Aims: In the UK, the NHS generates an estimated 25 megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents (4% to 5% of the nation’s total carbon emissions) and produces over 500,000 tonnes of waste annually. There is limited evidence demonstrating the principles of sustainability and its benefits within orthopaedic surgery. The primary aim of this study was to analyze the environmental impact of orthopaedic surgery and the environmentally sustainable initiatives undertaken to address this. The secondary aim of this study was to describe the barriers to making sustainable changes within orthopaedic surgery.Methods: A literature search was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines through EMBASE, Medline, and PubMed libraries using two domains of terms: “orthopaedic surgery” and “environmental sustainability”.Results: A total of 13 studies were included in the final analysis. All papers studied the environmental impact of orthopaedic surgery in one of three areas: waste management, resource consumption, and carbon emissions. Waste segregation was a prevalent issue and described by nine studies, with up to 74.4% of hazardous waste being generated. Of this, six studies reported recycling waste and up to 43.9% of waste per procedure was recyclable. Large joint arthroplasties generated the highest amount of recyclable waste per procedure. Three studies investigated carbon emissions from intraoperative consumables, sterilization methods, and through the use of telemedicine. One study investigated water wastage and demonstrated that simple changes to practice can reduce water consumption by up to 63%. The two most common barriers to implementing environmentally sustainable changes identified across the studies was a lack of appropriate infrastructure and lack of education and training.Conclusion: Environmental sustainability in orthopaedic surgery is a growing area with a wide potential for meaningful change. Further research to cumulatively study the carbon footprint of orthopaedic surgery and the wider impact of environmentally sustainable changes is necessary. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(8):628–640.

Background: With over 2.35 million records, the National Joint Registry (NJR) is the largest arthroplasty registry in the world. It provides a powerful tool to monitor implant survivorship and influence different surgical strategies. To date, little work has been undertaken to investigate the validity of the ‘Reason for Revision’ recorded in Consultant Outcome Reports on the NJR. Methods: The NJR was queried to identify all revisions on the THR performed at a single centre over an 11-year period. Review and validation of ‘Reason for Revision’ for each case was undertaken using radiological imaging studies, pathology, histology, microbiology and electronic medical records. Results: Of the 22,046 primary total hip replacements (THR) and total knee replacements (TKR) undertaken by 23 surgeons at our hospital, over an 11-year period, 1.35% (297) were subsequently reported to the NJR as revised. Discrepancies in reporting to the NJR were identified for 41 cases (25.63%) for THR and 28 (20.40%) cases for TKR. Revision for infection was under-reported for both THR and TKR by 1.88% and 3.65% respectively. Reporting of adverse soft tissue reaction to particulate debris for THR was unreported by 11%. Progressive arthritis following a TKR was unreported by 6.56%. All the cases reported as ‘other’ (8.75% for THRs and 3.65% for TKRs) were reclassified to the most appropriate ‘reason for revision’ category. The ‘reason for revision’ data is recorded to the NJR with findings at the time of surgery. It is some days before microbiology and histology reports become available and source data is not always updated. Conclusion: If an average of 23% wrong data entry at a highly organised institution is replicated throughout the UK, a formal process to validate primary and revision data submitted to the NJR should be considered. Local scrutiny, review and validation of revision data are all vital to optimise the value of the NJR. Accurate data recorded to the NJR is imperative to provide safe and effective improvements in orthopaedic surgery.

Aims: The aims of this study were to assess mapping models to predict the three-level version of EuroQoL five-dimension utility index (EQ-5D-3L) from the Oxford Knee Score (OKS) and validate these before and after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Methods: A retrospective cohort of 5,857 patients was used to create the prediction models, and a second cohort of 721 patients from a different centre was used to validate the models, all of whom underwent TKA. Patient characteristics, BMI, OKS, and EQ-5D-3L were collected preoperatively and one year postoperatively. Generalized linear regression was used to formulate the prediction models. Results: There were significant correlations between the OKS and EQ-5D-3L preoperatively ( r = 0.68; p < 0.001) and postoperatively ( r = 0.77; p < 0.001) and for the change in the scores ( r = 0.61; p < 0.001). Three different models (preoperative, postoperative, and change) were created. There were no significant differences between the actual and predicted mean EQ-5D-3L utilities at any timepoint or for change in the scores (p > 0.090) in the validation cohort. There was a significant correlation between the actual and predicted EQ-5D-3L utilities preoperatively ( r = 0.63; p < 0.001) and postoperatively ( r = 0.77; p < 0.001) and for the change in the scores ( r = 0.56; p < 0.001). Bland-Altman plots demonstrated that a lower utility was overestimated, and higher utility was underestimated. The individual predicted EQ-5D-3L that was within ± 0.05 and ± 0.010 (minimal clinically important difference (MCID)) of the actual EQ-5D-3L varied between 13% to 35% and 26% to 64%, respectively, according to timepoint assessed and change in the scores, but was not significantly different between the modelling and validation cohorts (p ≥ 0.148). Conclusion: The OKS can be used to estimate EQ-5D-3L. Predicted individual patient utility error beyond the MCID varied from one-third to two-thirds depending on timepoint assessed, but the mean for a cohort did not differ and could be employed for this purpose. Cite this article: Bone Jt Open 2022;3(7):573–581.

The Oxford Knee Score (OKS) is a patient-reported outcome questionnaire typically used to assess function and pain in patients undergoing total knee replacement (TKR). However, research is inconclusive as to which preoperative factors are important in explaining variation in outcome following TKR. The operative records of 12,709 patients who underwent primary TKR over a 9-year period were analyzed. The following variables were collected for each patient: age, sex, body mass index (BMI), Index of Multiple Deprivation decile rank, side of operation, diagnosis, the American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) grade, preoperative OKS, EQ-5D index score, EuroQol visual analog scale (EQ-VAS) score, the postoperative OKS at 1 and 2 years. Generalized linear regression models were performed at 1 and 2 years to investigate the effect of the preoperative variables on the postoperative OKS. The effect of age, sex, BMI, Index of Multiple Deprivation decile rank, diagnosis, ASA grade, preoperative OKS, EuroQoL five-dimensional (EQ-5D) index score, and EQ-VAS score were all statistically significant in explaining the variation in OKS at 1 and 2 years postoperatively, with critical level of significance of 0.05 (5%). Being male aged 60 to 69 years of normal BMI, ASA grade I (fit and healthy), living in an affluent area, not reporting preoperative anxiety/depression, were associated with an enhanced mean postoperative OKS at both 1 and 2 years. When adjusted for potential confounding, age of 60–69 years, male sex, normal BMI, lower ASA grade, higher Index of Multiple Deprivation and higher pre-operative EQ-5D, EQ-VAS and OKS were identified as factors that resulted in higher post-operative OKS after primary TKR.