Background With the ubiquity of digital radiographs, the use of digital templating for arthroplasty has become commonplace. Although improved accuracy with digital radiographs and magnification markers is assumed, it has not been shown. Questions/PurposesWe wanted to (1) evaluate the accuracy of magnification markers in estimating the magnification of the true hip and (2) determine if the use of magnification markers improves on older techniques of assuming a magnification of 20% for all patients. Methods Between April 2013 and September 2013 we collected 100 AP pelvis radiographs of patients who had a THA prosthesis in situ and a magnification marker placed per the manufacturer's instructions. Radiographs seen during our standard radiographic review process, which met our inclusion criteria (AP pelvic view that included a well-positioned and observed magnification marker, and a prior total hip replacement with a known femoral head size), were included in the analysis. We then used OrthoView TM software program to calculate magnification of the radiograph using the magnification marker (measured magnification) and the femoral head of known size (true magnification). Results The mean true magnification using the femoral head was 21% (SD, 2%). The mean magnification using the marker was 15% (SD, 5%). The 95% CI for the mean difference between the two measurements was 6% to 7% (p \ 0.001). The use of a magnification marker to estimate magnification at the level of the hip using standard radiographic techniques was shown in this study to routinely underestimate the magnification of the radiograph using an arthroplasty femoral head of known diameter as the reference. If we assume a magnification of 20%, this more closely approximated the true magnification routinely. With this assumption, we were within 2% magnification in 64 of the 100 hips and off by 4% or more in only four hips. In contrast, using the magnification marker we were within 2% of true magnification in only 20 hips and were off by 4% or more in 59 hips. Conclusion We found the use of a magnification marker with digital radiographs for preoperative templating to be

Level II, prognostic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background This study aimed to determine the impact of pulmonary complications on death after surgery both before and during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. Methods This was a patient-level, comparative analysis of two, international prospective cohort studies: one before the pandemic (January–October 2019) and the second during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic (local emergence of COVID-19 up to 19 April 2020). Both included patients undergoing elective resection of an intra-abdominal cancer with curative intent across five surgical oncology disciplines. Patient selection and rates of 30-day postoperative pulmonary complications were compared. The primary outcome was 30-day postoperative mortality. Mediation analysis using a natural-effects model was used to estimate the proportion of deaths during the pandemic attributable to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Results This study included 7402 patients from 50 countries; 3031 (40.9 per cent) underwent surgery before and 4371 (59.1 per cent) during the pandemic. Overall, 4.3 per cent (187 of 4371) developed postoperative SARS-CoV-2 in the pandemic cohort. The pulmonary complication rate was similar (7.1 per cent (216 of 3031) versus 6.3 per cent (274 of 4371); P = 0.158) but the mortality rate was significantly higher (0.7 per cent (20 of 3031) versus 2.0 per cent (87 of 4371); P < 0.001) among patients who had surgery during the pandemic. The adjusted odds of death were higher during than before the pandemic (odds ratio (OR) 2.72, 95 per cent c.i. 1.58 to 4.67; P < 0.001). In mediation analysis, 54.8 per cent of excess postoperative deaths during the pandemic were estimated to be attributable to SARS-CoV-2 (OR 1.73, 1.40 to 2.13; P < 0.001). Conclusion Although providers may have selected patients with a lower risk profile for surgery during the pandemic, this did not mitigate the likelihood of death through SARS-CoV-2 infection. Care providers must act urgently to protect surgical patients from SARS-CoV-2 infection.

The use of extended offset femoral components and acetabular liners helps restore preoperative offset during hip arthroplasty. We report a relatively high acetabular component aseptic loosening rate with the use of offset polyethylene liners. We reviewed 1919 primary and 346 revision total hip arthroplasties (THAs). A 7-mm offset acetabular liner was used in 120 of the primary and 100 of the revision THAs. The aseptic loosening rate in the primary THA group was 0.12% in the standard offset and 4.2% in the extended offset groups at a minimum of 2 years (mean, 3.6 years; range, 2-9 years) followup. The aseptic loosening rate in the revision group was 1.7% in the standard and 7% in the extended offset groups at a mean of 4 years (range, 2-9 years) followup. Although extended offset acetabular liners help restore hip offset, torsional force applied to the implant-bone interface may have a detrimental effect on fixation. We found a relatively high failure rate in our primary and revision acetabular components used with an offset liner. Level of Evidence: Level III, therapeutic study. See the Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract