used to investigate scenarios including resourcing (beds and theatres) and productivity (lengths of stay, delayed discharges and theatre activity) to support planning for meeting new NHS targets aimed at reducing elective orthopaedic surgical backlogs in a proposed ring-fenced orthopaedic surgical facility. The simulation is interactive and intended for use by health service planners and clinicians. RESULTS: A higher number of beds (65-70) than the proposed number (40 beds) will be required if lengths of stay and delayed discharge rates remain unchanged. Reducing lengths of stay in line with national benchmarks reduces bed utilisation to an estimated 60%, allowing for additional theatre activity such as weekend working. Further, reducing the proportion of patients with a delayed discharge by 75% reduces bed utilisation to below 40%, even with weekend working. A range of other scenarios can also be investigated directly by NHS planners using the interactive web app. CONCLUSIONS: The simulation model is intended to support capacity planning of orthopaedic elective services by identifying a balance of capacity across theatres and beds and predicting the impact of productivity measures on capacity requirements. It is applicable beyond the study site and can be adapted for other specialties.

The impact of restricted provision of publicly funded elective hip and knee joints replacement during the COVID-19 pandemic in England.

AIMS: Elective hip and knee replacement operations were suspended in April 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The impact of this suspension and continued disruption to the delivery of joint replacement surgery is still emerging. We describe the impact of the pandemic on the provision of publicly funded elective hip and knee replacement surgery at one teaching hospital in England and on which patients had surgery. METHODS: We included all elective primary and revision hip and knee replacements performed at one hospital between January 2016 and June 2021. Using data for the years 2016-2019, we estimated the expected number of operations and beds occupied per month in January 2020 to June 2021 using time series linear models (adjusting for season and trend). We compared the predictions with the real data for January 2020 to June 2021 to assess the impact of the pandemic on the provision of elective hip and knee replacements. We compared the length of stay and characteristics (age, gender, number of comorbidities, index of multiple deprivation) of patients who had surgery before the pandemic with those who had surgery during the pandemic. RESULTS: We included 6,964 elective primary and revision hip and knee replacements between January 2016 and June 2021. Between January 2020 and June 2021 primary hip replacement volume was 59% of predicted, and 47% for primary knee replacements. Revision hip replacement volume was 77% of predicted, and 42% for revision knee replacement. Median length of stay was one day shorter for primary (4 vs 3 days) and revision (6 vs 5 days) operations during the pandemic compared with before. Patients operated on during the pandemic were younger and had slightly more comorbidities than those operated on before the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: The restricted provision of elective hip and knee replacements during the COVID-19 pandemic changed the patient casemix, but did not introduce new inequalities in access to these operations. Patients were younger, had more comorbidities, and stayed in hospital for less time than those treated before the pandemic. Approximately half the number of operations were performed during the pandemic than would have been expected and the effect was greatest for revision knee replacements.

1st EFORT European Consensus "Medical & Scientific Research Requirements for the Clinical Introduction of Artificial Joint Arthroplasty Devices": Background, Delphi Methodology & Consensus process.

The objectives of the 1st EFORT European Consensus on 'Medical and Scientific Research Requirements for the Clinical Introduction of Artificial Joint Arthroplasty Devices' were foremost to focus on patient safety by establishing performance requirements for medical devices. The 1st EFORT European Consensus applied an a priori-defined, modified Delphi methodology to produce unbiased, high-quality recommendation statements, confirmed by consensus voting of a European expert panel. Intended key outcomes are practical guidelines justified by the current stage of knowledge and based on a broad European Expert Consensus, to maintain innovation and optimisation of orthopaedic devices within the boundaries of MDR 2017/745. Twenty-one main research areas of relevance were defined relying on input from the EFORT IPSI WG1 'Introduction of Innovation' recommendations and a related survey. A modified Delphi approach with a preparatory literature review and work in small groups were used to prepare answers to the research questions in the form of 32 draft Consensus statements. A Consensus Conference in a hybrid format, on-site in the Carl Gustav Carus University of Dresden was organised to further refine the draft statements and define consensus within the complete group of participants by final voting, intended to further quantify expert opinion knowledge. The modified Delphi approach provides practical guidelines for hands-on orientation for orthopaedic surgeons, research institutes and laboratories, orthopaedic device manufacturers, patient representatives, Notified Bodies, National Institutes and authorities. For the first time, initiated by the EFORT IPSI (WG1 'Introduction of Innovation'), knowledge of all related stakeholders was combined in the 1st EFORT European Consensus to develop guidelines and result in a comprehensive set of recommendations.

One-stage hip revisions are as good as two-stage surgery to replace infected artificial hips.

The studyBlom AW, Lenguerrand, Strange S, et al. Clinical and cost effectiveness of single stage compared with two stage revision for hip prosthetic joint infection (INFORM): pragmatic, parallel group, open label, randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2022;379:e071281.To read the full NIHR Alert, go to: https://evidence.nihr.ac.uk/alert/one-stage-hip-revisions-are-as-good-as-2-stage-surgery-to-replace-infected-artificial-hips/.

Mortality and re-revision following single-stage and two-stage revision surgery for the management of infected primary hip arthroplasty in England and Wales.

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. In total, 535 primary hip arthroplasties were revised with single-stage procedure (1,525 person-years) and 1,605 with two-stage procedure (5,885 person-years). All-cause re-revision was higher following single-stage revision, especially in the first three months (HR at 3 months = 1.98 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.14 to 3.43), p = 0.009). The risks were comparable thereafter. Re-revision for PJI was higher in the first three postoperative months for single-stage revision and waned with time (HR at 3 months = 1.81 (95% CI 1.22 to 2.68), p = 0.003; HR at 6 months = 1.25 (95% CI 0.71 to 2.21), p = 0.441; HR at 12 months = 0.94 (95% CI 0.54 to 1.63), p = 0.819). Patients initially managed with a single-stage revision received fewer revision operations (mean 1.3 (SD 0.7) vs 2.2 (SD 0.6), p < 0.001). Mortality rates were comparable between these two procedures (29/10,000 person-years vs 33/10,000). The risk of unplanned re-revision was lower following two-stage revision, but only in the early postoperative period. The lower overall number of revision procedures associated with a single-stage revision strategy and the equivalent mortality rates to two-stage revision are reassuring. With appropriate counselling, single-stage revision is a viable option for the treatment of hip PJI.

Impact of pausing elective hip and knee replacement surgery during 2017 on subsequent service provision at a major NHS Trust: a descriptive observational study using interrupted time series.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the impact of a temporary cancellation of elective surgery in winter 2017 on trends in primary hip and knee replacement at a major National Health Service (NHS) Trust, and whether lessons can be learnt about efficient surgery provision. DESIGN AND SETTING: Observational descriptive study using interrupted time series analysis of hospital records to explore trends in primary hip and knee replacement surgery at a major NHS Trust, as well as patient characteristics, 2016-2019. INTERVENTION: A temporary cancellation of elective services for 2 months in winter 2017. OUTCOMES: NHS-funded hospital admissions for primary hip or knee replacement, length of stay and bed occupancy. Additionally, we explored the ratio of elective to emergency admissions at the Trust as a measure of elective capacity, and the ratio of public to private provision of NHS-funded hip and knee surgery. RESULTS: After winter 2017, there was a sustained reduction in the number of knee replacements, a decrease in the proportion of most deprived people having knee replacements and an increase in average age for knee replacement and comorbidity for both types of surgery. The ratio of public to private provision dropped after winter 2017, and elective capacity generally has reduced over time. There was clear seasonality in provision of elective surgery, with less complex patients admitted during winter. CONCLUSIONS: Declining elective capacity and seasonality has a marked effect on the provision of joint replacement, despite efficiency improvements in hospital treatment. The Trust has outsourced less complex patients to independent providers, and/or treated them during winter when capacity is most limited. There is a need to explore whether these are strategies that could be used explicitly to maximise the use of limited elective capacity, provide benefit to patients and value for money for taxpayers.

Inequalities in provision of hip and knee replacement surgery for osteoarthritis by age, sex, and social deprivation in England between 2007-2017: A population-based cohort study of the National Joint Registry.

BACKGROUND: While the United Kingdom National Health Service aimed to reduce social inequalities in the provision of joint replacement, it is unclear whether these gaps have reduced. We describe secular trends in the provision of primary hip and knee replacement surgery between social deprivation groups. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We used the National Joint Registry to identify all hip and knee replacements performed for osteoarthritis from 2007 to 2017 in England. The Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) 2015 was used to identify the relative level of deprivation of the patient living area. Multilevel negative binomial regression models were used to model the differences in rates of joint replacement. Choropleth maps of hip and knee replacement provision were produced to identify the geographical variation in provision by Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs). A total of 675,342 primary hip and 834,146 primary knee replacements were studied. The mean age was 70 years old (standard deviation: 9) with 60% and 56% of women undergoing hip and knee replacements, respectively. The overall rate of hip replacement increased from 27 to 36 per 10,000 person-years and knee replacement from 33 to 46. Inequalities of provision between the most (reference) and least affluent areas have remained constant for both joints (hip: rate ratio (RR) = 0.58, 95% confidence interval [0.56, 0.60] in 2007, RR = 0.59 [0.58, 0.61] in 2017; knee: RR = 0.82 [0.80, 0.85] in 2007, RR = 0.81 [0.80, 0.83] in 2017). For hip replacement, CCGs with the highest concentration of deprived areas had lower overall provision rates, and CCGs with very few deprived areas had higher provision rates. There was no clear pattern of provision inequalities between CCGs and deprivation concentration for knee replacement. Study limitations include the lack of publicly available information to explore these inequalities beyond age, sex, and geographical area. Information on clinical need for surgery or patient willingness to access care were unavailable. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we found that there were inequalities, which remained constant over time, especially in the provision of hip replacement, by degree of social deprivation. Providers of healthcare need to take action to reduce this unwarranted variation in provision of surgery.

Toward Enhanced Clinical Decision Support for Patients Undergoing a Hip or Knee Replacement: Focus Group and Interview Study With Surgeons.

BACKGROUND: The current assessment of recovery after total hip or knee replacement is largely based on the measurement of health outcomes through self-report and clinical observations at follow-up appointments in clinical settings. Home activity-based monitoring may improve assessment of recovery by enabling the collection of more holistic information on a continuous basis. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to introduce orthopedic surgeons to time-series analyses of patient activity data generated from a platform of sensors deployed in the homes of patients who have undergone primary total hip or knee replacement and understand the potential role of these data in postoperative clinical decision-making. METHODS: Orthopedic surgeons and registrars were recruited through a combination of convenience and snowball sampling. Inclusion criteria were a minimum required experience in total joint replacement surgery specific to the hip or knee or familiarity with postoperative recovery assessment. Exclusion criteria included a lack of specific experience in the field. Of the 9 approached participants, 6 (67%) orthopedic surgeons and 3 (33%) registrars took part in either 1 of 3 focus groups or 1 of 2 interviews. Data were collected using an action-based approach in which stimulus materials (mock data visualizations) provided imaginative and creative interactions with the data. The data were analyzed using a thematic analysis approach. RESULTS: Each data visualization was presented sequentially followed by a discussion of key illustrative commentary from participants, ending with a summary of key themes emerging across the focus group and interview data set. CONCLUSIONS: The limitations of the evidence are as follows. The data presented are from 1 English hospital. However, all data reflect the views of surgeons following standard national approaches and training. Although convenience sampling was used, participants' background, skills, and experience were considered heterogeneous. Passively collected home monitoring data offered a real opportunity to more objectively characterize patients' recovery from surgery. However, orthopedic surgeons highlighted the considerable difficulty in navigating large amounts of complex data within short medical consultations with patients. Orthopedic surgeons thought that a proposed dashboard presenting information and decision support alerts would fit best with existing clinical workflows. From this, the following guidelines for system design were developed: minimize the risk of misinterpreting data, express a level of confidence in the data, support clinicians in developing relevant skills as time-series data are often unfamiliar, and consider the impact of patient engagement with data in the future. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2018-021862.

Development of evidence-based guidelines for the treatment and management of periprosthetic hip infection.

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. The consensus panel comprised 21 clinical experts in orthopaedics, primary care, rehabilitation, and healthcare commissioning. The final output from the consensus process was a 14-item guideline. The guidelines make recommendations regarding increased vigilance and monitoring of those at increased risk of infection; diagnosis including strategies to ensure the early recognition of prosthetic infection and referral to orthopaedic teams; treatment, including early use of DAIR and revision strategies; and postoperative management including appropriate physical and psychological support and antibiotic strategies. We believe the implementation of the INFORM guidelines will inform treatment protocols and clinical pathways to improve the treatment and management of periprosthetic hip infection.

Rehabilitation for revision total knee replacement: survey of current service provision and systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Revision total knee replacement (TKR) is a major operation with a long recovery period and many patients report suboptimal outcomes. Rehabilitation has the potential to improve outcomes. The aim of this study was to understand current provision of rehabilitation for revision TKR in England and evaluate the existing evidence. METHODS: Phase 1: An online national survey of education and rehabilitation provision for patients receiving revision TKR was completed by physiotherapy staff at 22 hospitals across England that were high volume for revision TKR (response rate of 34%). Phase 2: Systematic review to identify studies evaluating rehabilitation programmes for revision joint replacement. Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Cochrane databases from inception to 15th June 2022. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies that evaluated post-operative rehabilitation for adults undergoing revision joint replacement were included. Screening, data extraction and quality assessment was undertaken by two reviewers. RESULTS: Phase 1: Pre-operative education which aimed to prepare patients for surgery and recovery was provided in most hospitals, predominately involving a single session delivered by a multidisciplinary team. Inpatient physiotherapy commonly commenced on post-operative day 1 and was provided twice daily, with most hospitals also providing occupational therapy. Rehabilitation was often provided in the first four weeks after hospital discharge, either in an outpatient, community or home setting. In most hospitals, the education and rehabilitation provided to patients receiving revision TKR was the same as that provided to patients undergoing primary TKR. Phase 2: Of the 1,445 articles identified, three retrospective cohort studies based on hospital records review were included. The studies evaluated intensive inpatient rehabilitation programmes, consisting of 2-3 h of daily group or individual physiotherapy, with additional occupational therapy in one study. All three studies reported improvement in functional outcomes for patients undergoing rehabilitation after revision TKR. All studies were limited by their retrospective design, short duration of follow-up and lack of sample size calculation. No RCTs evaluating effectiveness of rehabilitation for revision TKR were identified. CONCLUSION: This study identified the need for future research to develop and evaluate tailored rehabilitation to optimise patient outcomes following revision TKR.

A Meta-Analysis of the Incidence and Temporal Trends of Postoperative Dislocation in Revision Total Hip Arthroplasty Utilizing Constrained Acetabular Components or Dual Mobility Implants.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of dislocation after revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) is reported to be up to 25% and remains a common source of failure. Constrained acetabular components and dual mobility implants are two implant classes being utilized to alleviate this burden in patients who have recurrent instability or major intraoperative instability. This meta-analysis evaluated the incidence and temporal trends of dislocation after implantation with constrained acetabular components and dual mobility implants in rTHA. METHODS: Longitudinal studies reporting dislocation after the use of constrained acetabular components or dual mobility implants in rTHA were sought from Medline and Embase to October 2022. Secondary outcomes included re-revision surgery for dislocation and all causes. A total of 75 relevant citations were identified comprising 36 datasets of 3,784 constrained acetabular components and 47 datasets of 10,216 dual mobility implants. RESULTS: For constrained acetabular components, the pooled incidence of dislocation was 9% (95% confidence interval: 7.2, 11.7) (range 0.0%-35.3%) over a weighted mean follow-up of 6 years, in contrast to 3% (95% confidence interval: 2.2, 4.4) (range 0.0%-21.4%) over 5 years for dual mobility implants. Re-revision rates for dislocation after using constrained acetabular components were around 9%, in contrast to 2% for dual mobility implants. Re-revision rates for all causes after using constrained acetabular components were around 19%, in contrast to 8% for dual mobility implants. CONCLUSION: Dual mobility implants in the context of rTHA demonstrate lower incidences of dislocation (3% versus 9%), re-revision for dislocation (2% versus 9%), and rer-evision for any cause (8% versus 19%) in contrast to constrained acetabular components. This must be considered by surgeons when implanting such devices, often selected to treat instability.

Identification of risk factors associated with prolonged hospital stay following primary knee replacement surgery: a retrospective, longitudinal observational study.

OBJECTIVES: To identify risk factors associated with prolonged length of hospital stay and staying in hospital longer than medically necessary following primary knee replacement surgery. DESIGN: Retrospective, longitudinal observational study. SETTING: Elective knee replacement surgeries between 2016 and 2019 were identified using routinely collected data from an NHS Trust in England. PARTICIPANTS: There were 2295 knee replacement patients with complete data included in analysis. The mean age was 68 (SD 11) and 60% were female. OUTCOME MEASURES: We assessed a binary length of stay outcome (>7 days), a continuous length of stay outcome (≤30 days) and a binary measure of whether patients remained in hospital when they were medically fit for discharge. RESULTS: The mean length of stay was 5.0 days (SD 3.9), 15.4% of patients were in hospital for >7 days and 7.1% remained in hospital when they were medically fit for discharge. Longer length of stay was associated with older age (b=0.08, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.09), female sex (b=0.36, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.67), high deprivation (b=0.98, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.48) and more comorbidities (b=2.48, 95% CI 0.15 to 4.81). Remaining in hospital beyond being medically fit for discharge was associated with older age (OR=1.07, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.09), female sex (OR=1.71, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.47) and high deprivation (OR=2.27, 95% CI 1.27 to 4.06). CONCLUSIONS: The regression models could be used to identify which patients are likely to occupy hospital beds for longer. This could be helpful in scheduling operations to aid hospital efficiency by planning these patients' operations for when the hospital is less busy.

How long do revised and multiply revised hip replacements last? A retrospective observational study of the National Joint Registry.

Background: Hip replacements are common and effective operations but patients that undergo this intervention are at risk of the replacements failing, requiring costly and often complex revision surgery with poorer outcomes than primary surgery. There is paucity of reliable data examining the treatment pathway for hip replacements over the life of the patient in terms of risk of revision and re-revisions. We aim to provide detailed information on the longevity of hip revision surgery. Methods: We did a retrospective observational registry-based study of the National Joint Registry, using data on hip replacements from all participating hospitals in England and Wales, UK. We included data on all first revisions, with an identifiable primary procedure, with osteoarthritis as the sole indication for the original primary procedure. Kaplan-Meier estimates were used to determine the cumulative probability of revision and subsequent re-revision after primary hip replacement. Analyses were stratified by age and gender, and the influence of time from first to second revision on the risk of further revision was explored. Findings: Between April 1, 2003, and Dec 31, 2019, there were 29 010 revision hip replacements with a linked primary episode. Revision rates of revision hip replacements were higher in patients younger than 55 years than in older age groups. After revision of primary total hip replacement, 21·3% (95% CI 18·6-24·4) of first revisions were revised again within 15 years, 22·3% (20·3-24·4) of second revisions were revised again within 7 years, and 22·3% (18·3-27·0) of third revisions were revised again within 3 years. After revision of hip resurfacing, 23·7% (95% CI 19·6-28·5) of these revisions were revised again within 15 years, 21·0% (17·0-25·8) of second revisions were revised again within 7 years, and 19·3% (11·9-30·4) of third revisions were revised again within 3 years. A shorter time between revision episodes was associated with earlier subsequent revision. Interpretation: Younger patients are at an increased risk of multiple revisions. Patients who undergo a revision have a steadily increasing risk of further revision the more procedures they undergo, and each subsequent revision lasts for approximately half the time of the previous one. Although hip replacements are effective for improving pain and function and usually last a remarkably long time, if they are revised, successive revisions are progressively and markedly less successful. Funding: NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at the University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Bristol, Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership; and the National Joint Registry.

Research priorities for intra-articular corticosteroid injections for osteoarthritis: A Delphi study.

Objective: To identify research priorities for intra-articular corticosteroid injections for osteoarthritis using a Delphi study. Design: In the Round 1 questionnaire, participants generated up to five potential research topics related to corticosteroid injections for osteoarthritis. These responses were collated and grouped to develop candidate research questions. Literature searches were conducted and questions with a lack of evidence were included in the next round. In Round 2, importance ratings (1-9; not important to very important) were assigned to each question. Those questions given an importance rating of 7-9 by ≥ 70% of participants were carried forward. In Round 3, participants were provided with the group ratings and the rating process was repeated to develop the final research priority list. Results: All three Delphi rounds were completed by 75 participants (82%; 34 patients, 21 healthcare professionals and 20 academics). A total of 310 research topics were generated in Round 1, from which 26 research questions were developed. None had been robustly answered by research and therefore all were included in the Round 2 questionnaire. In Round 2, 14 research questions were retained; all 14 were prioritised in Round 3 and included in the final research priority list. The questions covered long-term effects, clinical and cost-effectiveness, measurement of outcomes, comparison to other treatments, provision, safety, identifying responders, maximising benefits, patient experience, delaying the need for joint replacement, and dosage. Conclusion: Using a robust consensus technique with key stakeholders, we have developed a research priority list to guide future research into corticosteroid injections for osteoarthritis.

Clinical effectiveness of patellar resurfacing, no resurfacing and selective resurfacing in primary total knee replacement: systematic review and meta-analysis of interventional and observational evidence.

BACKGROUND: Patellar resurfacing is optional during total knee replacement (TKR). Some surgeons always resurface the patella, some never resurface, and others selectively resurface. Which resurfacing strategy provides optimal outcomes is unclear. We assessed the effectiveness of patellar resurfacing, no resurfacing, and selective resurfacing in primary TKR. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library, and bibliographies were searched to November 2021 for randomised-control trials (RCTs) comparing outcomes for two or more resurfacing strategies (resurfacing, no resurfacing, or selective resurfacing) in primary TKR. Observational studies were included if limited or no RCTs existed for resurfacing comparisons. Outcomes assessed were patient reported outcome measures (PROMs), complications, and further surgery. Study-specific relative risks [RR] were aggregated using random-effects models. Quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE. RESULTS: We identified 33 RCTs involving 5,540 TKRs (2,727 = resurfacing, 2,772 = no resurfacing, 41 = selective resurfacing). One trial reported on selective resurfacing. Patellar resurfacing reduced anterior knee pain compared with no resurfacing (RR = 0.65 (95% CI = 0.44-0.96)); there were no significant differences in PROMs. Resurfacing reduced the risk of revision surgery (RR = 0.63, CI = 0.42-0.94) and other complications (RR = 0.54, CI = 0.39-0.74) compared with no resurfacing. Quality of evidence ranged from high to very low. Limited observational evidence (5 studies, TKRs = 215,419) suggested selective resurfacing increased the revision risk (RR = 1.14, CI = 1.05-1.22) compared with resurfacing. Compared with no resurfacing, selective resurfacing had a higher risk of pain (RR = 1.25, CI = 1.04-1.50) and lower risk of revision (RR = 0.92, CI = 0.85-0.99). CONCLUSIONS: Level 1 evidence supports TKR with patellar resurfacing over no resurfacing. Resurfacing has a reduced risk of anterior knee pain, revision surgery, and complications, despite PROMs being comparable. High-quality RCTs involving selective resurfacing, the most common strategy in the UK and other countries, are needed given the limited observational data suggests selective resurfacing may not be effective over other strategies.

Clinical and cost effectiveness of single stage compared with two stage revision for hip prosthetic joint infection (INFORM): pragmatic, parallel group, open label, randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether patient reported outcomes improve after single stage versus two stage revision surgery for prosthetic joint infection of the hip, and to determine the cost effectiveness of these procedures. DESIGN: Pragmatic, parallel group, open label, randomised controlled trial. SETTING: High volume tertiary referral centres or orthopaedic units in the UK (n=12) and in Sweden (n=3), recruiting from 1 March 2015 to 19 December 2018. PARTICIPANTS: 140 adults (aged ≥18 years) with a prosthetic joint infection of the hip who required revision (65 randomly assigned to single stage and 75 to two stage revision). INTERVENTIONS: A computer generated 1:1 randomisation list stratified by hospital was used to allocate participants with prosthetic joint infection of the hip to a single stage or a two stage revision procedure. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary intention-to-treat outcome was pain, stiffness, and functional limitations 18 months after randomisation, measured by the Western Ontario and McMasters Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) score. Secondary outcomes included surgical complications and joint infection. The economic evaluation (only assessed in UK participants) compared quality adjusted life years and costs between the randomised groups. RESULTS: The mean age of participants was 71 years (standard deviation 9) and 51 (36%) were women. WOMAC scores did not differ between groups at 18 months (mean difference 0.13 (95% confidence interval -8.20 to 8.46), P=0.98); however, the single stage procedure was better at three months (11.53 (3.89 to 19.17), P=0.003), but not from six months onwards. Intraoperative events occurred in five (8%) participants in the single stage group and 20 (27%) in the two stage group (P=0.01). At 18 months, nine (14%) participants in the single stage group and eight (11%) in the two stage group had at least one marker of possible ongoing infection (P=0.62). From the perspective of healthcare providers and personal social services, single stage revision was cost effective with an incremental net monetary benefit of £11 167 (95% confidence interval £638 to £21 696) at a £20 000 per quality adjusted life years threshold (£1.0; $1.1; €1.4). CONCLUSIONS: At 18 months, single stage revision compared with two stage revision for prosthetic joint infection of the hip showed no superiority by patient reported outcome. Single stage revision had a better outcome at three months, fewer intraoperative complications, and was cost effective. Patients prefer early restoration of function, therefore, when deciding treatment, surgeons should consider patient preferences and the cost effectiveness of single stage surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry ISRCTN10956306.

Temporal trends in comorbidity in adult elective hip and knee arthroplasty patients in England : a national population-based cohort study from the National Joint Registry.

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

Mortality and re-revision following single-stage and two-stage revision surgery for the management of infected primary knee arthroplasty in England and Wales : evidence from the National Joint Registry.

AIMS: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: A total of 489 primary knee arthroplasties were revised with single-stage procedure (1,390 person-years) and 2,377 with two-stage procedure (8,349 person-years). The adjusted incidence rates of all-cause re-revision and for infection were comparable between these strategies (HR overall five years, 1.15 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87 to 1.52), p = 0.308; HR overall five years, 0.99 (95% CI 0.70 to 1.39), p = 0.949, respectively). Patients initially managed with single-stage revision received fewer revision procedures overall than after two-stage revision (1.2 vs 2.2, p < 0.001). Mortality was lower for single-stage revision between six and 18 months postoperative (HR at six months, 0.51 (95% CI 0.25 to 1.00), p = 0.049 HR at 18 months, 0.33 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.99), p = 0.048) and comparable at other timepoints. CONCLUSION: The risk of re-revision was similar between single- and two-stage revision for infected primary knee arthroplasty. Single-stage group required fewer revisions overall, with lower or comparable mortality at specific postoperative periods. The single-stage revision is a safe and effective strategy to treat infected knee arthroplasties. There is potential for increased use to reduce the burden of knee PJI for patients, and for the healthcare system.Cite this article: Bone Joint Res 2022;11(10):690-699.

How long does an elbow replacement last? A systematic review and meta-analysis of case-series and national registry reports with more than 10 years of follow-up.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: This study aims to determine, for the first time, generalizable data on the longevity and long-term function of elbow replacements. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE and Embase for articles reporting 10-year or greater survival of total elbow replacements (TERs) and distal humeral hemiarthroplasty. Implant survival and patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) data were extracted. National joint replacement registries were also analyzed. We weighted each series and calculated a pooled survival estimate at 10, 15, and 20 years. For PROMs we pooled the standardized mean difference (SMD) at 10 years. FINDINGS: Despite its widespread use, we identified only 9 series reporting all-cause survival of 628 linked TERs and 610 unlinked TERs and no series for distal humeral hemiarthroplasty. The studied population was treated for rheumatoid arthritis in over 90% of cases. The estimated 10-year survival for linked TERs was 92% (95% CI 90-95) and unlinked TERs 84% (CI 81-88). 2 independent registries contributed 32 linked TERs and 530 unlinked TERs. The pooled registry 10-year survival for unlinked TERs was 86% (CI 83-89). Pooled 10-year PROMs from 164 TERs (33 linked and 131 unlinked), revealed a substantial improvement from baseline scores (SMD 2.7 [CI 1.6-3.8]). INTERPRETATION: Over 80% of all elbow replacements and over 90% of linked elbow replacements can last more than 10 years with sustained patient-reported benefits. This information is long overdue and will be particularly useful to patients as well as healthcare providers.