Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:The lower morbidity and mortality rate associated with increased surgeon and hospital volume may also correlate with improved patient-reported outcome measures. The goal of this study was to determine the relationship between surgeon and hospital volume and patient-reported outcome measures after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) using American Joint Replacement Registry data. METHODS:Using American Joint Replacement Registry data from 2012 to 2020, 8,193 primary, elective TKAs with both preoperative and 1-year postoperative The Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Joint Replacement (KOOS-JR) scores were analyzed. This study was powered to detect the minimally clinical important difference (MCID). The main exposure variables were median annual surgeon and hospital volume. Tertiles were formed based on the median annual number of TKAs performed: low-volume surgeons (1 to 52), medium-volume (53 to 114), and high-volume (≥115); low-volume hospitals (1 to 283), medium-volume (284 to 602), and high-volume (≥603). The mean preoperative and 1-year postoperative KOOS-JR were compared. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to determine the effect of surgeon and hospital volume and demographics on achieving the MCID for KOOS-JR. RESULTS:The mean preoperative and 1-year postoperative KOOS-JR score for low-volume surgeons was 47.78 ± 13.50 and 77.75 ± 16.65, respectively, and 47.32 ± 13.73 and 76.86 ± 16.38 for low-volume hospitals. The mean preoperative and 1-year postoperative KOOS-JR score for medium-volume surgeons was 47.20 ± 13.46 and 76.70 ± 16.98, and 48.93 ± 12.50 and 77.15 ± 16.36 for medium-volume hospitals. The mean preoperative and 1-year postoperative KOOS-JR scores for high-volume surgeons were 49.08 ± 13.04 and 78.23 ± 16.72, and 48.11 ± 13.47 and 78.23 ± 17.22 for high-volume hospitals. No notable difference was observed in reaching MCID for KOOS-JR after adjustment for potential confounders. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:An increased number of TKA cases performed by a given surgeon or at a given hospital did not have an effect on achieving MCID for KOOS-JR outcomes.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:To improve revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) prognosis and postoperative management, a better understanding of how non-elective and elective indications influence clinical outcomes is needed. We sought to compare ambulatory status, complication rates, and implant survival rates in patients who underwent aseptic rTHA for periprosthetic fracture or elective indications. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:This retrospective study examined all aseptic rTHA patients with a minimum follow-up of two years at a single tertiary referral center. Patients were divided into two groups: fracture rTHA (F-rTHA) if the patient had a periprosthetic femoral or acetabular fracture, and elective rTHA (E-rTHA) if the patient underwent rTHA for other aseptic indications. Multivariate regression was performed for clinical outcomes to adjust for baseline characteristics, and Kaplan-Meier analysis was performed to assess implant survival. RESULTS:A total of 324 patients (F-rTHA: 67, E-rTHA: 257) were included. In the F-rTHA cohort, 57 (85.0%) and 10 (15.0%) had femoral and acetabular periprosthetic fractures, respectively. F-rTHA patients were more likely to be discharged to skilled nursing (40.3% vs. 22.2%, p = 0.049) and acute rehabilitation facilities (19.4% vs. 7.8%, p = 0.004). F-rTHA patients had higher 90-day readmission rates (26.9% vs. 16.0%, p = 0.033). Ambulatory status at three months postoperatively significantly differed (p = 0.004); F-rTHA patients were more likely to use a walker (44.6% vs. 18.8%) and less likely to ambulate independently (19.6% vs. 28.6%) or with a cane (28.6% vs. 41.1%). These differences did not persist at one and two years postoperatively. Freedom from all-cause re-revision (77.6% vs. 74.7%, p = 0.912) and re-revision due to PJI (88.1% vs. 91.9%, p = 0.206) were similar at five-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS:Compared to rTHA performed for elective aseptic indications, fracture rTHA patients had poorer early functional outcomes, with greater need for ambulatory aids and non-home discharge. However, these differences did not persist long term and did not portend increased infection or re-revision rates.

BACKGROUND:Revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) can be performed with isolated tibial, isolated femoral, and combined tibial and femoral component exchange for different indications. Replacement of only 1 fixed component in rTKA leads to shorter operative times and decreased complexity. We sought to compare functional outcomes and rates of rerevision in patients undergoing partial and full rTKA. METHODS:This retrospective study examined all aseptic rTKA patients with a minimum follow-up of 2 years in a single center between September 2011 and December 2019. Patients were divided into two groups: full rTKA (F-rTKA) if both components (femoral and tibial) were revised and partial rTKA (P-rTKA) if only 1 component was revised. A total of 293 patients (P-rTKA = 76, F-rTKA = 217) were included. RESULTS:P-rTKA patients had significantly shorter surgical time (109 ± 37 Versus. 141 ± 44 minutes, P < .001). At mean follow-up of 4.2 (range 2.2-6.2) years, rerevision rates did not significantly differ between groups (11.8 Versus. 16.1%, P = .358). Improvements in postoperative Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) pain and Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Scale (KOOS), Joint Replacement scores were similar as well (P = .100 and P = .140, respectively). For patients undergoing rTKA due to aseptic loosening, freedom from rerevision due to aseptic loosening was similar between groups (100 Versus. 97.8%, P = .321). For patients undergoing rTKA due to instability, freedom from rerevision due to instability did not significantly differ as well (100 Versus. 98.1%, P = .683). In the P-rTKA cohort, freedom from all-cause and aseptic revision of preserved components was 96.1% and 98.7% at the 2-year follow-up. CONCLUSION:Compared to F-rTKA, P-rTKA yielded similar functional outcomes and implant survivorship with shorter surgical time. When indications and component compatibility allow for such a procedure, surgeons can expect good outcomes when performing P-rTKA.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Previous studies have demonstrated that patients with positive preoperative urine toxicology (utox) screens prior to total joint arthroplasty (TJA) have higher readmission rates, greater complication rates, and longer hospital stays compared to patients with negative screens. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of postponing surgery for patients with positive preoperative utox in the Medicaid population. METHODS:This retrospective, observational study reviewed the Medicaid ambulatory database at a large, academic orthopedic specialty hospital for patients with a utox screen prior to TJA from 2012 to 2020. Patients were categorized into three groups: (1) controls with negative preoperative utox or a utox consistent with prescription medications (Utox-) with TJA completed as scheduled; (2) positive preoperative utox with TJA rescheduled and surgery completed on a later date (R-utox+); (3) positive preoperative utox inconsistent with prescription medications with TJA completed as scheduled (S-utox+). Primary outcomes included mortality, 90-day readmission rate, complication rate, and length of stay. RESULTS:Of the 300 records reviewed, 185 did not meet inclusion criteria. The remaining 115 patients included 80 (69.6%) Utox-, 5 (6.3%) R-utox+, and 30 (37.5%) S-utox+. Mean follow-up time was 49.6 months. Hospital stays trended longer in the Utox- group (3.7 ± 2.0 days vs. 3.1 ± 1.6 S-utox+ vs.2.5 ± 0.4 R-utox+, p = 0.20). Compared to the R-utox+group, the S-utox+ group trended toward lower home discharge rates (p = 0.20), higher in-hospital complication rates (p = 0.85), and more all-cause 90-day emergency department visits (p = 0.57). There were no differences in postoperative opioid utilization between groups (p = 0.319). Duration of postoperative narcotic use trended toward being longer in the Utox- patients (820.7 ± 1073.8 days vs. 684.6 ± 1491.8 S-utox+ vs. 585.1 ± 948.3 R-utox+, p = 0.585). Surgical time (p = 0.045) and revision rates (p = 0.72) trended toward being higher in the S-utox+ group. CONCLUSIONS:Medicaid patients with positive preoperative utox who had surgeries postponed trended towards shorter hospital stays and greater home discharge rates. Larger studies should be conducted to analyze the implications of a positive preoperative utox on risk profiles and outcomes following TJA in the Medicaid population. Study design Retrospective cohort study.

Total joint arthroplasty relies on the use of biomaterials that are biologically inert and capable of forming wear-resistant articulating surfaces. Polyethylene use in arthroplasty has become ubiquitous since its introduction in the 1960s. Early arthroplasty procedures of the hip utilized poly-tetra-flouroethylene, or "Teflon," due to its low coefficient of friction that was presumed to closely mimic the hyaline cartilage of native joints. Early catastrophic wear of Teflon caused a significant local tissue reaction contributing to osteolysis, aseptic loosening, and clinical failure ultimately limiting the material's surgical utility. Advancements in biomaterial synthesis and processing led to the fortuitous discovery of ultra-high-molecular-weight-polyethylene (UHMWPE) and the eventual evolution to highly cross-linked polyethylene (HXLPE) as a bearing surface in hip arthroplasties with robust, long-term clinical success. Ultra-high-molecularweight-polyethylene was readily adopted for use in total knee arthroplasty following the material's successful use in hip replacement, however, the unique biomechanics of the knee have posed unique challenges. The use of HXLPE in knee arthroplasty has increased, however, clear data regarding its benefit over UHMWPE are conflicting. Recently, clinical as well as research and development studies of UHMWPE and HXLPE have focused on alternative postprocessing methods to optimize material stability and wear resistance. Second generation HXLPE utilizing sequential annealing processes or vitamin E to stabilize free radicals are promising means to improve mechanical stability and wear resistance for use in joint arthroplasty, however, more data is required to evaluate long-term outcomes and cost-effectiveness. In this review, we discuss the history and innovation of polyethylene use in orthopedic surgery and evaluate the current literature on outcomes of polyethylene use in hip and knee replacement.

BACKGROUND:Concerns regarding the effects of dexamethasone on diabetics' glucose control have stymied its use following total joint arthroplasty. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of 2 intravenous (IV) perioperative doses of dexamethasone on glucose levels, pain scores, and inpatient opioid consumption following total joint arthroplasty in diabetic patients. METHODS:A retrospective review of 523 diabetic patients who underwent primary elective THA and 953 diabetic patients who underwent primary elective total knee arthroplasty (TKA) between May 6, 2020, and December 17, 2021 was conducted. Patients who received 1 dose (1D) of perioperative dexamethasone 10 mg IV were compared to patients who received 2 doses (2D). Primary outcomes included postoperative glucose levels, opioid consumption as morphine milligram equivalences, postoperative pain as Verbal Rating Scale pain scores, and postoperative complications. RESULTS:The 2D TKA cohort had significantly greater average and maximum blood glucose levels from 24 to 60 hours compared to the 1D TKA cohort. The 2D THA cohort had significantly greater average blood glucose levels at 24 to 36 hours compared to the 1D THA cohort. However, the 2D TKA group had significantly reduced opioid consumption from 24 to 72 hours and reduced total consumption compared to the 1D TKA group. Verbal Rating Scale pain scores did not differ between cohorts for both TKA and THA at any interval. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Administration of a second perioperative dose of dexamethasone was associated with increased postoperative blood glucose levels. However, the observed effect on glucose control may not outweigh the clinical benefits of a second perioperative dose of glucocorticoids.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Infection after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) impacts the patient, surgeon, and healthcare system significantly. Surgeons routinely use antibiotic-loaded bone cement (ALBC) in attempts to mitigate infection; however, little evidence supports the efficacy of ALBC in reducing infection rates compared to non-antibiotic-loaded bone cement (non-ALBC) in primary TKA. Our study compares infection rates of patients undergoing TKA with ALBC to those with non-ALBC to assess its efficacy in primary TKA. METHODS:A retrospective review of all primary, elective, cemented TKA patients over the age of 18 between 2011 and 2020 was conducted at an orthopedic specialty hospital. Patients were stratified into two cohorts based on cement type: ALBC (loaded with gentamicin or tobramycin) or non-ALBC. Baseline characteristics and infection rates determined by MSIS criteria were collected. Multilinear and multivariate logistic regressions were performed to limit significant differences in demographics. Independent samples t test and chi-squared test were used to compare means and proportions, respectively, between the two cohorts. RESULTS:) and Charlson Comorbidity Index values (4.51 ± 2.15 vs. 4.04 ± 1.92) were more likely to receive ALBC. The infection rate in the non-ALBC was 0.8% (63/7,980), while the rate in the ALBC was 0.5% (7/1,386). After adjusting for confounders, the difference in rates was not significant between the two groups (OR [95% CI]: 1.53 [0.69-3.38], p = 0.298). Furthermore, a sub-analysis comparing the infection rates within various demographic categories also showed no significant differences between the two groups. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Compared to non-ALBC, the overall infection rate in primary TKA was slightly lower when using ALBC; however, the difference was not statistically significant. When stratifying by comorbidity, use of ALBC still showed no statistical significance in reducing the risk of periprosthetic joint infection. Therefore, the advantage of antibiotics in bone cement to prevent infection in primary TKA is not yet elucidated. Further prospective, multicenter studies regarding the clinical benefits of antibiotic use in bone cement for primary TKA are warranted.

BACKGROUND:The impact of preoperative nasal colonization with methicillin resistant staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) on total joint arthroplasty (TJA) outcomes is not well understood. This study aimed to evaluate complications following TJA based on patients' preoperative staphylococcal colonization status. METHODS:We retrospectively analyzed all patients undergoing primary TJA between 2011 and 2022 who completed a preoperative nasal culture swab for staphylococcal colonization. Patients were 1:1:1 propensity matched using baseline characteristics, and stratified into 3 groups based on their colonization status: MRSA positive (MRSA+), methicillin sensitive staphylococcus aureus positive (MSSA+), and MSSA/MRSA negative (MSSA/MRSA-). All MRSA+ and MSSA + underwent decolonization with 5% povidone iodine, with the addition of intravenous vancomycin for MRSA + patients. Surgical outcomes were compared between groups. Of the 33,854 patients evaluated, 711 were included in final matched analysis (237 per group). RESULTS:The MRSA + TJA patients had longer hospital lengths of stay (P = .008), were less likely to discharge home (P = .003), and had higher 30-day (P = .030) and 90-day (P = .033) readmission rates compared to MSSA+ and MSSA/MRSA-patients, though 90-day major and minor complications were comparable across groups. MRSA + patients had higher rates of all-cause (P = .020), aseptic (P = .025) and septic revisions (P = .049) compared to the other cohorts. These findings held true for both total knee and total hip arthroplasty patients when analyzed separately. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Despite targeted perioperative decolonization, MRSA + patients undergoing TJA have longer lengths of stay, higher readmission rates, and higher septic and aseptic revision rates. Surgeons should consider patients' preoperative MRSA colonization status when counseling on the risks of TJA.

BACKGROUND:Few studies have assessed how socioeconomic status (SES) influences patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). This study evaluated the impact of patient median ZIP code income levels on PROMs after TKA. METHODS:We retrospectively reviewed patients at our institution undergoing primary, unilateral TKA from 2017 to 2020. Patients who did not have one-year postoperative PROMs were excluded. Patients were stratified based on the quartile of their home ZIP code median income from United States Census Bureau data. There were 1,267 patients included: 98 in quartile 1 (median income ≤ $46,308) (7.7%); 126 in quartile 2 (median income $46,309-$57,848) (10.0%); 194 in quartile 3 (median income $57,849-$74,011) (15.7%); and 849 in quartile 4 (median income ≥ $74,012) (66.4%). We collected baseline demographic data, 2-year outcomes, and PROMs preoperatively, as well as at 12 weeks and one year, postoperatively. RESULTS:The Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement was significantly higher in quartile 4 preoperatively (P < .001), 12 weeks postoperatively (P < .001), and one year postoperatively (P < .001). There were no significant differences in delta improvements of Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score for Joint Replacement from preoperative to 12 weeks or one year postoperatively. There were no significant differences in lengths of stay, discharge dispositions, readmissions, or revisions. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Patients from lower income areas have slightly worse knee function preoperatively and worse outcomes following TKA. However, improvements in PROMs throughout the first year postoperatively are similar across income quartiles, suggesting that patients from lower income quartiles achieve comparable therapeutic benefits from TKA. LEVEL III EVIDENCE/METHODS:Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND:Intra-articular hyaluronic acid (IAHA) has been commonly used in the management of knee osteoarthritis (OA). This study sought to assess patient-reported outcomes (PRO) following different formulations of hyaluronic acid injections for patients who have knee OA. METHODS:A retrospective analysis was performed on patients who have knee OA and received IAHA knee injections from October 2018 to May 2022 in sports medicine (SM) and adult reconstructive (AR) clinics. Patients completed PRO measures including the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Mobility, Pain Interference, and Pain Intensity at baseline, 6-week, 6-month, and 12-month follow-up. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to evaluate changes in PRO measures between baseline and follow-up periods and to evaluate differences between the SM and AR divisions. A total of 995 patients received IAHA for knee OA and completed PRO assessments. RESULTS:There was no difference in the PROMIS measures based on molecular weight at 6 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months. Except for 6-month Mobility scores between the SM and AR patients (-0.52 ± 5.46 versus 2.03 ± 6.95; P = .02), all other PROMIS scores were similar. Mobility scores at 6 months were significantly different based on Kellgren and Lawrence grade (P = .005), but all other PROMIS scores were similar. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Average change in PROMIS scores were significantly different only for 6-month Mobility scores based on divisions and Kellgren and Lawrence grade but did not achieve minimally clinical important difference at most timepoints. Further studies are needed to investigate whether improvement is observed in specific patient populations.