Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Sleep impairment following total hip arthroplasty (THA) is common and may decrease patient satisfaction and early recovery. Standardized postoperative recommendations for sleep disturbance have not been established. We aimed to assess whether melatonin use improves sleep quality and quantity in the acute period following THA. METHODS:Patients undergoing primary, elective THA between July 2021 and March 2024 were prospectively enrolled and randomized to receive either five mg of melatonin or a placebo nightly for 14 days postoperatively. Participants recorded nightly pain scores on the visual analog scale (VAS), the number of hours slept, and the number of nighttime awakenings in a sleep diary. Sleep disturbance was assessed preoperatively and on postoperative day (POD) 14 using the patient-reported outcome measurement information system sleep disturbance (PROMIS-SD) form. Epworth Sleepiness Scores (ESS) were collected to assess sleep quality and were the primary outcome of this study. Of the 139 patients who completed the study protocol, there were 64 patients in the placebo group and 75 patients in the melatonin group. RESULTS:Both groups demonstrated comparable postoperative ESS (melatonin: 6.0 ± 4.0; placebo: 6.8 ± 4.5, P = 0.35). Melatonin patients experienced significantly more hours slept on POD2 (6.5 ± 1.7; 5.7 ± 2.4, P = 0.017) and averaged over POD one to three (6.1 ± 1.6; 5.7 ± 2.0, P = 0.14), although this was not statistically significant. Fewer nighttime awakenings in the melatonin group were observed on POD two (2.7 ± 1.5; 3.1 ± 2.0, P = 0.28), although this was not statistically significant. The melatonin group demonstrated significantly lower postoperative PROMIS-SD scores (52.5 ± 9.3; 56.3 ± 9.2, P = 0.040). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Melatonin may not improve overall postoperative sleep quality following THA as measured by the ESS. Melatonin may promote sleep duration in the POD one to three period, although potential benefits wane after POD three. Melatonin is safe and can be considered for THA patients experiencing early postoperative sleep disturbance.

BACKGROUND:Cementless total knee arthroplasty (TKA) has recently regained popularity, yet data has raised concerns about rates of arthrofibrosis following these procedures. The purpose of this study was to utilize the American Joint Replacement Registry to compare rates of early manipulation under anesthesia (MUA) in cementless and cemented primary TKAs that use technology or manual instrumentation. METHODS:We queried the American Joint Replacement Registry for all patients ages 18 to 95 years who underwent cemented or cementless primary TKA over a 7-year period. Patients were stratified based on whether technology (robotics or computer-assisted navigation) was used during the primary surgery. Groups were then compared for rates of MUA within 90-day of the index surgery using multivariable logistic regression models. A total of 340,841 cases were included in the study, 78,397 (23%) of which used technology and 262,444 (77%) which did not. Within the technology cohort, there were 51,500 (65%) robotic and 26,897 (35%) navigated cases. There were 65% of technology-assisted TKAs and 92% of manual TKAs cemented. RESULTS:In the technology group, multivariable analysis demonstrated significantly higher odds of MUA in cemented TKAs compared to cementless (odds ratio [OR] 1.95, 95% confidence interval [CI] [1.06 to 3.59]; P = 0.031). Robotic cases had significantly higher odds of MUA with cemented compared to cementless implants (OR 2.38, 95% CI [1.27 to 4.46]; P = 0.007), while there was no difference in MUA related to cementation in the navigated cases (OR 3.53, 95% CI [0.48 to 25.95]; P = 0.22). In the manual group, there were no significant differences in MUA rates related to cementation use (OR 1.14, 95% CI [0.8 to 1.64]; P = 0.46). CONCLUSIONS:Cementless TKA did not increase odds of MUA. In further analyzing cement use into technology and manual cohorts, robotic-assisted cemented TKAs had higher rates of early MUA than cementless. Identification of risk factors leading to early arthrofibrosis may be patient dependent and further study is required to elucidate any surgical considerations.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Maintaining follow-up after total joint arthroplasty (TJA) is critical to monitor patient outcomes and complications. However, patient factors associated with follow-up compliance have not been described previously. This study aimed to characterize demographic and perioperative characteristics associated with TJA follow-up compliance. METHODS:This was a retrospective review of all primary, elective total hip and knee arthroplasty (THA and TKA) procedures at an urban, tertiary care center from 2011 to 2022. Patient follow-ups were categorized as early (0 to 90 days), mid-term (91 days to two years), and late-term (greater than two years). Patient characteristics, including age, sex, race, smoking status, spoken language, body mass index, income class, insurance type, distance from hospital, 90-day readmission, American Society of Anesthesia Status, and Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), were compared at each period, and logistic regression identified predictors of follow-up. RESULTS:In total, 2,836 TKA and 3,056 THA procedures were analyzed, with overall follow-up rates of 78.9 and 76.8%, respectively. Among all TJA patients, those who did not have follow-up were more likely to be younger, men, White, active smokers, live further from the hospital, and have lower CCIs. Uniquely, for TKA patients, higher income status predicted lower overall and early follow-up rates, while English-speaking predicted lower early and higher late follow-up rates in this subgroup. Differences between groups based on follow-up status decreased as follow-up time increased. Regression analyses showed loss to follow-up increased with increased distance from the hospital and current smoking. Uniquely, for THA, men predicted loss-to-follow-up. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Younger age, men, White race, higher income, current smoking, and increased distance from the hospital are associated with increased early, but not late, loss to follow-up after TJA. Future studies should assess the influence of other factors, including home support and telemedicine use, on follow-up rates.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:A two-stage revision has long been the gold standard for chronic periprosthetic joint infections (PJI), with real-component articulating spacers becoming overwhelmingly popular. While several studies have evaluated the success of these spacers in revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA), to our knowledge, this is the first to specifically compare outcomes of spacers stratified by the level of liner constraint. METHODS:This retrospective analysis reviewed 135 patients who were indicated for two-stage rTKA due to PJI between 2011 and 2023 at a single specialty urban academic institution. Patients were categorized into three groups based on the polyethylene liner constraint used during the first stage: cruciate retaining (CR), posterior stabilized (PS), and varus-valgus constrained (VVC). Of these 135 patients, 60 (44%) were categorized in the CR group, 47 (35%) were in the PS group, and 28 (21%) were in the VVC group. These groups were compared after each stage for peri- and postoperative outcomes such as operative time, length of stay (LOS), discharge disposition, knee range of motion (ROM), as well as incidence of re-revision and reinfection. RESULTS:The mean postoperative LOS was not different among cohorts for both stages. Operative time was significantly longer in the VVC group after the second stage (P = 0.007), while there was no difference after the first stage (P = 0.085). There were no differences in ROM after both stages. The mean ROM after the first stage was 92° in the CR group, 90° in the PS group, and 85° in the VVC group (P = 0.46). After the second stage, ROM was 101° in both the CR and VVC groups and 107° in the PS group (P = 0.28). There were no differences in the risk of re-revision due to re-infection across the groups after the first or second stage procedures. The re-infection incidence after the first stage was 14% in the VVC group, compared to 5% in the CR group and 4% in the PS group (P = 0.14). After the second stage, the reinfection risk was 21% in the VVC group, 8% in the CR group, and 13% in the PS group (P = 0.21). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:No significant differences were observed in the risk of complications such as re-infection, re-revisions, and postoperative ROM, suggesting that the choice of liner constraint in two-stage revision can be left up to surgeon's discretion.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:To our knowledge, outcomes of patients undergoing staged, bilateral total hip arthroplasty (THA) via dissimilar surgical approaches have not yet been investigated. This study examined demographics, implant selection, technology utilization, and component positioning between hips in patients who underwent one THA via posterior and one via direct anterior approach and secondarily evaluated patient-reported outcomes. METHODS:There were 36 patients (72 hips) who underwent staged, bilateral, primary, elective THAs via different approaches from January 2012 to December 2023. Patient demographics, intraoperative technology utilization, implants used, and pre- and postoperative Hip Dysfunction and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores for Joint Replacement (HOOS-JR) scores were recorded. The hip center of rotation, acetabular height and anteversion, and metaphyseal canal fill were measured on postoperative radiographs. Femoral stem coronal and sagittal plane angulation following both approaches were also compared on postoperative radiographs. RESULTS:There were 15 (41.7%) patients who underwent posterior THA first. The mean time between operations was five years (range, 0.93 to 10.2). Intraoperative technology utilization was more common for the anterior THA (P = 0.002). There were no significant differences in hip center of rotation (P = 0.292), acetabular anteversion (P = 0.428), or acetabular height (P = 0.935) between patients' anterior and posterior approach THAs. The proportion of patients who had posterior stem angulation was significantly greater following anterior THA; neutral stem angulation was seen more frequently following posterior THA (P = 0.005). Lipped liners (P < 0.001), high offset femoral stems (P = 0.007), and dual or triple-taper stems (P < 0.001) were more commonly utilized in posterior THAs. For patients who had pre- and postoperative HOOS-JR for each hip, there was no significant difference in postoperative score improvement between anterior and posterior THAs (P = 0.697), with a mean follow-up time of 2.4 years (range, 0.3 to 9.28) for posterior and 6.1 years (range, 2.8 to 10.3) for anterior THAs (P = 0.249). CONCLUSIONS:Patients undergoing staged, bilateral THAs via different surgical approaches exhibit radiographic characteristics likely attributable to technical challenges for each approach. However, these differences related to approach do not seem to impact short-term clinical and patient-reported outcomes.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Technology is increasingly incorporated into unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) through computer-assisted navigation (N-UKA) and robot-assisted surgery (R-UKA) to improve alignment, implant positioning, and gap balancing. Whether intraoperative technology helps achieve the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) in patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) compared to conventional UKA (C-UKA) remains unclear. This systematic review aimed to assess whether differences in PROMs between C-UKA and technology-assisted UKA reached MCID values. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:PubMed/MEDLINE/Cochrane Library were reviewed for studies comparing PROMs between primary C-UKA (control group) and N-UKA or R-UKA. Delta improvements were compared to established MCID values. Additional radiographic and clinical differences were assessed. The review yielded four (N=328) N-UKA and seven (N=526) R-UKA studies with C-UKA cohorts as controls. RESULTS:Differences in preoperative and postoperative PROMs were reported as statistically significant in three of four studies (75%) comparing N-UKA and C-UKA; however, none of the studies reported values that reached the MCID. Differences in preoperative and postoperative PROMs were reported as statistically significant in four of seven studies (57.1%) comparing R-UKA and C-UKA; however, only three of the studies (42.9%) reported values that reached the MCID. Improved radiographic outcomes for N-UKA and R-UKA were reported in 75% and 57.1% of studies, respectively. Only one study reported improved revision rates with R-UKA compared to C-UKA. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Though studies may report better improvements in PROMs in N-UKA and R-UKA compared to C-UKA, these often may not achieve clinical significance. Future studies should present outcome differences in the context of validated MCID as well as other metrics such as revision rates and radiographic outliers as the impetus for technology-assisted UKA.

BACKGROUND:A tourniquet is commonly used during total knee arthroplasty (TKA) to improve surgical field visibility and minimize blood loss. While the short-term effects of tourniquet use on postoperative outcomes have been studied extensively and found to be minimal, its influence on longer-term outcomes remains underexplored. This study examined tourniquet use in TKA with up to five-year follow-up. METHODS:In this post hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial, 227 patients who underwent primary TKA in the tourniquet (T) group (n = 112) or no tourniquet (NT) group (n = 115) were evaluated. Clinical outcomes and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were compared between the two groups. RESULTS:The T group had non-significant trends toward reduced blood loss (131.8 versus 116.7 ml, P = 0.098) and shorter operative time (97.8 versus 95.7 minutes, P = 0.264), with slightly higher postoperative day-one Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain scores (3.1 versus 3.6, P = 0.197). Length of stay (2.0 versus 2.1 days, P = 0.837) and home discharge rate (88.7 versus 92.0%, P = 0.340) were comparable. The NT group had three 90-day readmissions, while none occurred in the T group (2.7 versus 0%, P = 0.081). The active range of motion at the final follow-up was similar between groups (108.3 versus 106.5 degrees, P = 0.457). All-cause revision rates at five years were comparable between the NT and T groups (5.2 versus 3.6%, P = 0.546). Kaplan-Meier survivorship analysis revealed comparable aseptic implant survival at five years (P = 0.769). There were no significant differences in Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement (KOOS, JR), Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) pain intensity, PROMIS pain interference, or PROMIS physical health scores at three months, one year, and five years postoperatively. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Using a tourniquet during primary TKA was not associated with differences in clinical or patient-reported outcomes at up to five-year follow-up. These findings suggest that tourniquet use in TKA can be left to the surgeon's discretion.

BACKGROUND:Recent literature suggests a trend toward a higher comorbidity burden in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA). However, the impact of increased comorbidities on the cost-effectiveness of TKA is underexplored. This study aimed to compare the financial implications and perioperative outcomes of patients with and without a high comorbidity burden (HCB). METHODS:We retrospectively reviewed 10,647 patients who underwent elective, unilateral TKA between 2012 and 2021 at a single academic health center with available financial data. Patients were stratified into HCB (Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥ 5 and American Society of Anesthesiology scores of 3 or 4) and non-HCB groups. A 1:1 propensity match was performed based on baseline characteristics, resulting in 1,536 matched patients (768 per group). Revenue, costs, and contribution margins (CM) of the inpatient episode were compared between groups. Ninety-day readmissions and revisions were also analyzed. RESULTS:The HCB patients had significantly higher total (P < 0.001) and direct (P < 0.001) costs, while hospital revenue did not differ between cohorts (P = 0.638). This disparity resulted in a significantly decreased CM for the HCB group (P = 0.009). Additionally, HCB patients had a longer length of stay (P < 0.001) and a higher rate of 90-day readmissions (P = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS:Increased inpatient costs for HCB patients undergoing TKA were not offset by proportional revenue, leading to a decreased CM. Furthermore, higher 90-day readmissions exacerbate the financial burden. These findings highlight potential challenges for hospitals in covering indirect expenses, which could jeopardize accessibility to care for HCB patients. Reimbursement models should be revised to better account for the increased financial burden associated with managing HCB patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:III.

BACKGROUND:Obesity and diabetes mellitus (DM) pose challenges for patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) have emerged as agents for weight and DM management, but they affect multiple organ systems. Outcomes, trends, and demographics for perioperative GLP-1RA use in patients with TKA are not well understood. METHODS:A retrospective review of 13,751 primary, elective TKAs with at least 90 days of follow-up at an urban academic health system between 2012 and 2023 identified 865 patients who had perioperative GLP-1RA use. A 10:1 propensity score match based on sex, age, smoking status, American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, and body mass index created a control cohort of 8,650 TKAs with no GLP-1RA use. RESULTS:The use of GLP-1RAs varied significantly by race, Medicaid insurance, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and presence of DM. Black and Latino patients and those covered by Medicaid were significantly less likely to receive GLP-1RAs. The GLP-1RA group had significantly shorter length of stay (2.1 versus 2.5 days, P < 0.001) and a higher rate of home discharge (91.7 versus 84.2%, P < 0.001). The GLP-1RA users had significantly higher rates of 90-day emergency department visits (5.9 versus 4.0%, P = 0.008), but no differences in 90-day readmissions (4.3 versus 3.6%, P = 0.168) or 2-year revision (2.3 versus 2.6%, P = 0.362) compared to matched controls. The GLP-1RA patients had significantly lower all-cause revision rates at the last follow-up (2.7 versus 3.9%, P = 0.034), but there was no significant difference in Kaplan-Meier implant survival (P = 0.311). Before TKA, GLP-1RA patients had an average decrease in body mass index of 0.4, compared to an average increase of 1.2 for matched controls. CONCLUSIONS:Our results demonstrate that the use of GLP-1RAs is significantly lower for minority patients and those covered by Medicaid. Patients using GLP-1RAs have noninferior clinical outcomes with the potential for weight loss leading up to TKA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:III.