Healthcare providers report multiple barriers impeding non-pharmacological, non-surgical care for patients with knee and hip OA. To overcome these barriers, education focused on initiating and supporting lifestyle changes, promotion of interventions according to evidence-based recommendations, and improved organization of care are proposed.

Objective Conservative treatment modalities in osteoarthritis (OA) of the hip or knee are underused, whereas the demand for surgery is rising substantially. To improve the use of conservative treatment modalities, a more in‐depth understanding of the reasons for patients’ treatment choices is required. This study identifies the reasons for choice of treatment in patients with hip or knee OA. Methods Semistructured in‐depth interviews with 24 OA patients were held. Stratified purposive sampling was used to enrich data variation. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and subsequently coded using a thematic approach. Two independent researchers reflected on, compared, discussed, and adjusted the coding. Results Various treatment modalities were discussed by respondents: medication, exercise, physical therapy, injections, surgery, complementary, and alternative treatment. Four key themes underlying the choice for or against a treatment modality for OA were identified: 1) treatment characteristics: expectations about its effectiveness and risks, the degree to which it can be personalized to a patient's needs and wishes, and the accessibility of a treatment; 2) personal investment in terms of money and time; 3) personal circumstances: age, body weight, comorbidities, and previous experience with a treatment; and 4) support and advice from the patient's social environment and health care providers. Conclusion The 4 identified key themes enhance the insight of health care providers into the widespread reasons influencing patients’ treatment choices for knee or hip OA. This knowledge can be used in clinical practice to aid shared decision making, which may lead to optimized treatment choices for both conservative and surgical treatment.

To investigate the effect of implant type after direct contamination, a hydroxyapatite-coated or noncoated Ti-6A1-4V implant was inserted into both tibiae of 32 New Zealand White rabbits. Prior to implantation, the left tibia was contaminated with increasing concentrations of Staphylococcus aureus (10(2)-10(5) colony-forming units), ranging from very low (10(2)) to relatively high (10(5)). Four weeks after implantation, half of the tibial bone adjacent to the implant was harvested for bacteriological examination. Bacterial counts were quantified by plating serial dilutions. For the histological evaluation, sections of the implant with the remaining tibia were examined by semiquantitative scoring of infection parameters. The bacteriological data showed the inoculum dose and implant type to have a significant effect on the culture outcome: more bacteria were retrieved from the hydroxyapatite-coated implants than from the noncoated titanium implants. Histological evaluation showed an increased score for the infected left tibiae compared with their contralateral control. In addition, with increasing inoculum dosage, the difference between the two types of implant increased. We demonstrated that infections can occur with biocompatible, noncemented implants and that they are related to the dose of the original inoculum. Bacteria were more likely to grow onto or next to the hydroxyapatite implants than on titanium implants and resulted in a more severe histopathological characterization of infection.

A study was designed to investigate the osseointegration of titanium implants, either noncoated or coated with hydroxyapatite (HA), into rabbit tibiae in the presence of local infection compared with osseointegration in the absence of local infection. HA-coated or noncoated Ti cylinders were implanted into both tibiae of 32 rabbits (New Zealand Whites). Before implantation the left tibia was contaminated with different quantities of Staphylococcus aureus (10(2)-10(5) CFU). Four weeks after surgery the tibiae were explanted and prepared for microbiological and histomorphometrical examination. Histomorphometrical data, as a representation of implant fixation, were obtained by measuring the percentage of bone around the implants (within a radius of 1 mm from the outer diameter of the implants) and the percentage of the circumference of the implant that was in direct contact with bone. Histomorphometry revealed, in particular for the HA implants, a relationship between the inoculum concentration and/or the presence or absence of infection with the bone contact at the distal implant side. This confirms a relationship between peri-implant infection and bone contact or remodeling. HA-coated implants developed, in the presence of bacteria, more easily a more severe infection than noncoated Ti implants, and we show in the present study that local infection will influence histomorphometrical parameters (bone-implant contact) that determine implant fixation. Precautions to prevent contamination (asepsis) and/or infection (perioperative antibiotics) are even more important for the highly biocompatible HA-coated implant.

Diagnostic Level III.