Faculty Bibliography

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:The importance of identifying how patients choose their healthcare providers has grown with the prevalence of consumer-centric health insurance plans. There is currently a lack of studies exploring the factors associated with how patients select their hip and knee joint arthroplasty surgeons. The purpose of this study was to determine how patients find their arthroplasty providers and the relative importance of various arthroplasty surgeon characteristics. METHODS:An electronic mail survey was sent to 3522 patients who had visited our institution for an arthroplasty surgeon office visit between August 2022 and January 2023. The survey consisted of multiple-choice questions, which aimed to inquire about the patients' referral sources for their current arthroplasty surgeon. In addition, patients were requested to rate the significance of 22 surgeon-related factors, on a scale of 1 (Not Important At All) to 5 (Very Important), in choosing their arthroplasty surgeon. RESULTS:Of the 3522 patients that received the survey, 538 patients responded (15.3%). The most common referral sources were physician referral (50.2%), family/friend referral (27.7%), and self-guided research (24.5%). Of those that were referred by a physician, 54.4% of respondents were referred by another orthopaedic provider. Patients rated board certification (4.72 ± 0.65), in-network insurance status (4.66 ± 0.71), fellowship training (4.50 ± 0.81), bedside manner/personality (4.32 ± 0.86), and facility appearance (4.26 ± 0.81) as the five most important factors in picking an arthroplasty surgeon. Television (1.42 ± 0.83), print (1.50 ± 0.88), and online (1.58 ± 0.93) advertisements, along with social media presence (1.83 ± 1.08), and practice group size (2.97 ± 1.13) were rated as the five least important factors. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Patients are most likely to select an arthroplasty surgeon based on referral from other physicians, namely orthopedic surgeons, in addition to board certification status, in-network insurance, and fellowship training. Overall, these findings highlight the importance of physician credentials and reputation within the orthopaedic community in order to attract and retain patients.

Prosthetic joint infection (PJI) remains a major cause of failure in total joint arthroplasty. This complication begets an increase in morbidity and mortality along with significant costs to the healthcare system. The use of prophylactic antibiotics has significant decreased the incidence of this complication. However, the incidence of PJI has not drastically decreased over the last 50 years. This review explores the history, current concepts, and future developments for prevention of PJI prior to incision in total joint arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND:Isolated acetabular component revision is an effective treatment for revision total hip arthroplasty patients who have well-fixed femoral implants. We aimed to evaluate the modes of acetabular failure following primary total hip arthroplasty and to identify factors associated with increased morbidities and postoperative outcomes. METHODS:We conducted a retrospective analysis and identified 318 isolated aseptic acetabular revisions. We separated patients by ≤90 days, 91 days to 2 years, and >2 years for acetabular revisions and compared demographics, reasons for revision, 90-day readmissions, rerevisions, and postrevision infections. Revisions ≤90 days, 91 days to 2 years, and >2 years accounted for 10.7, 19.2, and 70.1% of revisions, respectively. Revisions ≤90 days, 91 days to 2 years, and >2 years had their primary total hip arthroplasty at a mean age of 66, 63, and 55 years (P < .001), respectively. RESULTS:Revisions within 90 days were mainly indicated for dislocation/instability (58.8%) or periprosthetic fracture (23.5%) while revisions over 2 years were indicated for polyethylene wear/osteolysis (37.2%). Patients with revisions past 90 days were more likely to require rerevision compared to patients with revisions within 90 days (P < .001). There were no differences in readmissions (P = .28) or infection rates (P = .37). CONCLUSIONS:Acetabular revisions within 90 days were more commonly indicated for instability and periprosthetic fracture, while those over 2 years were indicated for polyethylene wear. Revisions past 90 days were more likely to require subsequent rerevisions without increased 90-day readmissions or infections. LEVEL III EVIDENCE/METHODS:Retrospective cohort study.

Postoperative stiffness is a challenging problem in the setting of primary total knee arthroplasty. There remains a relatively high prevalence of patients suffering from this condition, and it can lead to unsatisfactory outcomes and need for revision surgery as well as a large financial burden on the health care system. There are a number of factors that predispose patients to developing arthrofibrosis, including patient-specific factors and intraoperative and postoperative considerations. Arthrofibrosis can be treated effectively in the early stages with manipulation under anesthesia with or without lysis of adhesions, however, those who fail to respond to these interventions may require revision surgery, which generally has poorer outcomes when performed for this indication. Current research is focused on understanding the pathologic cascade of arthrofibrosis and novel targeted therapeutics that may decrease stiffness in these patients and improve outcomes.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Multiple surgical approaches are used for primary total hip arthroplasty (pTHA) and revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA). This study sought to investigate prevalence of discordance of pTHA and rTHA surgical approaches and to evaluate the impact of approach concordance on postoperative outcomes. METHODS:A multi-center retrospective review of patients who underwent rTHA from 2000 to 2021 was conducted at three large, urban academic centers. Patients who had a minimum one-year follow-up post-rTHA were included and grouped based on whether they received pTHA via a posterior (PA), direct anterior (DA), or laterally-based (DL) approach, and by concordance of index rTHA approach with their pTHA approach. Of the 917 patients studied, 839 (91.5%) were included in the concordant cohort and 78 (8.5%) in the discordant cohort. Patient demographics, operative characteristics, and postoperative outcomes were compared. RESULTS:Discordance was most prevalent in the DA-pTHA subset (29.5%), compared to the DL-pTHA subset (14.7%) or PA-pTHA subset (3.7%). Discordance varied significantly between primary approaches among all revisions, with DA-pTHA patients having the highest discordance rate for patients revised for aseptic loosening (46.3%, P<0.001), fracture (22.2%, P<0.001), and dislocation (33.3%, P<0.001). There were no differences between groups in dislocation rate, re-revision for infection, or re-revision for fracture. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The results of this multicenter study showed patients who received pTHA via the DA were more likely to receive rTHA via a discordant approach compared to other primary approaches. Since approach concordance did not impact dislocation, infection, or fracture rates after rTHA, surgeons can feel reassured using a separate approach for rTHA.

INTRODUCTION/UNASSIGNED:Older adults undergoing surgery are at risk of postoperative neurocognitive disorders, prompting the need for preoperative cognitive screening in this population. Traditionally, cognitive screening has been conducted in-person using brief assessment tools such as the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) or the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). More comprehensive test batteries, such as the Uniform Data Set (UDS) Neuropsychological Battery, and its remote testing version, the Uniform Data Set version 3 tele-adapted test battery (UDS v3.0 T-cog), have been developed to assess cognitive decline in normal aging and disease conditions, but have not been applied in the perioperative setting. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:We assessed the feasibility of using this remote UDS v3.0 T-cog battery for preoperative cognitive assessment in 81 older adults 65+ scheduled for lower extremity joint replacement surgery. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Our results indicate that the UDS v3.0 T-cog achieves 99% completion rates and demonstrates high patient satisfaction. Further, we found 28% of subjects were cognitively impaired in this patient cohort. DISCUSSION/UNASSIGNED:These findings suggest that the UDS v3.0 T-cog is a feasible tool for assessing cognitive function in the older adult perioperative population. To our knowledge, this is the first study to apply this comprehensive remote test battery in the preoperative setting.

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is one of the most popular and successful procedures of the past century. However, as the number of TKAs continues to increase, the volume of revision surgeries also will increase. Although revision TKAs are often successful, adult reconstruction surgeons will likely continue to see patients with limited arthroplasty options after multiple failed revision TKAs. This raises the question of limb salvage versus transfemoral amputation as the final procedure option. It is important to review modern techniques for the patient who has undergone multiple revision TKAs with significant bone loss or chronic infection. These techniques include distal femur replacement, total femur arthroplasty, knee arthrodesis, and transfemoral amputation.

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.