Summary Background Total hip replacement is a common and highly effective operation. All hip replacements would eventually fail if in situ long enough and it is important that patients understand when this might happen. We aimed to answer the question: how long does a hip replacement last? Methods We did a systematic review and meta-analysis with a search of MEDLINE and Embase from the start of records to Sept 12, 2017. We included articles reporting 15-year survival of primary, conventional total hip replacement constructs in patients with osteoarthritis. We extracted survival and implant data and used all-cause construct survival as the primary outcome. We also reviewed reports of national joint replacement registries, and extracted data for a separate analysis. In the meta-analyses, we weighted each series and calculated a pooled survival estimate for each source of data. This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018085642). Findings We identified 140 eligible articles reporting 150 series, and included 44 of these series (13 212 total hip placements). National joint replacement registries from Australia and Finland provided data for 92 series (215 676 total hip replacements). The 25-year pooled survival of hip replacements from case series was 77·6% (95% CI 76·0–79·2) and from joint replacement registries was 57·9% (95% CI 57·1–58·7). Interpretation Assuming that estimates from national registries are less likely to be biased, patients and surgeons can expect a hip replacement to last 25 years in around 58% of patients. Funding National Institute for Health Research, National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Isle of Man, and The Royal College of Surgeons of England.

BackgroundPeriprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) are dreaded complications of total joint arthroplasties. The risk of developing PJIs is likely to be influenced by several patient factors such as sociodemographic characteristics, body mass index (BMI), and medical and surgical histories. However, the nature and magnitude of the long-term longitudinal associations between these patient-related factors and risk of developing PJIs are uncertain.ObjectiveTo conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the associations between several patient-related factors and PJI.Data SourcesMEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and reference lists of relevant studies from inception to September 2015.Study SelectionLongitudinal studies with at least one-year of follow-up for PJIs after total joint arthroplasty.Data Extraction and SynthesisTwo investigators extracted data on study characteristics, methods, and outcomes. A consensus was reached with involvement of a third. The relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals was used as the summary measure of association across studies. Study-specific RRs with 95% confidence intervals were meta-analysed using random effect models and were grouped by study-level characteristics.ResultsSixty-six observational (23 prospective cohort and 43 retrospective cohort or case-control) studies with data on 512,508 participants were included. Comparing males to females and smokers to non-smokers, the pooled RRs for PJI were 1.36 (1.18–1.57) and 1.83 (1.24–2.70) respectively. There was no evidence of any significant associations of PJI with age and high alcohol intake. Comparing BMI ≥ 30 versus < 30 kg/m2; ≥ 35 versus < 35 kg/m2; and ≥ 40 versus < 40 kg/m2; the pooled RRs were 1.60 (1.29–1.99); 1.53 (1.22–1.92); and 3.68 (2.25–6.01) respectively. Histories of diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, depression, steroid use, and previous joint surgery were also associated with increased risk of PJI. The results remained similar when grouped by relevant study level characteristics.ConclusionsSeveral potentially modifiable patient-related factors are associated with the risk of developing PJIs. Identifying patients with these risk factors who are due to have arthroplasty surgery and modulating these risk factors might be essential in reducing the incidence of PJI. Further research is however warranted to assess the potential clinical utility of these risk factors as risk assessment tools for PJI.Systematic Review RegistrationPROSPERO 2015: CRD42015023485

Summary Background Knee replacements are the mainstay of treatment for end-stage osteoarthritis and are effective. Given time, all knee replacements will fail and knowing when this failure might happen is important. We aimed to establish how long a knee replacement lasts. Methods In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE and Embase for case series and cohort studies published from database inception until July 21, 2018. Articles reporting 15 year or greater survival of primary total knee replacement (TKR), unicondylar knee replacement (UKR), and patellofemoral replacements in patients with osteoarthritis were included. Articles that reviewed specifically complex primary surgeries or revisions were excluded. Survival and implant data were extracted, with all-cause survival of the knee replacement construct being the primary outcome. We also reviewed national joint replacement registry reports and extracted the data to be analysed separately. In the meta-analysis, we weighted each series and calculated a pooled survival estimate for each data source at 15 years, 20 years, and 25 years, using a fixed-effects model. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42018105188. Findings From 4363 references found by our initial search, we identified 33 case series in 30 eligible articles, which reported all-cause survival for 6490 TKRs (26 case series) and 742 UKRs (seven case series). No case series reporting on patellofemoral replacements met our inclusion criteria, and no case series reported 25 year survival for TKR. The estimated 25 year survival for UKR (based on one case series) was 72·0% (95% CI 58·0–95·0). Registries contributed 299 291 TKRs (47 series) and 7714 UKRs (five series). The pooled registry 25 year survival of TKRs (14 registries) was 82·3% (95% CI 81·3–83·2) and of UKRs (four registries) was 69·8% (67·6–72·1). Interpretation Our pooled registry data, which we believe to be more accurate than the case series data, shows that approximately 82% of TKRs last 25 years and 70% of UKRs last 25 years. These findings will be of use to patients and health-care providers; further information is required to predict exactly how long specific knee replacements will last. Funding The National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland, and Isle of Man and the Royal College of Surgeons of England.

BackgroundPeriprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a serious complication of total knee arthroplasty. Two-stage revision is the most widely used technique and considered as the most effective for treating periprosthetic knee infection. The one-stage revision strategy is an emerging alternative option, however, its performance in comparison to the two-stage strategy is unclear. We therefore sought to ask if there was a difference in re-infection rates and other clinical outcomes when comparing the one-stage to the two-stage revision strategy.ObjectiveOur first objective was to compare re-infection (new and recurrent infections) rates for one- and two-stage revision surgery for periprosthetic knee infection. Our second objective was to compare between the two revision strategies, clinical outcomes as measured by postoperative Knee Society Knee score, Knee Society Function score, Hospital for Special Surgery knee score, WOMAC score, and range of motion.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesMEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, reference lists of relevant studies to August 2015, and correspondence with investigators.Study selectionLongitudinal (prospective or retrospective cohort) studies conducted in generally unselected patients with periprosthetic knee infection treated exclusively by one- or two-stage revision and with re-infection outcomes reported within two years of revision surgery. No clinical trials comparing both revision strategies were identified.Review methodsTwo independent investigators extracted data and discrepancies were resolved by consensus with a third investigator. Re-infection rates from 10 one-stage studies (423 participants) and 108 two-stage studies (5,129 participants) were meta-analysed using random-effect models after arcsine transformation.ResultsThe rate (95% confidence intervals) of re-infection was 7.6% (3.4–13.1) in one-stage studies. The corresponding re-infection rate for two-stage revision was 8.8% (7.2–10.6). In subgroup analyses, re-infection rates remained generally similar for several study-level and clinically relevant characteristics. Postoperative clinical outcomes of knee scores and range of motion were similar for both revision strategies.LimitationsPotential bias owing to the limited number of one-stage revision studies and inability to explore heterogeneity in greater detail.ConclusionsAvailable evidence from aggregate published data suggest the one-stage revision strategy may be as effective as the two-stage revision strategy in treating infected knee prostheses in generally unselected patients. Further investigation is warranted.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO 2015: CRD42015017327

Background Prosthetic joint infection is a devastating complication of knee replacement. The risk of developing a prosthetic joint infection is affected by patient, surgical, and health-care system factors. Existing evidence is limited by heterogeneity in populations studied, short follow-up, inadequate power, and does not differentiate early prosthetic joint infection, most likely related to the intervention, from late infection, more likely to occur due to haematogenous bacterial spread. We aimed to assess the overall and time-specific associations of these factors with the risk of revision due to prosthetic joint infection following primary knee replacement. Methods In this cohort study, we analysed primary knee replacements done between 2003 and 2013 in England and Wales and the procedures subsequently revised for prosthetic joint infection between 2003 and 2014. Data were obtained from the National Joint Registry linked to the Hospital Episode Statistics data in England and the Patient Episode Database for Wales. Each primary replacement was followed for a minimum of 12 months until the end of the observation period (Dec 31, 2014) or until the date of revision for prosthetic joint infection, revision for another indication, or death (whichever occurred first). We analysed the data using Poisson and piecewise exponential multilevel models to assess the associations between patient, surgical, and health-care system factors and risk of revision for prosthetic joint infection. Findings Of 679 010 primary knee replacements done between 2003 and 2013 in England and Wales, 3659 were subsequently revised for an indication of prosthetic joint infection between 2003 and 2014, after a median follow-up of 4•6 years (IQR 2•6-6•9). Male sex (rate ratio [RR] for male vs female patients 1•8 [95% CI 1•7-2•0]), younger age (RR for age ≥80 years vs <60 years 0•5 [0•4-0•6]), higher American Society of Anaesthesiologists [ASA] grade (RR for ASA grade 3-5 vs 1, 1•8 [1•6-2•1]), elevated body-mass index (BMI; RR for BMI ≥30 kg/m² vs <25 kg/m² 1•5 [1•3-1•6]), chronic pulmonary disease (RR 1•2 [1•1-1•3]), diabetes (RR 1•4 [1•2-1•5]), liver disease (RR 2•2 [1•6-2•9]), connective tissue and rheumatic diseases (RR 1•5 [1•3-1•7]), peripheral vascular disease (RR 1•4 [1•1-1•7]), surgery for trauma (RR 1•9 [1•4-2•6]), previous septic arthritis (RR 4•9 [2•7-7•6]) or inflammatory arthropathy (RR 1•4 [1•2-1•7]), operation under general anaesthesia (RR 1•1 [1•0-1•2]), requirement for tibial bone graft (RR 2•0 [1•3-2•7]), use of posterior stabilised fixed bearing prostheses (RR for posterior stabilised fixed bearing prostheses vs unconstrained fixed bearing prostheses 1•4 [1•3-1•5]) or constrained condylar prostheses (3•5 [2•5-4•7]) were associated with a higher risk of revision for prosthetic joint infection. However, uncemented total, patellofemoral, or unicondylar knee replacement (RR for uncemented vs cemented total knee replacement 0•7 [95% CI 0•6-0•8], RR for patellofemoral vs cemented total knee replacement 0•3 [0•2-0•5], and RR for unic...

ObjectivesAround 1% of patients who have a hip replacement have deep prosthetic joint infection (PJI) afterwards. PJI is often treated with antibiotics plus a single revision operation (1-stage revision), or antibiotics plus a 2-stage revision process involving more than 1 operation. This study aimed to characterise the impact and experience of PJI and treatment on patients, including comparison of 1-stage with 2-stage revision treatment.DesignQualitative semistructured interviews with patients who had undergone surgical revision treatment for PJI. Patients were interviewed between 2 weeks and 12 months postdischarge. Data were audio-recorded, transcribed, anonymised and analysed using a thematic approach, with 20% of transcripts double-coded.SettingPatients from 5 National Health Service (NHS) orthopaedic departments treating PJI in England and Wales were interviewed in their homes (n=18) or at hospital (n=1).Participants19 patients participated (12 men, 7 women, age range 56–88 years, mean age 73.2 years).ResultsParticipants reported receiving between 1 and 15 revision operations after their primary joint replacement. Analysis indicated that participants made sense of their experience through reference to 3 key phases: the period of symptom onset, the treatment period and protracted recovery after treatment. By conceptualising their experience in this way, and through themes that emerged in these periods, they conveyed the ordeal that PJI represented. Finally, in light of the challenges of PJI, they described the need for support in all of these phases. 2-stage revision had greater impact on participants’ mobility, and further burdens associated with additional complications.ConclusionsDeep PJI impacted on all aspects of patients’ lives. 2-stage revision had greater impact than 1-stage revision on participants’ well-being because the time in between revision procedures meant long periods of immobility and related psychological distress. Participants expressed a need for more psychological and rehabilitative support during treatment and long-term recovery.

IMPORTANCE Patients undergoing total hip replacement (THR) and total knee replacement (TKR) receive venous thromboembolism (VTE) pharmacoprophylaxis. It is unclear which anticoagulant is preferable. Observational data suggest aspirin provides effective VTE prophylaxis. OBJECTIVE To assess the effectiveness and safety of aspirin for VTE prophylaxis after THR and TKR. DATA SOURCES A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed of randomized clinical trials (RCTs), with no language restrictions, from inception to September 19, 2019, using MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and bibliographic searches. The computer-based searches combined terms and combinations of keywords related to the population (eg, hip replacement, knee replacement, hip arthroplasty, and knee arthroplasty), drug intervention (eg, aspirin, heparin, clexane, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and warfarin), and outcome (eg, venous thromboembolism, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and bleeding) in humans. STUDY SELECTION This study included RCTs assessing the effectiveness and safety of aspirin for VTE prophylaxis compared with other anticoagulants in adults undergoing THR and TKR. The RCTs with a placebo control group were excluded. The searches and study selection were independently performed. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS This study followed PRISMA recommendations and used the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool. Data were screened and extracted independently by both reviewers. Study-specific relative risks (RRs) were aggregated using random-effects models. Quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was any postoperative VTE (asymptomatic or symptomatic). Secondary outcomes were adverse events associated with therapy, including bleeding. RESULTS Of 437 identified articles, 13 RCTs were included (6060 participants; 3466 [57.2%] women; mean age, 63.0 years). The RR of VTE after THR and TKR was 1.12 (95% CI, 0.78-1.62) for aspirin compared with other anticoagulants. Comparable findings were observed for deep vein thrombosis (DVT) (RR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.72-1.51) and pulmonary embolism (PE) (RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.68-1.48). The risk of adverse events, including major bleeding, wound hematoma, and wound infection, was not statistically significantly different in patients receiving aspirin vs other anticoagulants. When analyzing THRs and TKRs separately, there was no statistically significant difference in the risk of VTE, DVT, and PE between aspirin and other anticoagulants. Aspirin had a VTE risk not statistically significantly different from low-molecular-weight heparin (RR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.37-1.56) or rivaroxaban (RR, 1.52; 95% CI, 0.56-4.12). The quality of the evidence ranged from low to high. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In terms of clinical effectiveness and safety profile, aspirin did not differ statistically significantly from other anticoagulants used for VTE prophylaxis after THR and TKR. Futu...

Level I, therapeutic study. See the guidelines online for a complete description of level of evidence.