Background The lack of agreement regarding what constitutes successful treatment for periprosthetic joint infections (PJI) makes it difficult to compare the different strategies of management that are used in clinical practice and in research studies.

The direct anterior approach (DAA) to the hip was initially described in the 19th century and has been used sporadically for total hip arthroplasty (THA). In the past decade, enthusiasm for the approach has been renewed because of increased demand for minimally invasive techniques. New surgical instruments and tables designed specifically for use with the DAA for THA have made the approach more accessible to surgeons. Some authors claim that this approach results in less muscle damage and pain as well as rapid recovery, although limited data exist to support these claims. The DAA may be comparable to other THA approaches, but there is no evidence to date that shows improved long-term outcomes for patients. The steep learning curve and complications unique to this approach (fractures and nerve damage) have been well described. However, the incidence of these complications decreases with greater surgeon experience. A question of keen interest to hip surgeons and patients is whether the DAA results in improved early outcomes and long-term results comparable to those of other approaches for THA.

No abstract

No abstract

Purpose To plan for the continuance of elective hip and knee arthroplasty during a resurgence or new wave of COVID-19 infections. Method A systematic review was conducted using the terms "COVID-19" or "SARS-Cov-2" and "second wave". No relevant citations were found to inform on recommendations the plan. Therefore, an expert panel of the European Hip Society and the European Knee Associates was formed to provide the recommendations. Results Overall, the recommendations consider three phases; review of the first wave, preparation for the next wave, and during the next wave. International and national policies will drive most of the management. The recommendations focus on the preparation phase and, in particular, the actions that the individual surgeon needs to undertake to continue with, and practice, elective arthroplasty during the next wave, as well as planning their personal and their family's lives. The recommendations expect rigorous data collection during the next wave, so that a cycle of continuous improvement is created to take account of any future waves. Conclusions The recommendations for planning to continue elective hip and knee arthroplasty during a new phase of the SARS-Cov-2 pandemic provide a framework to reduce the risk of a complete shutdown of elective surgery. This involves engaging with hospital managers and other specialities in the planning process. Individuals have responsibilities to themselves, their colleagues, and their families, beyond the actual delivery of elective arthroplasty.

Orthopaedic surgeons have accepted various radiological signs to be representative of acetabular retroversion, which is the main characteristic of focal over-coverage in patients with femoroacetabular impingement (FAI). Using a validated method for radiological analysis, we assessed the relevance of these signs to predict intra-articular lesions in 93 patients undergoing surgery for FAI. A logistic regression model to predict chondral damage showed that an acetabular retroversion index (ARI) > 20%, a derivative of the well-known cross-over sign, was an independent predictor (p = 0.036). However, ARI was less significant than the Tönnis classification (p = 0.019) and age (p = 0.031) in the same model. ARI was unable to discriminate between grades of chondral lesions, while the type of cam lesion (p = 0.004) and age (p = 0.047) were able to. Other widely recognised signs of acetabular retroversion, such as the ischial spine sign, the posterior wall sign or the cross-over sign were irrelevant according to our analysis. Regardless of its secondary predictive role, an ARI > 20% appears to be the most clinically relevant radiological sign of acetabular retroversion in symptomatic patients with FAI.

Background In the setting of finite healthcare resources, developing cost-efficient strategies for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) diagnosis is paramount. The current levels of knowledge allow for PJI diagnostic recommendations based on scientific evidence but do not consider the benefits, opportunities, costs, and risks of the different diagnostic alternatives. Questions/purposes We determined the best diagnostic strategy for knee and hip PJI in the ambulatory setting for Medicare patients, utilizing benefits, opportunities, costs, and risks evaluation through multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA). Methods The PJI diagnostic definition supported by the Musculoskeletal Infection Society was employed for the MCDA. Using a preclinical model, we evaluated three diagnostic strategies that can be conducted in a Medicare patient seen in the outpatient clinical setting complaining of a painful TKA or THA. Strategies were (1) screening with serum markers (erythrocyte sedimentation rate [ESR]/ C-reactive protein [CRP]) followed by arthrocentesis in positive cases, (2) immediate arthrocentesis, and (3) serum markers requested simultaneously with arthrocentesis. MCDA was conducted through the analytic hierarchy process, comparing the diagnostic strategies in terms of benefits, opportunities, costs, and risks. Results Strategy 1 was the best alternative to diagnose knee PJI among Medicare patients (normalized value: 0.490), followed by Strategy 3 (normalized value: 0.403) and then Strategy 2 (normalized value: 0.106). The same ranking of alternatives was observed for the hip PJI model (normalized value: 0.487, 0.405, and 0.107, respectively). The sensitivity analysis found this sequence to be robust with respect to benefits, opportunities, and risks. However, if during the decisionmaking process, cost savings was given a priority of higher than 54%, the ranking for the preferred diagnostic strategy changed. Conclusions After considering the benefits, opportunities, costs, and risks of the different available alternatives, our preclinical model supports the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons recommendations regarding the use of serum markers (ESR/CRP) before arthrocentesis as the best diagnostic strategy for PJI among Medicare patients. Level of Evidence Level II, economic and decision analysis. See Instructions to Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Total knee replacement (TKR) is an operation that can be performed with or without the use of a tourniquet. Meta-analyses of the available Level-1 studies have demonstrated that the use of a tourniquet leads to a significant reduction in blood loss. The opponents for use of a tourniquet cite development of complications such as skin bruising, neurovascular injury, and metabolic disturbance as drawbacks. Although there may certainly be reason for concern in arteriopathic patients, there is little evidence that routine use of a tourniquet during TKR results in any of the above complications. The use of a tourniquet, on the other hand, provides a bloodless field that allows the surgeon to perform the procedure with expediency and optimal visualisation. Blood conservation has gained great importance in recent years due to increased understanding of the problems associated with blood transfusion, such as increased surgical site infection (due to immunomodulation effect), increased length of hospital stay and increased cost. Based on the authors' understanding of the available evidence, the routine use of a tourniquet during TKR is justified as good surgical practice.