Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To investigate the change in patient-reported pain after percutaneous skeletal fixation (PSF) and to determine the success rate of PSF in the prevention of additional intervention for the treatment of painful subchondral bone marrow edema (SBME) of the knee over a 2-year postoperative period. METHODS:This was a retrospective, single-surgeon analysis of patients undergoing PSF for painful, atraumatic SBME of the knee confirmed on preoperative magnetic resonance imaging with a minimum 2-year follow-up. Inclusion criteria were age >18 years, pain localized to the area of edema, failure of nonsurgical intervention (4 weeks of physical therapy and non-steroidal medication use), and absence of tricompartmental Kellgren-Lawrence grade 4 osteoarthritis. All patients underwent arthroscopy, followed by isolated PSF without additional chondral procedures. Pre- and postoperative visual analog scale scores were compared. The primary outcome measure of success was defined as a lack of additional intervention. This included viscosupplementation, corticosteroid injection, or conversion to arthroplasty. RESULTS: = .001). CONCLUSIONS:Patients undergoing PSF for the treatment of painful SBME may expect a decrease in knee pain and low rates of additional intervention over a 2-year postoperative period. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Level IV; Therapeutic Case Series.

BACKGROUND:The number of primary total elbow arthroplasties (TEAs) performed is increasing annually, necessitating a rise in the number of revision procedures. No studies exist to illustrate reliable indications for revision arthroplasty. The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of the etiology of primary TEA failure on the failure rate of revision surgery. METHODS:We retrospectively analyzed the patient charts of all revision TEAs performed at a single institution between 2006 and 2016. The primary outcome was revision failure, defined as the need for a second revision surgical procedure. Patients were organized into cohorts by etiology of primary implant failure. Failure rates, time to second revision, and average number of additional revisions were compared among cohorts. RESULTS:A total of 46 patients with a mean age of 62.7 years and minimum 2-year follow-up were included. The etiologies of failure identified were infection (n = 20), aseptic loosening (n = 17), periprosthetic fracture (n = 6), and bushing wear (n = 3). All noninfectious etiologies were grouped into an additional cohort. Patients who underwent revision for infection demonstrated a significantly greater failure rate and greater number of additional revisions per patient than those with aseptic loosening, those with periprosthetic fracture, and the noninfectious group, as well as a shorter time to failure than the noninfectious group. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Patients in whom primary TEA fails because of infection are more likely to experience revision failure and require a greater number of subsequent operations than patients with other etiologies of primary TEA failure. These data question the efficacy of revision surgery in the treatment of infected TEAs.