Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Vancouver B2 and B3 periprosthetic femur fractures (PPFF) have posed significant treatment challenges due to stem instability and lack of adequate femoral bone stock. This study investigated subsidence, survivorship, and outcomes of Vancouver B2 and B3 fractures, based on the order in which revision stem placement and fracture reduction occurred during revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA). METHODS:This retrospective, cohort study included 46 rTHAs between June 2011 and April 2023. Included patients underwent rTHA for Vancouver B2 or B3 PPFF with minimum one-year radiographic and two-year clinical follow-up. All patients were treated with diaphyseal-engaging tapered fluted titanium stems and stem modularity decisions were based on surgeon preference. Cohorts were separated based on if stem placement (SF, n = 19), or fracture reduction (RF, n = 27) occurred first. Patient demographics, intraoperative information, and clinical and radiographic outcomes were collected. RESULTS:The SF and RF cohort showed no statistically significant differences in rate of subsidence ≥5 mm [26.3%[SF], 22.2%[RF], P = 0.749), rate of subsidence ≥ 10 mm (15.8%[SF], 14.8%[RF], P = 0.928), nor average subsidence (4.1 mm[SF], 4.4 mm[RF], P = 0.861). We found no statistically significant differences in surgery-related clinical outcomes or all-cause revision rates within a two-year follow-up period. The groups demonstrated comparable rates of procedure-related 90-day emergency department visits(P = 0.370) and readmissions(P = 0.712). The SF group underwent four revisions for three PJIs and one acetabular component aseptic loosening. The RF cohort underwent four revisions for one acetabular component aseptic loosening, one dislocation, one PPFF, and one PJI. Rates of all-cause revision were comparable(P = 0.583). There was one case within the RF cohort to explant the trochanteric plate with no revision of arthroplasty components. CONCLUSIONS:The present analysis suggests the order in which intraoperative femoral stem implantation and fracture reduction occurs does not affect short-term clinical and radiographic outcomes. This intraoperative decision should be based upon patient anatomy, fracture patterns, and surgeon discretion.

BACKGROUND:Solid organ transplant (SOT) patients undergoing total joint arthroplasty (TJA) may be at higher risk for complications due to complex medical and surgical histories, chronic immunosuppressive medications, and significant ongoing comorbidities. This study aimed to evaluate postoperative outcomes following primary, elective TJA in patients with a history of SOT. METHODS:We retrospectively reviewed 53,043 primary, elective TJA patients from 2011 to 2025. Patients were screened for SOT history prior to TJA. All SOT patients were taking some form of immunosuppressive medication following their transplantation. Demographics, SOT details, and surgical data were obtained. SOT patients (n = 70) underwent a nearest-neighbor 1:3 propensity-score matching to non-SOT (NSOT) controls (n = 210) based on age, sex, smoking, Charlson Comorbidity Index, body-mass index, and TJA indication. Kidney transplants were most common (61.4%), followed by liver (24.3%), and heart (8.6%). Differences in surgical outcomes and postoperative complications between the patients were investigated using Chi-squared tests, independent t-tests and effect size (ES) estimates. Baseline characteristics did not differ between the groups (P > 0.05). RESULTS:SOT patients had significantly longer hospital stays (92 vs. 51 h, P < 0.001, ES = 0.82), higher rates of discharge to skilled nursing facilities (SNF) (15.7% vs. 5.7%, P = 0.014, ES = 0.17) and all-cause 90 day readmissions (15.7% vs. 6.7%, P = 0.040, ES = 0.12), primarily driven by non-surgical reasons (14.3% vs. 4.3%, P = 0.010, ES = 0.16) compared to NSOT patients. All-cause revision rates were comparable between SOT and NSOT patients (4.3% vs. 3.8%, P = 0.999), including aseptic (2.9% vs. 1.9%, P = 0.642) and septic causes (1.4% vs. 1.9%, P = 0.999). CONCLUSIONS:Despite higher rates of SNF discharge and non-surgical 90 day readmissions, SOT patients achieved similar all-cause, septic, and aseptic revision rates, compared to NSOT patients. These findings suggest that compared to well-matched comorbid controls, SOT patients can safely undergo elective TJA with comparable revision risk. Enhanced perioperative care may help reduce readmission risks in this complex population.

BACKGROUND:Management of severe acetabular bone loss during revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) remains challenging. Cup-cage constructs and custom triflange acetabular components are commonly used, but comparative outcomes remain poorly defined. METHODS:This meta-analysis was performed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. There were four electronic databases searched for studies published from 2015 to 2025 that reported outcomes of cup-cage or custom triflange reconstruction in patients who had Paprosky 2 to 3B acetabular defects. Indications for cup-cage and triflange constructs were recorded. Re-revision, periprosthetic joint infection (PJI), instability, and aseptic loosening were pooled using fixed- and random-effects models. Meta-regression was performed to adjust for acetabular defect severity. RESULTS:There were 18 studies comprising 808 revision THAs (293 cup-cage and 515 custom triflange) included. Across both reconstruction strategies, the most common indications were aseptic loosening and conversion after periprosthetic joint infection. The weighted mean follow-up was 5.8 years for cup-cage and 6.2 years for triflange reconstructions (P = 0.071). The cup-cage cohort had a higher proportion of Paprosky 3B defects than the triflange cohort (79.2 versus 71.8%, P < 0.001). After adjustment for acetabular defect severity, no differences in re-revision rates were observed between cup-cage and triflange constructs. Likewise, there were no differences in PJI, instability, or aseptic loosening between groups. CONCLUSIONS:Among patients undergoing rTHA with cup-cage or custom triflange reconstruction for Paprosky 2 to 3B defects, outcomes were equivalent across major failure modes after adjustment for bone loss severity. Neither construct demonstrated superior survivorship; therefore, implant selection should be individualized according to defect pattern, available resources, surgical goals, and surgeon preference rather than an expectation of differential clinical performance.

The use of technology in adult reconstruction (AR) reflects a balance of perceived utility, workflow considerations, and training exposure. This study evaluated whether exposure to technology during residency and fellowship training influences early-career AR surgeons’ utilization of and attitudes towards technology in total joint arthroplasty (TJA). An online survey was distributed to a nationwide cohort of 51 AR surgeons who completed fellowship between 2011 and 2022 at 13 U.S. programs. Survey items assessed exposure to technology during training, utilization, and perceived impact of technology on clinical practice. 36 surgeons (71%) reported using technology in fewer than half their training cases (< 50% group), while 15 (29%) reported use in the majority of cases (> 50% group). Most surgeons (88%) reported access to technology in their current practice, with no statistically significant difference between training exposure groups (p = 0.999). Similarly, among those with access, most surgeons (78%) reported using technology in their current practice, with no statistically significant difference between training groups (p = 0.238). However, surgeons with greater exposure rated the importance of technology in TJA and its impact on patient outcomes significantly higher (p = 0.003 for both). Greater exposure to technology during training was thus associated with higher perceived value, though no significant differences in access or utilization in early practice were observed.

BACKGROUND:The impact of body mass index (BMI) on outcomes after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a highly debated topic. Our study aims to investigate the implications of BMI changes from the day of surgical booking to the surgery date on perioperative and postoperative outcomes. METHODS:We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent elective, primary, unilateral TKA at an urban academic institution from 2015-2024 with a minimum 90-day follow-up. The cohort was classified into three groups by percent BMI change from surgical booking date to TKA date: Group 1, decrease in BMI; Group 2, 0-5% increase in BMI; and Group 3, > 5% increase in BMI. Propensity-score matching (1:1:1) based on age, gender, BMI at surgical booking, and smoking status was performed; perioperative and postoperative outcomes were compared. Multivariate regression analysis evaluated risk factors for interval change in BMI. RESULTS:Before matching, 12,990 patients were included, with 39.6% in Group 1, 41.2% in Group 2, and the remaining 19.2% in Group 3. Notably, Group 3 had the longest length of stay (50.3 h vs. 48.6 [1] & 47.1 [2]; P = 0.002) and the lowest discharge-to-home rates (88.7% vs. 89.8% [1] & 91.7% [2]; P = 0.014). No significant difference was seen in 90-day ED visits, 90-day readmissions, or revision rates. Logistic regression of the pre-match cohort found that prolonged surgical booking delays were associated with decreased all-cause revisions (OR = 0.98; P = 0.038), while percent BMI change in this period did not impact revision incidence. Duration of surgical booking delay had no impact on BMI changes in obese patients. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Our study evaluated preoperative BMI change between surgical booking and TKA, finding that most patients (60.4%) gain weight during this time. While patients with significant BMI increases (> 5%) had longer hospital stays and lower discharge-to-home rates, Percent BMI change during this period did not impact all-cause or septic revision incidence.

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:Periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) following primary and revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) and revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) have been studied, but a contemporary large-scale analysis of incidence has not been performed. This study assessed PJI incidence and trends for TKA, THA, rTKA, and rTHA using a contemporary database. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:Epic Cosmos database was retrospectively queried (2015-2023). Current procedureal terminology codes identified patients: 27447 (TKA), 27130 (THA), 27486 (rTKA one component), 27487 (rTKA both components), 27134 (rTHA both components), 27137 (rTHA acetabular component), and 27138 (rTHA femoral component). PJI rates were identified using International Classification of Diseases 9/10 codes and analyzed using linear regression. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:= .08). CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:Significant PJI reduction after primary TKA and THA was observed over the last decade, but infection rates remained stable in revision cohorts. Further investigations are required to assess underlying reasons for observed PJI rate reductions following primary arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND:The impact of postoperative antithrombotic therapy (ATT) on complications such as periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after total knee and hip arthroplasty (TKA and THA, respectively) remains understudied. We aimed to evaluate temporal trends in ATT use and the association between ATT type and PJI following primary TKA and THA. METHODS:We retrospectively reviewed 20,376 TKA and 16,076 THA patients receiving postoperative ATT between 2013 and 2025. Trends in ATT use were analyzed for all patients, but PJI incidence (2018 International Consensus Meeting definition) was assessed only in patients who had a minimum 90-day follow-up (14,663 TKA; 11,445 THA). Of these, 0.8% and 1.3% developed a PJI, respectively. Multivariate logistic regressions adjusted for age, sex, body mass index, smoking, and the Charlson Comorbidity Index were applied to assess the association between ATT and PJI. RESULTS:From 2013 to 2025, aspirin monotherapy increased to account for the majority of prophylaxis (TKA: 2.0 to 59.4%; THA: 3.1 to 82.2%). In contrast, the use of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) declined (TKA: 87.6 to 0.8%; THA: 86.7 to 2.3%), as did warfarin (TKA: 4.1 to 0.3%; THA: 3.4 to 0.9%) and rivaroxaban (TKA: 6.8 to 4.2%; THA: 8.9 to 2.8%). During the same period, apixaban use increased (TKA: 0 to 10.0%; THA: 0 to 12.7%). Aspirin monotherapy was associated with lower odds of PJI compared to non-aspirin regimens (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.60, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45 to 0.81, P = 0.001). Conversely, warfarin (OR 8.01, 95% CI 3.41 to 18.88, P < 0.001) and LMWH (OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.35 to 2.64, P < 0.001) were independently associated with increased PJI risk in THA. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Aspirin has become the dominant postoperative ATT agent. In THA, aspirin is associated with a significantly decreased risk of PJI compared to potent anticoagulants like warfarin and LMWH, while no such association was found in the TKA cohort. Surgeons should prioritize aspirin to minimize postoperative infection risk.

BACKGROUND:Prolonged retention of antibiotic-loaded articulating spacers after the first stage of a two-stage revision for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) can occur because of patient preference, surgeon preference, or medical reasons that prevent the planned second stage. Little is known about the frequency of persistent infections, mechanical complications, and functional results in patients with retained spacers. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES/OBJECTIVE:At a minimum follow-up of 2 years after spacer placement, among patients who do not undergo the second stage revision (replacement of the spacer with a definitive prosthesis of the hip or knee): (1) What was the survival of the spacer free from unplanned reoperation or removal, the cumulative incidence of symptomatic infection, and the overall (Kaplan-Meier) survivorship of the patients? (2) What is the cumulative incidence of mechanical complications (spacer fracture or dislocation)? (3) What is the ambulatory status of patients who have retained their spacers? METHODS:Between March 2011 and July 2023, a total of 111 and 152 patients underwent first-stage revision with an articulating spacer placement as part of a planned two-stage procedure for chronic PJI after THA and TKA at our institution, respectively. Of these, 21% (23 of 111) in the THA group and 24% (37 of 152) in the TKA group did not undergo the anticipated second-stage reimplantation at our institution at least 1 year after spacer placement. Among the original cohorts, 2% (2 of 111) of patients who underwent THA and 3% (4 of 152) of patients who underwent TKA subsequently underwent second-stage reimplantation at outside institutions when reviewed, leaving 19% (21 of 111) in the THA group and 22% (33 of 152) in the TKA group with retained spacers. Of the original cohorts, 7% (8 of 111) in the THA group and 5% (8 of 152) in the TKA group did not have a 2-year follow-up, leaving 12% (13 of 111) of patients with THA and 16% (25 of 152) of patients with TKA available for analysis with a minimum of 2 years of follow-up or death in this retrospective study. The median (range) follow-up from spacer placement to the latest follow-up was 5 years (2 to 11) for patients with THA and 4 years (2 to 8) for patients with TKA. In the THA cohort, the median (range) age was 72 years (59 to 86), and eight patients were female; the median BMI was 32 kg/m2, and the median Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) was 3.5. In the TKA cohort, the median (range) age was 69 years (45 to 83), 13 patients were female, the median BMI was 31 kg/m2, and the median CCI was 4. Complication data following spacer placement were obtained from the electronic medical record and by telephone follow-up when needed. Clinical symptoms (swelling, erythema, warmth, fever, drainage, sinus tract, and pain), inflammatory markers (C-reactive protein and erythrocyte sedimentation rate), available radiographic findings, and laboratory test results (including synovial fluid analysis when obtained) were reviewed for evidence of infection or spacer-related mechanical failure. Infection after the spacer placement was defined as failure when the treating surgeon determined that an unplanned return to the operating room or spacer removal was warranted, acknowledging that postoperative evaluation thresholds varied among surgeons. Spacer-related mechanical failure was defined as spacer fracture or dislocation leading to reoperation or spacer removal. Patients were classified based on whether they underwent an unplanned reoperation or spacer removal. Patients who did not undergo unplanned reoperation or spacer removal were further categorized based on use of chronic suppressive antibiotics (decisions regarding chronic antibiotic therapy were made by the treating surgeon and/or infectious disease team). Patients who underwent reoperation were those who returned to the operating room because of concerning clinical, imaging, and/or laboratory findings of infection or mechanical complications, and the treating surgeon decided to proceed with revision surgery. All reoperation decisions were made by fellowship-trained arthroplasty surgeons with high-volume experience in two-stage revision. We used a competing-risks model to estimate survival of the spacer free from unplanned reoperation or removal attributable to infection or mechanical complications (calculated as 1 minus the corresponding cumulative incidence), with death treated as a competing event. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to estimate patient survivorship, with death as the endpoint. Mortality data were obtained from medical records and hospital databases and were confirmed by telephone follow-up with family members and public records when needed. Ambulatory status before and after spacer placement was summarized descriptively and reported only for patients with both prespacer and postspacer data available (10 THAs and 25 TKAs); no formal hypothesis testing was performed for ambulatory or functional measures. RESULTS:At 2 years of follow-up, the survival of the spacer free from unplanned reoperation or removal was 89% (95% confidence interval [CI] 80% to 99%) for patients with THA and TKA combined, the cumulative incidence of infection was 5% (95% CI 0% to 12%), and the Kaplan-Meier survivorship of the patients was 92% (95% CI 84% to 100%). The cumulative incidence of mechanical complications (spacer fracture or dislocation) was 5% (95% CI 0% to 13%). In the THA cohort (10 patients), ambulatory status before the first stage included two patients using a wheelchair, two using a walker, one using crutches, two using a cane, and three walking without assistive devices. At latest follow-up, four patients used a wheelchair, two used a walker, two used a cane, and two walked without assistive devices. In the knee cohort (25 patients), ambulatory status before the first stage included two patients using a wheelchair, five using a walker, 13 using a cane, and five walking without assistive devices. At latest follow-up, two patients used a wheelchair, five used a walker, 13 used a cane, and five walked without assistive devices. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Retained articulating spacers can provide infection control in selected patients who do not proceed to reimplantation after first-stage spacer placement for PJI. Although infection-free spacer survival is achievable, these patients remain at risk for mechanical complications, including dislocation and fracture, as well as progressive functional decline. These risks should be clearly discussed during preoperative counseling to align expectations and support informed decision-making. Further studies are needed to refine patient selection, improve spacer durability, and standardize definitions of treatment success in PJI. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Level III, case series.

BACKGROUND:This study compares clinical and functional outcomes between simultaneous hardware removal during total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and staged TKA after prior hardware removal. METHODS:We retrospectively reviewed 155 patients who had prior knee hardware and underwent elective primary TKA between 2012 and 2024 at an urban academic institution. Patients were categorized into "simultaneous" removal during TKA (n = 127) or "staged" TKA after removal (n = 28), and stratified by hardware type (minor/moderate/major). RESULTS:Simultaneous procedures involved significantly less "major hardware," single incisions, and tibial stem extensions than staged procedures (32.3 versus 78.6%, P < 0.001; 81.9 versus 100%, P = 0.007; and 0.8 versus 10.7%, P = 0.019, respectively). Hardware, particularly the major type, was more often retained or partially retained in the simultaneous group (48.0 versus 21.4%, P = 0.008). Reoperation, revision, and infection rates did not significantly differ based on timing or hardware location. Simultaneous patients had smaller 3-month Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Pain Intensity and Interference score reductions (-1.6 versus -9.9, P = 0.006 and +0.4 versus - 7.2, P = 0.007, respectively), but greater 2-year Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement improvements (+25.0 versus - 1.1, P = 0.006) compared to staged patients. Simultaneous major hardware removal demonstrated significantly greater 2-year Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement and PROMIS Pain Interference improvement (+32.0 versus -5.5, P = 0.001, and -6.2 versus +5.8, P = 0.027, respectively), but smaller 2-week PROMIS Pain Intensity score reduction (+2.2 versus -4.9, P = 0.050) compared to staged procedures. CONCLUSIONS:Simultaneous hardware removal during TKA led to higher retained major hardware rates and fewer single incisions than staged procedures, without increased reoperation or revision risks. Despite higher 3-month pain scores, simultaneous surgery achieved greater 2-year functional improvement, suggesting it offers advantages for select patients.