Faculty Bibliography

Osteoarthritis of the hip and knee is known to affect sexual activity. For patients with osteoarthritis, pain during sexual activity can lead to decreased quality of life and other associated health issues. The authors designed a prospective study to evaluate the effect of total hip arthroplasty and total knee arthroplasty on the psychosocial and physical aspects of sexuality pre- and postoperatively. Between April 2009 and December 2011, patients received questionnaires in the mail preoperatively. They were asked to return the pre-operative questionnaire before surgery and the postoperative questionnaire 6 months after surgery. Data were analyzed to evaluate the psychosocial and physical aspects of sexuality and participants' subjective assessment of their appearance. Preoperatively, 91% and 67% of patients reported psychosocial and physical issues, respectively. After the arthroplasty procedure, 84% (P<.001) and 47% (P<.001) of patients reported improvement psychosocially and physically, respectively. Of the patients, 16% reported that arthroplasty adversely affected sexual function, with their predominant fear being joint damage (63%). A greater number of women and patients undergoing hip procedures reported improvement in sexual activity after surgery compared with men (P=.02) and patients undergoing knee procedures (P=.002). Both hip and knee osteoarthritis and arthroplasty had a significant effect on overall sexual function-psychosocially, physically, and in terms of patients' assessment of their external appearance-with higher rates of improvement seen after hip arthroplasty. Because of the effect of osteoarthritis and arthroplasty on sexual function, this topic should be addressed both pre- and postoperatively. [Orthopedics. 2021;44(x):xx-xx.].

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:There has been an increase in the use of unlinked constrained condylar knee (CCK) prostheses in primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA) for cases with significant deformities that cannot be adequately balanced in flexion and extension. However, the literature on its outcomes is limited. The goal of this study is to evaluate whether there are any clinic or radiographic outcome differences for a primary, non-stemmed, unlinked constrained TKA as compared to a control group of posterior-stabilized (PS) TKA using the same implant design. METHODS:Clinical and radiographic outcome measures for 404 cemented, non-stemmed, primary TKAs performed by two surgeons at the same institution were retrospectively reviewed. All patients underwent primary, non-stemmed components; 241 used CCK inserts and 163 used PS inserts. Preoperative deformity, knee society scores (KSS), range-of-motion (ROM), radiographic data and revision rates were compared between the CCK and PS groups. RESULTS:Both groups had comparable demographics and preoperative ROM and KSS. At similar mean follow-up times (6.1 ± 1.0 years for the CCK group and 6.3 ± 1.2 years for the PS group), no significant difference was found in ROM, KSS or radiographic outcomes. Revision rates were higher for the CCK group (2%) as compared to the HF-PS (0.6%) group (n.s). CONCLUSIONS:The particular design of cemented, primary, non-stemmed, unlinked CCK-TKA examined in this study provided similar clinical and radiographic outcomes to that of PS-TKA at midterm follow-up. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:III.

Introduction/UNASSIGNED:The epidemiology of re-revision total hip arthroplasty (THA) is not yet well-understood. We aim to investigate the epidemiology and risk-factors that are associated with re-revision THA. Methods/UNASSIGNED:288 revision THA were analyzed between 1/2012 and 12/2013. Patients who underwent two or greater revision THA were included. Hips with first-revision due to periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) were excluded. Failure was defined as reoperation. Results/UNASSIGNED:51 re-revision patients were available. Mean age was 59.6 (±14.2 years), 32 (67%) females, average BMI of 28.8 (±5.4), and median ASA 2 (23; 55%). The most common re-revision indications were acetabular component loosening (15; 29%), PJI (13; 25%) and instability (9; 18%). The most common indications for first revision in the re-revision population were acetabular component loosening (11; 27%), polyethylene wear (8; 19%) and instability (8; 19%). There was an increased risk of re-revision failure if the re-revision involved exchanging only the head and polyethylene liner (RR = 1.792; p = 0.017), instability was the first-revision indication (RR = 3.000; p < 0.001), and instability was the re-revision indication (RR = 1.867; p = 0.038). If isolated femoral component revision was indicated during the re-revision, there was a decreased risk of failure (RR = 0.268, p = 0.046). 1-year re-revision survival was 54% (23/43). Discussion/UNASSIGNED:Acetabular component loosening, instability, and PJI were the most common indications for re-revision. Revision due to instability is a recurrent problem that leads to re-revision failure. There was a higher infection rate in the re-revision population compared to published revision PJI. A better understanding of the indications and patient factors that are associated with re-revision failures can help align surgeon and patient expectations in this challenging population.

BACKGROUND:Nonmodular and modular femoral stems have been associated with complications after revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA). As such, the ideal femoral component for rTHA remains undecided. This study aims to report outcomes of titanium, tapered-fluted, modular and nonmodular femoral components in rTHA. METHODS:From January 1, 2013 to September 30, 2017, all rTHAs using modular or nonmodular femoral stems were identified. Demographic data including age, gender, and American Society of Anesthesiologists scores were collected. Surgical details including operative time and implant cost were also collected. Clinical outcomes including length of stay, dislocation, infection, fracture, reoperation, and re-revision were collected. Statistical analysis was performed using chi-square test and Student's t-test for all categorical and continuous variables, respectively. RESULTS:One hundred forty-six rTHA cases (103 modular and 43 nonmodular) were identified with an average follow-up of 29 months (range 3-59 months). Nonmodular stems had a significantly lower cost when compared to modular implants (modular stems 120.8% higher cost; P < .001). The surgical time of nonmodular components was significantly greater (193 minutes vs 163 minutes; P = .029). There were no differences observed in any other surgical details or clinical outcomes assessed, including length of stay (P = .323), rate of re-revision of the femoral implant (P = .389), rate of re-operation (P = .383), and postop complications (P = .241), including infection (P = .095), dislocation (P = .778), and fracture (P = .959). CONCLUSIONS:Nonmodular components provide encouraging clinical results with significantly lower costs compared to modular implants in rTHA. The use of titanium, tapered-fluted, nonmodular components may offer a more cost-effective approach to rTHA compared to their modular counterparts.

A comprehensive strategy is important for ensuring reproducible and safe acetabular component sizing and positioning. Presented here is our approach for anatomic acetabular component positioning in direct anterior total hip arthroplasty. This strategy has evolved with our understanding of the ramifications of socket sizing and positioning on instability and impingement. Data collected by a single surgeon (J.A.R.) between 2009 and 2011 influenced our current paradigm. We compare the sizing and positioning parameters of the anterior and posterior approach, thus demonstrating how the 2 are different. By highlighting these differences, we hope to provide a clear, defined approach to acetabular placement and sizing for direct anterior-approach total hip arthroplasty.

Introduction/objectives: Nonmodular and modular femoral stems have been associated with complications following revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA). This study aims to report outcomes of modular and nonmodular femoral components in rTHA. Methods: From January 1st, 2013 to September 30th, 2017, all rTHAs using modular or nonmodular femoral stems were identified. Demographic data including age, gender, American Anesthesiology Society (ASA) score. Surgical details including operative time, length of implant, and implant cost were collected. Clinical outcomes including length of stay (LOS), dislocation, infection, fracture, femoral implant re-revision, reoperation, and mortality were also collected. Simple linear regression analysis and sub-analysis using multivariable logistic regression were performed. Results: Of 247 rTHA cases identified, 136 (55.1%) cases utilized modular stems while 111 (44.9%) cases utilized nonmodular components. The average follow-up was 15.5 months (range 0.5-59 months). Nonmodular stems had a significantly lower cost when compared to modular implants (54.3% of modular cost; p<0.001). There were no differences appreciated in cohort demographics including age (p=0.831), gender (p=0.459), and ASA (p=0.053). In addition, there were no differences observed in the surgical details or clinical outcomes assessed, including operative time (p=0.386), LOS (p=0.638), and rates of re-revision of the femoral implant (p=0.327), re-operation (p=0.410), and post-op complications including, infection (p=0.322), dislocation (p=0.687), fracture (p=0.528), and mortality (p=0.446). Conclusion: The use of distal fixation, tapered-fluted, titanium nonmodular components may offer a more costeffective approach to rTHA compared to their modular counterparts

Obesity is an epidemic in the health care system. Obesity poses several challenges and raises unique issues for the arthroplasty surgeon. Obese patients are at higher risk for infection and dislocation. Additionally, obese patients have poorer implant survivorship and functional scores postoperatively. Obesity is a modifiable risk factor and weight loss preoperatively should be strongly considered. Obese patients must be counseled so that they have realistic expectations after total joint arthroplasty.

Introduction/UNASSIGNED:The rotating hinge prosthesis was originally used and designed as a primary total knee arthroplasty implant, but was hampered due to poor outcomes and catastrophic failures. Newer rotating hinge implants can be utilized in complex revision total knee arthroplasties when appropriately indicated, but their outcome data is very difficult to interpret due to the strict and varied indications for use and subsequently small number of procedures performed. The goal of this review is to evaluate the current evidence on large cohort, rotating hinge knee prostheses used in the revision setting, in order to provide a clearer understanding of the indications, outcomes and complications. Methods/UNASSIGNED:The PubMed database was utilized to search the available literature regarding "hinged knee," or "rotating hinge" devices. Exclusion criteria included papers focusing on primary arthroplasty, revision for oncologic issues, one-stage revision for infection or studies with less than fifty cases. Results/UNASSIGNED:Review of 115 abstracts after initial search, led to ten studies in the literature that met our inclusion and exclusion criteria. The data shows that rotating hinge knee implants have good survivorship ranging from 51% to 92.5% at 10 years post-operatively. Complication rates range from 9.2% to 63% with infection and aseptic loosening as the most common complications. Conclusion/UNASSIGNED:Rotating hinge knee prostheses are most commonly indicated for infection, aseptic loosening, instability and bone loss in the literature. They have good outcome scores and survivorship, but continue to have high complication and revision rates. The implant is a good option when utilized appropriately for patients that are not candidates for less constrained devices.

PURPOSE: The use of unlinked constrained condylar components (CCK) has been extended to primary total knee arthroplasty (TKA); however, there is limited literature on its outcomes. The purpose of this retrospective cohort study was to assess clinical outcomes of one particular design of primary, non-stemmed, unlinked constrained TKA and to compare them with a control group of PS-TKA utilizing the same implant design. METHODS: The clinical and radiographic outcomes of 486-cemented, non-stemmed, primary TKA's performed by two surgeons at one institution using similar surgical algorithm, technique and prosthetic design were retrospectively reviewed. Primary TKA components were used in all knees; the only difference between groups was the type of polyethylene inserts used (CCK vs PS). Pre-operative deformity, knee society scores (KSS), range-of-motion (ROM), radiographic data and revision rates were compared. RESULTS: Both groups had comparable demographics, pre-operative coronal plane alignment, ROM and KSS. At a mean follow-up of 3.5 years, no difference was found in ROM, KSS, radiographic outcomes and revision rates. CONCLUSIONS: Cemented, primary, non-stemmed CCK-TKA offered comparable clinico-radiographic results to PS-TKA at short-term follow-up. Use of a semi-constrained insert without additional stems did not predispose to failure due to aseptic loosening with this implant design. Moreover, the rate of revision due to instability was lowered. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Retrospective cohort study, Level III.