Improvements in networking processes for hip or knee revision arthroplasty: a silver lining of the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Improvements in outcomes following hip and knee revision arthroplasties have been demonstrated following the introduction of specialised orthopaedic services in the form of 'hub and spoke' networking models. In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, these networks have undergone some inevitable adaptations. We investigated the impact of recent adaptations on the performance of our regional revision arthroplasty network. METHODS: A retrospective review of all referrals that were discussed at our regional revision arthroplasty meeting, over 2 separate phases, was undertaken. Phase 1 included data between March 2018 and April 2019, representing an interval prior to COVID-19 pandemic. Phase-2 included data between September 2020 and March 2021 (during COVID-19 pandemic). Data were collected from East Midland South Orthopaedic Network (EMSSON) database and included data relating to indication and time to revision surgery, surgeon's proposal plan, network proposal plan, and executed definitive plan. We compared and analysed network performance between 2 phases. RESULTS: In phase 1, 99 cases were discussed in EMSSON meetings, equating to 35.7% of the region's revision arthroplasty volume, according to the National Joint Registry (NJR) records. Plan alterations were recommended in 48/99 cases (48.5%), of which 41/48 (85.4%) were adhered to. Phase 2 included 98 discussed cases, equating to 81.6% of the region's revision arthroplasty volume. Plan alterations were recommended in 20/98 cases (20.4%), all of which were adhered to (100%). Adherence to recommended adaptations showed significant improvement (p < 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Based upon our observations, a greater volume and proportion of revision arthroplasty cases are now being discussed. Adherence to MDT recommendations has significantly improved following the described adaptations. The number of recommended adaptations to management plans have decreased, indicating an educational value of the network.Overall, these findings demonstrate a trend towards NHS England's target of 100% of revision arthroplasty cases undergoing MDT discussion.

Apparent trends in the use of femoral megaprostheses: an analysis from the National Joint Registry.

BACKGROUND: Megaprosthetic replacement (MPR) of the femur is typically reserved for salvage or oncological reconstruction. Presently little is known about the provision of femoral MPRs performed nationally, the trends in indications for their use, and their outcomes beyond published unit-level data. Although the National Joint Registry (NJR) collects data as part of a mandatory arthroplasty audit process, MPR data entry on this platform is thought to be inconsistent. The aim of this study is to determine current trends for femoral MPR procedures as submitted to the NJR. METHODS: Data for all procedures submitted to the NJR using the following implants were extracted: METS (Stanmore/Stryker), MUTARS (Implantcast), Segmental (Zimmer), GMRS (Stryker) and MEGA C (LINK). Pseudoanonymized data were analyzed through the NJR's research Data Access Portal and are reported using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: A total of 1781 procedures were identified. Submitted cases increased for primary and revision hip and knee categories over the study period, although they plateaued in recent years. MPR implants were most commonly used in revision hip arthroplasty procedures. MPR use for the management of peri-prosthetic fractures has increased and now represents the most commonly reported indication for MPR use in both hip and knee revision categories. Few centers submitted large MPR case volumes (which were noted to be lower than published unit case series, indicating NJR under-reporting), and the vast majority of centers submitting MPR cases did so in low volume. CONCLUSIONS: Due to the limitations identified, reported case volumes must be interpreted with caution. An MPR-specific NJR data entry form has been developed to allow more accurate and tailored reporting of MPR procedures, to support specialist service provision, and to provide meaningful data for future research.

Peritoneal lavage during laparoscopic appendectomy for complex appendicitis is associated with increased post-operative morbidity.

Aim: Appendicitis is one of the most common paediatric surgical pathologies seen by paediatric surgeons worldwide. Laparoscopic appendectomy is undertaken for all cases of appendicitis in our institute. Intraperitoneal lavage following appendectomy is the conventional way of managing complicated appendicitis; however, some surgeons debate the efficacy of this practice. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of intraperitoneal lavage versus suction only in children with complicated appendicitis. Methods: Data were collected retrospectively between January 2018 and January 2019. All patients undergoing laparoscopic appendectomy for complex appendicitis were included and divided into two groups, patients who had suction only and those who had lavage and suction. Outcome parameters studied were the length of stay (LOS), number of temperature spikes > 37.7 (TS), operative times (OT) and readmission for intra-abdominal collections. Comparison between the two groups was performed using two sample t-test with unequal variance, significance was set at P < 0.05. Results: A total of 115 patients were included (lavage n = 52, Suction n = 63). The LOS (P = 0.0054), TS (0.0109), OT (P < 0.0001) were significantly higher in the lavage group compared to the suction-only group. Overall rates of readmission were similar between groups, however, readmission for the confirmed intra-abdominal collection was more common in the lavage group. Conclusion: Based on our study, it appears that there is no advantage in performing an intraperitoneal lavage for complex appendicitis. It resulted in a prolonged stay, more post-operative TS and longer operative duration. The likelihood of being readmitted with an intra-abdominal collection following a lavage was higher compared to suction only.

Medial compartment osteoarthritis of the knee: a review of surgical options.

Osteoarthritis of the medial compartment, where the lateral compartment and patella-femoral joint are relatively spared, is a common orthopaedic presentation.Most frequently, the treatment of choice would be a total knee replacement, which involves removing healthy joint surfaces in such patients.Arthroscopic debridement in the osteoarthritic knee has fallen out of favour due to poor clinical results.A trend has developed towards less invasive surgery with uni-compartmental knee replacement (UKR) and high tibial osteotomy (HTO) gaining increasing popularity.Surgeons differ in their relative indications and contraindications to performing these procedures.Total knee replacement (TKR) continues to have the lowest overall revision rate of the available options.Growing evidence demonstrates more favourable patient-reported outcome measures in UKR and HTO patients, compared to TKR.Knee joint distraction (KJD) has been demonstrated as an alternative method of treatment in such patients. Cite this article: EFORT Open Rev 2021;6:113-117. DOI: 10.1302/2058-5241.6.200102.