Managing uncertainty - A qualitative study of surgeons' decision-making for one-stage and two-stage revision surgery for prosthetic hip joint infection

Abstract Background Approximately 88,000 primary hip replacements are performed in England and Wales each year. Around 1% go on to develop deep prosthetic joint infection. Between one-stage and two-stage revision arthroplasty best treatment options remain unclear. Our aims were to characterise consultant orthopaedic surgeons’ decisions about performing either one-stage or two-stage revision surgery for patients with deep prosthetic infection (PJI) after hip arthroplasty, and to identify whether a randomised trial comparing one-stage with two-stage revision would be feasible. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 consultant surgeons who perform revision surgery for PJI after hip arthroplasty at 5 high-volume National Health Service (NHS) orthopaedic departments in England and Wales. Surgeons were interviewed before the development of a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Data were analysed using a thematic approach. Results There is no single standardised surgical intervention for the treatment of PJI. Surgeons balance multiple factors when choosing a surgical strategy which include multiple patient-related factors, their own knowledge and expertise, available infrastructure and the infecting organism. Surgeons questioned whether it was appropriate that the two-stage revision remained the best treatment, and some surgeons' willingness to consider more one-stage revisions had increased over recent years and were influenced by growing evidence showing equivalence between surgical techniques, and local observations of successful one-stage revisions. Custom-made articulating spacers was a practice that enabled uncertainty to be managed in the absence of definitive evidence about the superiority of one surgical technique over the other. Surgeons highlighted the need for research evidence to inform practice and thought that a randomised trial to compare treatments was needed. Most surgeons thought that patients who they treated would be eligible for trial participation in instances where there was uncertainty about the best treatment option. Conclusions Surgeons highlighted the need for evidence to support their choice of revision. Some surgeons' willingness to consider one-stage revision for infection had increased over time, largely influenced by evidence of successful one-stage revisions. Custom-made articulating spacers also enabled surgeons to manage uncertainty about the superiority of surgical techniques. Surgeons thought that a prospective randomised controlled trial comparing one-stage with two-stage joint replacement is needed and that randomisation would be feasible

Preoperative psychosocial risk factors for poor outcomes at 1 and 5 years after total knee replacement:A cohort study of 266 patients

Background and purpose — Psychosocial factors are important risk factors for poor outcomes in the first year after total knee replacement (TKR), however their impact on long-term outcomes is unclear. We aimed to identify preoperative psychosocial risk factors for poor outcomes at 1 year and 5 years after TKR. Patients and methods — 266 patients were recruited prior to TKR surgery. Knee pain and function were assessed preoperatively and at 1 and 5 years postoperative using the WOMAC Pain score, WOMAC Function score and American Knee Society Score (AKSS) Knee score. Preoperative depression, anxiety, catastrophizing, pain self-efficacy and social support were assessed. Statistical analyses involved multiple linear regression and mixed effect linear regression. Results — Higher anxiety was a risk factor for worse pain at 1 year postoperative. No psychosocial factors were associated with any outcomes at 5 years postoperative. Analysis of change over time found that patients with higher pain self-efficacy had lower preoperative pain and experienced less improvement in pain up to 1 year postoperative. Higher pain self-efficacy was associated with less improvement in the AKSS up to 1 year postoperative but more improvement between 1 and 5 years postoperative. Interpretation — Preoperative anxiety was found to influence pain at 1 year after TKR. However, none of the psychosocial variables were risk factors for a poor outcome at 5 years post­operative, suggesting that the negative effects of anxiety on outcome do not persist in the longer-term

Obesity paradox in joint replacement for osteoarthritis – truth or paradox?

Obesity is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and other adverse health outcomes. In patients with pre-existing heart failure or coronary heart disease, obese individuals have a more favourable prognosis compared to individuals who are of normal weight. This paradoxical relationship between obesity and CVD has been termed the ‘obesity paradox’. This phenomenon has also been observed in patients with other cardiovascular conditions and diseases of the respiratory and renal systems. Taking into consideration the well-established relationship between osteoarthritis (OA) and CVD, emerging evidence shows that overweight and obese individuals undergoing total hip or knee replacement for OA have lower mortality risk compared with normal weight individuals, suggesting an obesity paradox. Factors proposed to explain the obesity paradox include the role of cardiorespiratory fitness (“fat but fit”), the increased amount of lean mass in obese people, additional adipose tissue serving as a metabolic reserve, biases such as reverse causation and confounding by smoking, and the co-existence of older age and specific comorbidities such as CVD. A wealth of evidence suggests that higher levels of fitness are accompanied by prolonged life expectancy across all levels of adiposity and that the increased mortality risk attributed to obesity can be attenuated with increased fitness. For patients about to have joint replacement, improving fitness levels through physical activities or exercises that are attractive and feasible, should be a priority if intentional weight loss is unlikely to be achieved

Kneeling ability after total knee replacement

Kneeling ability is consistently the poorest patient-rated outcome after total knee replacement (TKR), with 60–80% of patients reporting difficulty kneeling or an inability to kneel. Difficulty kneeling impacts on many activities and areas of life, including activities of daily living, self-care, leisure and social activities, religious activities, employment and getting up after a fall. Given the wide range of activities that involve kneeling, and the expectation that this will be improved with surgery, problems kneeling after TKR are a source of dissatisfaction and disappointment for many patients. Research has found that there is no association between range of motion and self-reported kneeling ability. More research is needed to understand if and how surgical factors contribute to difficulty kneeling after TKR. Discrepancies between patients’ self-reported ability to kneel and observed ability suggests that patients can kneel but elect not to. Reasons for this are multifactorial, including knee pain/discomfort, numbness, fear of harming the prosthesis, co-morbidities and recommendations from health professionals. There is currently no evidence that there is any clinical reason why patients should not kneel on their replaced knee, and reasons for not kneeling could be addressed through education and rehabilitation. There has been little research to evaluate the provision of healthcare services and interventions for patients who find kneeling problematic after TKR. Increased clinical awareness of this poor outcome and research to inform the provision of services is needed to improtzve patient care and allow patients to return to this important activity

Risk of cancer in first seven years after metal-on-metal hip replacement compared with other bearings and general population: linkage study between the National Joint Registry of England and Wales and hospital episode statistics

Objective To determine whether use of metal-on-metal bearing surfaces is associated with an increased risk of a diagnosis of cancer in the early years after total hip replacement and specifically with an increase in malignant melanoma and haematological, prostate, and renal tract cancers

Implicaciones socioculturales del turismo y balance de la Antropología del turismo sobre Andalucía

Knee replacement is a common preference sensitive quality-of-life procedure that can reduce pain and improve function for people with advanced knee arthritis. While most patients improve, knee replacement surgery has the potential for serious complications. Prosthetic knee infection is an uncommon but serious complication. This study explored the impact of cases of prosthetic knee infection on surgeons' personal and professional wellbeing. Qualitative telephone interviews were conducted with consultant orthopaedic surgeons who treated patients for prosthetic knee infection in one of six high-volume NHS orthopaedic departments. Data was audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically. Eleven surgeons took part. Analysis identified three overarching themes: (i) At some point infection is inevitable but surgeons still feel accountable; (ii) A profound emotional impact and (iii) Supporting each other. The occurrence of prosthetic joint infection has a significant emotional impact on surgeons who report a collective sense of devastation and personal ownership, even though prosthetic joint infection cannot be fully controlled for. Surgeons stressed the importance of openly discussing the management of prosthetic joint infection with a supportive multidisciplinary team and this has implications for the ways in which orthopaedic surgeons may be best supported to manage this complication. This article also acknowledges that surgeons are not alone in experiencing personal impact when patients have infection

Pain and Function Recovery Trajectories following Revision Hip Arthroplasty:Short-Term Changes and Comparison with Primary Hip Arthroplasty in the ADAPT Cohort Study

Patients report similar or better pain and function before revision hip arthroplasty than before primary arthroplasty but worse results are reported after revision surgery than after primary surgery. The trajectory of post-operative recovery during the first months and any differences by type of surgery have received little attention. We explored the trajectories of change in pain and function after revision hip arthroplasty to 12-months post-operatively and compare them with those observed after primary hip arthroplasty.This study is a prospective cohort study of patients undergoing primary (n = 80 with 92% for an indication of osteoarthritis) and revision (n = 43) hip arthroplasties. WOMAC pain and function scores and walking speed were collected pre-operatively, at 3 and 12-months post-operatively. Multilevel regression models were used to chart and compare the trajectories of change (0-3 months and 3-12 months) between types of surgery.The improvements in pain and function following revision arthroplasty occurred within the first 3-months with no evidence of further change beyond this initial period. While the pattern of recovery was similar to the one observed after primary arthroplasty, improvements in the first 3-months were smaller after revision compared to primary arthroplasty. Patients listed for revision surgery reported lower pre-operative pain levels but similar post-operative levels compared to those undergoing primary surgery. At 12-months post-operation patients who underwent a revision arthroplasty had not reached the same level of function achieved by those who underwent primary arthroplasty.The post-operative improvements in pain and function are larger following primary hip arthroplasty than following revision hip arthroplasty. Irrespectively of surgery type, most of the improvements occur in the first three post-operative months. More research is required to identify whether the recovery following revision surgery could be improved with specific post-operative interventions