Faculty Bibliography

AIMS/OBJECTIVE:non-anterior (NA) surgical approaches on prosthetic joint infection (PJI), and examined the impact of new perioperative protocols on PJI rates following all surgical approaches at a single institution. PATIENTS AND METHODS/METHODS:(13.3 to 57.6, sd 6.1), respectively. Infection rates were calculated yearly for the DA and NA approach groups. Covariates were assessed and used in multivariate analysis to calculate adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for risk of development of PJI with DA compared with NA approaches. In order to determine the effect of adopting a set of infection prevention protocols on PJI, we calculated ORs for PJI comparing patients undergoing THA for two distinct time periods: 2013 to 2014 and 2015 to 2016. These periods corresponded to before and after we implemented a set of perioperative infection protocols. RESULTS:There were 1985 patients in the DA group and 4101 patients in the NA group. The overall rate of PJI at our institution during the study period was 0.82% (50/6086) and decreased from 0.96% (12/1245) in 2013 to 0.53% (10/1870) in 2016. There were 24 deep PJIs in the DA group (1.22%) and 26 deep PJIs in the NA group (0.63%; p = 0.023). After multivariate analysis, the DA approach was 2.2 times more likely to result in PJI than the NA approach (OR 2.2 (95% confidence interval 1.1 to 3.9); p = 0.006) for the overall study period. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:2019;101-B(6 Supple B):2-8.

AIMS/OBJECTIVE:A variety of surgical approaches are used for total hip arthroplasty (THA), all with reported advantages and disadvantages. A number of common complications can occur following THA regardless of the approach used. The purpose of this study was to compare five commonly used surgical approaches with respect to the incidence of surgery-related complications. PATIENTS AND METHODS/METHODS:-tests where appropriate and proportions were compared using the chi-squared test. RESULTS:A total of 248 patients had 263 complications related to the surgery, with an incidence of 6.94%. The anterior approach had the highest incidence of complications (8.5% (113/1329)) and the posterior approach had the lowest, at 5.85% (97/1657; p = 0.006). Most complications were due to deep infection (22.8%), periprosthetic fracture (22.4%), and prolonged wound drainage (21.3%). The rate of dislocation was 0.84% (14/1657) with the posterior approach and 1.28% (17/1329) with the anterior approach (p = 0.32). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:2019;101-B:646-651.

Total joint arthroplasty has traditionally been performed as an inpatient procedure to mitigate the risks of perioperative complications, limited mobility, and pain control issues. Reducing readmissions and complications is increasingly important with the push toward outcomes based reimbursement. Nonetheless, there is a definite trend toward not only shortening postoperative length of stay but also toward considering a same day discharge arthroplasty model in appropriately selected patients. In this review, we outline the literature evidence regarding same day discharge in total joint arthroplasty and discuss our own institutional guidelines for appropriate patient selection as well as contraindications.

Accurate placement of components is imperative for successful outcomes after total hip arthroplasty (THA). Although technology-assisted techniques offer the potential for greater accuracy in prosthesis positioning, the need for additional resources prevents their widespread use. The goal of this study was to compare primary THA procedures performed with and without intraoperative fluoroscopic guidance with regard to accuracy of prosthesis placement, operative time, and postoperative complications. The authors reviewed 341 consecutive cases (330 patients) undergoing primary THA at the authors' institution from September 2007 to January 2010. Postoperative anteroposterior radiographs were used to measure acetabular inclination angle, leg length discrepancy, and femoral offset discrepancy. Operative time and postoperative complications related to implant positioning were recorded. Mean acetabular inclination angle, leg length discrepancy, and offset discrepancy for control vs study groups were 43.0° (range, 32.2°-61.4°) vs 43.8° (range, 29.0°-55.1°), 4.75 mm (range, 0-25) vs 4.24 mm (range, 0-27), and 8.47 mm (range, 0-9.7) vs 7.70 mm (range, 0-31), respectively. Complication rates were not significantly different between the control (8.1%) and study (5.3%) groups. Mean operative time was significantly higher in the study group compared with the control group (59.8 vs 52.8 minutes) (P<.0001). The findings showed that intraoperative fluoroscopy may not improve prosthesis accuracy or decrease postoperative complication rates compared with a freehand technique. Because of significantly increased operative time and cost associated with fluoroscopic guidance, the authors discourage the use of this technique in uncomplicated primary THA performed at high-volume arthroplasty institutions.

Infecting microorganism is a strong predictor of treatment success for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). The purpose of this study was to compare the infecting pathogens causing PJI at two large infection referral centers in the United States and in Europe. In this study, 898 consecutive cases of PJI were identified at the HELIOS ENDO-Klinik Hamburg in Europe and 772 cases were identified at the Rothman Institute in the United States. The incidence of organisms at the HELIOS ENDO-Klinik Hamburg versus the Rothman Institute was: coagulase-negative Staphylococcus (39.3 vs. 20.2%), S. aureus (13.0 vs. 31.0%), Streptococcus (6.5 vs. 5.8%), Enterococcus (7.0 vs. 3.9%), anaerobic (9.0 vs. 0.9%), fungal (0.3 vs. 2.3%), mycobacterial (0 vs. 0.6%), polymicrobial (3.4 vs. 7.4%), culture negative (16.1 vs. 15.8%), and other organisms (0.9 vs. 5.4%). The percentage of methicillin-resistant S. aureus was significantly higher at the American center than at the European center (48.1 vs. 12.8%; p < 0.0001). Our findings show higher virulence and resistance organisms are more prevalent at a referral center in the United States compared with one in Europe.

BACKGROUND:The volume of total knee arthroplasties, including revisions, in young patients is expected to rise. The objective of this study was to compare the reasons for revision and re-revision total knee arthroplasties between younger and older patients, to determine the survivorship of revision total knee arthroplasties, and to identify risk factors associated with failure of revision in patients fifty years of age or younger. METHODS:Perioperative data were collected for all total knee arthroplasty revisions performed from August 1999 to December 2009. A cohort of eighty-four patients who were fifty years of age or younger and a cohort of eighty-four patients who were sixty to seventy years of age were matched for the date of surgery, sex, and body mass index (BMI). The etiology of failure of the index total knee arthroplasty and all subsequent revision total knee arthroplasties was determined. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used to evaluate the timing of the primary failure and the survivorship of revision knee procedures. Finally, multivariate Cox regression was used to calculate risk ratios for the influence of age, sex, BMI, and the reason for the initial revision on survival of the revision total knee arthroplasty. RESULTS:The most common reason for the initial revision was aseptic loosening (27%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 19% to 38%) in the younger cohort and infection (30%; 95% CI = 21% to 40%) in the older cohort. Of the twenty-five second revisions in younger patients, 32% (95% CI = 17% to 52%) were for infection, whereas 50% (95% CI = 32% to 68%) of the twenty-six second revisions in the older cohort were for infection. Cumulative six-year survival rates were 71.0% (95% CI = 60.7% to 83.0%) and 66.1% (95% CI = 54.5% to 80.2%) for revisions in the younger and older cohorts, respectively. Infection and a BMI of ≥ 40 kg/m(2) posed the greatest risk of failure of revision procedures, with risk ratios of 2.731 (p = 0.006) and 2.934 (p = 0.009), respectively. CONCLUSIONS:The survivorship of knee revisions in younger patients is a cause of concern, and the higher rates of aseptic failure in these patients may be related to unique demands that they place on the reconstruction. Improvement in implant fixation and treatment of infection when these patients undergo revision total knee arthroplasty is needed.

BACKGROUND:Preoperative antibiotics are known to be critical for decreasing the risk of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) in primary THA and TKA. However, antibiotics often are withheld before revision surgery, as there is concern that even a single dose of prophylactic antibiotics may affect intraoperative cultures. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES/OBJECTIVE:In this prospective randomized controlled trial, we determined the effect of a single dose of prophylactic antibiotics on cultures obtained at the time of revision arthroplasty. METHODS:We randomized 65 patients with known PJI after 37 TKAs and 28 THAs at three centers. Patients were included in the trial if they had a culture-positive aspiration and had not taken antibiotics within 2 weeks of the procedure. Patients were randomized to receive prophylactic antibiotics either before the skin incision or after a minimum of three sets of intraoperative cultures were obtained. Preoperative and intraoperative cultures were then compared. Results between patients who did and did not receive antibiotics were compared using an equivalence test for proportion differences (two one-sided t-tests [TOST]) with a 0.2 margin. RESULTS:Intraoperative cultures yielded the same organisms as preoperative cultures in 28 of 34 patients (82%) randomized to receive antibiotics before the skin incision compared to 25 of 31 patients (81%) randomized to receive antibiotics after obtaining operative cultures (statistically equivalent by TOST estimate: p = 0.0290). CONCLUSIONS:In this randomized controlled trial, there was no effect on the results of cultures obtained intraoperatively when prophylactic antibiotics were administered before skin incision. Given the known benefits of prophylactic antibiotics in preventing PJI, preoperative prophylaxis should not be withheld in revision surgery for fear of affecting cultures.

We assessed the utility of culturing draining wounds or sinuses in evaluating periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). Fifty-five patients with a draining wound or sinus after total joint arthroplasty (28 knees, 27 hips) who had not received antibiotics for at least two weeks were prospectively studied. Superficial wound cultures were compared to intra-articular cultures to determine accuracy in isolating infecting organism(s). The superficial cultures were concordant with deep cultures in 26 of 55 cases (47.3%) and were more likely to generate polymicrobial results (27.3% vs. 10.9%; P=0.023). In 23 cases (41.8%), the superficial cultures would have led to a change in antibiotic regimen. Superficial cultures yielded bacterial growth in 8 of the 10 cases (80%) when deep cultures and further work-up suggested the absence of deep infection. Given the potential to misguide diagnosis and treatment, we recommend against obtainment of superficial cultures in patients with a draining wound or sinus following hip or knee arthroplasty.