BACKGROUND: Venous Thromboembolism after elective Total Hip Arthroplasty surgery is a well-recognised complication, resulting in fatal pulmonary embolism, post thrombotic syndrome and recurrent thrombotic episodes. Guidelines developed by clinical organisations attempt to provide evidence-based recommendations to clinicians.
METHODS: This narrative review evaluated the current available literature in relation to the available guidelines, to evaluate whether the current major guidelines reflect the evidence base. All major clinical guidelines were collated through database searching, alongside the relevant clinical studies.
RESULTS: The promotion of a multi-modal approach, combining mechanical and chemical prophylaxis, does appear to be well validated, with mechanical prophylaxis offering positive clinical effects with little negative clinical consequence. Within the current guidelines surrounding VTE prevention in the elective-THA patient, there does appear to be a lack of prescription in relation to risk stratification and adopting personalised approaches for specific patient subsets.
CONCLUSIONS: We suggest moving away from protocolisation of VTE prevention, given the evidence base is not fully developed to allow a \'one-size-fits-all\' approach.

Periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) is a devastating complication in total hip and knee replacement. Its prevention is key to decrease the incidence and avoid some consequences that seriously impact patients and health systems. In view of the variety of recommendations and guidelines, we decided to conduct an expert, peer-reviewed European consensus analysis about the pre-, intra-, and postoperative prevention of PJI. A multinational group of practicing orthopedic experts developed a series of 47 consensus statements in 6 main groups of intervention, and a 2-stage Delphi approach was launched with a threshold for agreement at 75% and for very high agreement at more than 90%. A total of 306 orthopedic surgeon responses were gathered from 9 countries. Consensus was reached for 42/47 statements, 31/47 of which achieved a very high consensus. Many preoperative actions gathered strong consensus, although areas like the use of alcoholic chlorhexidine or the timing of hair removal did not attain strong consensus, despite available evidence. Intra- and postoperative actions showed more variability regarding incise drapes, skin suturing techniques, and wound follow-up. This study confirms an important consensus among orthopedic surgeons across Europe in many areas well known to contribute to the prevention of PJI; however, there are still grounds for improvement.

BACKGROUND: We assessed the practice of surgeons regarding venous thromboembolism (VTE) chemical prophylaxis for total hip replacement (THR) and total knee replacement (TKR), before and after issuing of updated National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance in 2018.
METHODS: A survey, circulated through the British Hip Society and regional trainee networks/collaboratives, was completed by 306 UK surgeons at 187 units. VTE chemical prophylaxis prescribing patterns for surgeons carrying out primary THR (n=258) and TKR (n=253) in low-risk patients was assessed after publication of 2018 NICE recommendations. Prescribing patterns before and after the NICE publication were subsequently explored.
RESULTS: Following the new guidance, 34% (n=87) used low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) alone, 33% (n=85) aspirin (commonly preceded by LMWH) and 31% (n=81) direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs: with/without preceding LMWH) for THR. For TKR, 42% (n=105) used aspirin (usually monotherapy), 31% (n=78) LMWH alone and 27% (n=68) DOAC (with/without preceding LMWH). NICE guidance changed the practice of 34% of hip surgeons and 41% of knee surgeons, with significantly increased use of aspirin preceded by LMWH for THR (before=25% vs after=73%; p<0.001), and aspirin for TKR (before=18% vs after=84%; p<0.001). Significantly more regimens were NICE guidance compliant after the 2018 update for THR (before=85.7% vs after=92.6%; p=0.011) and TKR (before=87.0% vs after=98.8%; p<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Over one-third of surveyed surgeons changed their VTE chemical prophylaxis in response to 2018 NICE recommendations, with more THR and TKR surgeons now compliant with latest NICE guidance. The major change in practice was an increased use of aspirin for VTE chemical prophylaxis.

UNASSIGNED: Primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) is a commonly performed and successful operation which orthopaedic trainees must demonstrate competence in prior to completion of surgical training. An assessment of agreement between surgical trainers regarding the critical steps of a primary THA has never been undertaken. The aim of this study was to define and rank the key steps of a primary THA regards ease of teaching and their importance in achieving the best patient outcome.
UNASSIGNED: The Delphi technique with 3 iterative rounds was used to establish expert group consensus. The benchmark for consensus was set at an 80% agreement in any category for each step of a THR. The intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to report on the inter- and intra-rater reliabilities between and within participants responses respectively in rounds 2 and 3.
UNASSIGNED: 50 consultant orthopaedic hip surgeons completed round 2, and 28 completed round 3. Overall, 27 steps (54 parameters) were identified, with 16 parameters achieving consensus agreement for their impact on patient outcome, and 17 for ease of teaching. The inter-rater ICC for patient outcome parameters was 0.89 and 0.92 in rounds 2 and 3 respectively while for teaching parameters it was 0.82 and 0.73. 50% of surgeons agreed that acetabular reaming, assessing and accurately restoring leg length, and acetabular cup anteversion were the 3 most difficult steps to teach trainees, while 90% agreed these 3 steps were substantially important to patient outcome. Another 5 steps achieved consensus for their substantial impact on patient outcome but failed to achieve consensus for ease of teaching.
UNASSIGNED: The results of this expert consensus have produced a rank-order list of the key steps in primary THA, which may be used for orthopaedic curriculum development and guiding focused improvements for surgical training in primary THR including simulation.

BACKGROUND: According to the National Hip Fracture Database (NHFD), in 2018 31.4% of patients with displaced intracapsular neck of femur (NOF) fracture who, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) viewed eligible for total hip replacement (THR), received this operation. We aimed to identify the compliance of performing THR for those patients in our unit and identify the reasons for proceeding with the alternative type of surgery.
METHODS: A five-year retrospective review of eligible patients was conducted between January 2014 and Dec 2018. Statistical analysis was performed between groups who did or didn\'t receive THR. Reasons for not performing THR were identified from pre-operative ward rounds notes.
RESULTS: In 2018 our unit performed THR for 44% of eligible cases. This was the highest result over five-years and higher than the national average. Out of the 348 eligible cases, pathological or undisplaced intracapsular fractures were excluded. Reminder received THR (138), hip hemiarthroplasty (166) or internal fixation (11). The average age was 77. Younger patients were more likely to receive THR than 80 years or older (p<0.05). THR group scored 0.4 points higher on AMTS and 0.2 lower on ASA scale then non-THR group (9.8 vs. 9.4 and 2.7 vs. 2.5 respectively). Mean time to surgery was 1.24 days with no significant difference between THR and non-THR group (1.6 vs. 1.1) but a slight delay to surgery during the weekends was noted (1.3 vs 1.8 days). Reasons for not performing THR were well documented as a combination of mobility restrictions and serious medical comorbidities. Retrospectively we judged the surgical decision making to be correct in 95% of cases.
CONCLUSIONS: Annual NHFD report comments on poor national and individual hospital\'s compliance with NICE guidelines without allowing surgeons to justify their choice of the procedure undertaken. Surgical decisions are made in a highly specialised multi-disciplinary environment taking into consideration individual patient\'s frailty and potential morbidity. Details of those discussions should be collected in NHFD to allow further analysis of reasons why surgeons decide not to offer THR to a patient NHFD views as eligible for this procedure. This could help in understanding the complex factors impacting on decision making in those cases.
METHODS: Level III.

暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: One of the most critical points in the planning of hip replacement surgeries is the selection of the implant, since its survival significantly impacts the patients health. However, the ideal survival time that an implant must prove to be selected has not been defined. The objective of this consensus is to define minimum performance standards for the selection of conventional primary hip replacement prosthesis.
METHODS: The consensus was carried out using the methodology of nominal group. This included: 1. A review of the available evidence and the issues to be evaluated, 2. Meeting for the vote and discussion, 3. Quantitative statistical analysis with median (M) and interquartile range (IQR) and qualitative one with proportions of the results to generate recommendations.
RESULTS: The primary source of information for prosthesis selection (M: 8; IQR: 7-9), choice in the event of conflicting evidence (M: 8; IQR: 7-9), or limited evidence in the literature (M: 7; IQR: 4.75-825) should be national registries. The minimum acceptable follow-up is 10 years (M: 9; IQR: 8-9) and the minimum acceptable survival is 90% at 10 years (M: 8; IQR: 5-8.5).
CONCLUSIONS: According to these results, the consensus of experts proposed that the selection of the implant for conventional primary hip replacement must be based on the information published in the national registries and that the prosthesis must have a minimum follow-up of 10 years and show a minimum survival of 90%.
UNASSIGNED: Uno de los puntos más críticos en la planeación de las artroplastías de cadera es la selección del implante, puesto que su supervivencia impacta significativamente la salud de los pacientes. Sin embargo, hasta el momento no se ha definido cuál es la supervivencia ideal que debe demostrar un implante para ser seleccionado. El objetivo de este consenso es definir los estándares mínimos de desempeño para la selección de prótesis en reemplazo primario convencional de cadera.
UNASSIGNED: El consenso se realizó mediante la metodología de «grupo nominal». Esto incluyó: 1. Revisión de la evidencia disponible y definición de los temas a evaluar, 2. Reunión para la votación y discusión y 3. Análisis estadístico cuantitativo con medianas (M) y rangos intercuartílicos (RIC) y cualitativo con proporciones de los resultados obtenidos para generar recomendaciones.
UNASSIGNED: La fuente primaria de información para la selección de prótesis (M: 8; RIC: 7-9) y de elección en caso de evidencia contradictoria (M: 8; RIC: 7-9) o limitada en la literatura (M: 7; RIC: 4.75-825) son los registros nacionales. El mínimo seguimiento aceptable es 10 años (M: 9; RIC: 8-9) y el mínimo de supervivencia aceptable es 90% a 10 años (M: 8; RIC: 5-8.5).
UNASSIGNED: De acuerdo con estos resultados, el consenso de expertos propone que la selección del implante en el reemplazo articular primario convencional de cadera se realice con base en la información publicada en los registros nacionales y que dicha prótesis tenga un seguimiento mínimo de 10 años y demuestre una supervivencia mínima de 90%.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of adult non-traumatic avascular necrosis of the femoral head (AVN; N-ANFH) within an estimated incidence of 5000-7000 cases per annum in Germany remains a challenge. Risk factors include steroids, alcohol abuse, chemotherapy and immunosuppressive medication, but a genetic predisposition has been suggested. Early diagnosis of this often bilateral disease process is essential for successful conservative or joint preserving surgical management. In this review, we present the update German consensus S3 guideline \"diagnosis and management for N-ANFH\" as a concise summary.
METHODS: This systematic review is based on the published literature from January 1, 1970 to April 31, 2013 (German and English language). Inclusion criteria were systematic reviews, meta-analyses and relevant peer review publications. We identified a total of 3715 related publications, of which 422 were suitable according to the SIGN criteria, but only 159 fulfilled our inclusion criteria.
CONCLUSIONS: Clinical suspicion of N-ANFH mandates radiographic evaluation. If radiographs are normal MRI scans are recommended, which should be evaluated according to the ARCO-classification. Differential diagnoses include transient osteoporosis, bone bruise, insufficiency fracture and destructive arthropathy. Untreated, subchondral fractures commonly occur within 2 years, during which the risk for contralateral involvement is high-thereafter unlikely. Conservative management with Ilomedin and Alendronat can be tried, but other pharmacological or physical treatments are inappropriate. No specific joint preserving procedure can be recommended, but core decompression should be considered in early stages if necrosis is <30 %. In ARCO stages IIIc or IV total hip arthroplasty (THA) should be contemplated, which offers similar outcome compared to osteoarthritis. Young age is the main risk factor for higher revision rates after THA for N-ANFH.