Aims To identify a suite of the key physical, emotional, and social outcomes to be employed in clinical practice and research concerning Perthes' disease in children. Methods The study follows the guidelines of the COMET-Initiative (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials). A systematic review of the literature was performed to identify a list of outcomes reported in previous studies, which was supplemented by a qualitative study exploring the experiences of families affected by Perthes’ disease. Collectively, these outcomes formed the basis of a Delphi survey (two rounds), where 18 patients with Perthes’ disease, 46 parents, and 36 orthopaedic surgeons rated each outcome for importance. The International Perthes Study Group (IPSG) (Dallas, Texas, USA (October 2018)) discussed outcomes that failed to reach any consensus (either ‘in’ or ‘out’) before a final consensus meeting with representatives of surgeons, patients, and parents. Results In total, 23 different outcome domains were identified from the systematic review, and a further ten from qualitative interviews. After round one of the Delphi survey, participants suggested five further outcome domains. A total of 38 outcomes were scored in round two of the Delphi. Among these, 16 outcomes were scored over the prespecified 70% threshold for importance (divided into six main categories: adverse events; life impact; resource use; pathophysiological manifestations; death; and technical considerations). Following the final consensus meeting, 14 outcomes were included in the final Core Outcome Set (COS). Conclusion Core Outcome Sets (COSs) are important to improve standardization of outcomes in clinical research and to aid communication between patients, clinicians, and funding bodies. The results of this study should be a catalyst to develop high-quality clinical research in order to determine the optimal treatments for children with Perthes’ disease. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(5):611–617.

Aims The aim of this study was to investigate whether the use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement influenced the risk of revision surgery after primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) for osteoarthritis. Methods The study involved data collected by the National Joint Registry (NJR) for England and Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man between 1 September 2005 and 31 August 2017. Cox proportional hazards were used to investigate the association between use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement and the risk of revision due to prosthetic joint infection (PJI), with adjustments made for the year of the initial procedure, age at the time of surgery, sex, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) grade, head size, and body mass index (BMI). We looked also at the association between use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement and the risk of revision due to aseptic loosening or osteolysis. Results The cohort included 418,857 THAs of whom 397,896 had received antibiotic-loaded bone cement and 20,961 plain cement. After adjusting for putative confounding factors, the risk of revision for PJI was lower in those in whom antibiotic-loaded bone cement was used (hazard ration (HR) 0.79; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64 to 0.98). There was also a protective effect on the risk of revision due to aseptic loosening or osteolysis, in the period of > 4.1 years after primary THA, HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.45, 0.72. Conclusion Within the limits of registry analysis, this study showed an association between the use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement and lower rates of revision due to PJI. The findings support the continued use of antibiotic-loaded bone cement in cemented THA. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(8):997–1002.

Aims The aim of this modified Delphi process was to create a structured Revision Hip Complexity Classification (RHCC) which can be used as a tool to help direct multidisciplinary team (MDT) discussions of complex cases in local or regional revision networks. Methods The RHCC was developed with the help of a steering group and an invitation through the British Hip Society (BHS) to members to apply, forming an expert panel of 35. We ran a mixed-method modified Delphi process (three rounds of questionnaires and one virtual meeting). Round 1 consisted of identifying the factors that govern the decision-making and complexities, with weighting given to factors considered most important by experts. Participants were asked to identify classification systems where relevant. Rounds 2 and 3 focused on grouping each factor into H1, H2, or H3, creating a hierarchy of complexity. This was followed by a virtual meeting in an attempt to achieve consensus on the factors which had not achieved consensus in preceding rounds. Results The expert group achieved strong consensus in 32 out of 36 factors following the Delphi process. The RHCC used the existing Paprosky (acetabulum and femur), Unified Classification System, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification systems. Patients with ASA grade III/IV are recognized with a qualifier of an asterisk added to the final classification. The classification has good intraobserver and interobserver reliability with Kappa values of 0.88 to 0.92 and 0.77 to 0.85, respectively. Conclusion The RHCC has been developed through a modified Delphi technique. RHCC will provide a framework to allow discussion of complex cases as part of a local or regional hip revision MDT. We believe that adoption of the RHCC will provide a comprehensive and reproducible method to describe each patient’s case with regard to surgical complexity, in addition to medical comorbidities that may influence their management. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(5):423–431.

No abstract

No abstract