Faculty Bibliography

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.

BACKGROUND:Concerns have been voiced regarding how surgical approach impacts risk of dislocation after total hip arthroplasty (THA). This study investigated how surgical approach impacts rate, direction, and timing of dislocations following THA. METHODS:We conducted a retrospective review of 13,335 primary THAs from 2011 to 2020 and identified 118 patients with prosthetic hip dislocation. Patients were stratified into cohorts by surgical approach used during primary THA. Patient demographics, index THA acetabular cup positioning, number, direction, timing of dislocations, and subsequent revisions were collected. RESULTS:Dislocation rate differed significantly between posterior approach (PA), direct anterior approach (DAA), and laterally-based approach (LA) (1.1 versus 0.7% versus 0.5%, P = .026). Rate of hips dislocating anteriorly was lowest in the PA group (19.2%) compared to LA (50.0%) and DAA groups (38.2%, P = .044). There was no difference in rate of hips dislocating posteriorly (P = .159) or multidirectional (P = .508) instability; notably 58.8% of dislocations in the DAA cohort occurred posteriorly. There were no differences in dislocation timing or revision rate. Acetabular anteversion was highest in the PA cohort compared to DAA and LA (21.5 versus 19.2 versus 11.7 degrees, P = .049). CONCLUSION:After THA, patients in the PA group had a slightly higher dislocation rate compared to the DAA and LA groups. The PA group had a lower rate of anterior dislocation and nearly 60% of DAA dislocations occurred posteriorly. However, with no differences in other parameters including revision rates or timing, our data suggests surgical approach may impact dislocation characteristics to a lesser degree than previous studies have suggested.

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:Selective use of dual mobility (DM) implants in total hip arthroplasty (THA) patients at high dislocation risk has been proposed. However, evidence-based utilization thresholds have not been defined. We explored whether surgeon-specific rates of DM utilization correlate with rates of readmission and reoperation for dislocation. METHODS:We retrospectively reviewed 14,818 primary THA procedures performed at a single institution between 2011 and 2021, including 14,310 FB and 508 DM implant constructs. Outcomes including 90-day readmissions and reoperations were compared between patients who had fixed-bearing (FB) and DM implants. Cases were then stratified into three groups based on the attending surgeon's rate of DM utilization (≤1, 1 to 10, or >10%) and outcomes were compared. RESULTS:There were no differences in 90-day outcomes between FB and DM implant groups. Surgeon frequency of DM utilization ranged from 0 to 43%. There were 48 surgeons (73%) who used DM in ≤ 1% of cases, 11 (17%) in 1 to 10% of cases, and 7 (10%) in >10% of cases. The 90-day rates of readmission (7.3 vs 7.6 vs 7.2%, P=0.7) and reoperation (3.4 vs 3.9 vs 3.8%, P=0.3), as well as readmission for instability (0.5 vs 0.6 vs 0.8%, P=0.2) and reoperation for instability (0.5 vs 0.5 vs 0.8%, P=0.6), did not statistically differ between cohorts. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Selective DM utilization did not reduce 90-day readmissions or reoperations following primary THA. Other dislocation-mitigation strategies (i.e., surgical approach, computer navigation, robotic assistance, and large diameter fixed-bearings) may have masked any benefits of selective DM use.

BACKGROUND:Patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) are at increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Aspirin has been shown to be effective at reducing rates of VTE. In select patients, more potent thromboprophylaxis is indicated, which has been associated with increased rates of bleeding and wound complications. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of thromboprophylaxis choice on rates of early prosthetic joint infection (PJI) following TKA. METHODS:A review of 11,547 primary TKA patients from 2013 to 2019 at a single academic orthopaedic hospital was conducted. The primary outcome measure was PJI within 90 days of surgery as measured by Musculoskeletal Infection Society criteria. There were 59 (0.5%) patients diagnosed with early PJI. Chi-square and Welch-Two Sample t-tests were used to determine statistically significant relationships between thromboprophylaxis and demographic variables. Significance was set at p<0.05. Multivariate logistic regression adjusted for age, body mass index, sex, and Charlson comorbidity index was performed to identify and control for independent risk factors for early PJI. RESULTS:There was a statistically significant difference in the rates of early PJI between the aspirin and non-aspirin group (0.3 vs 0.8%, p<0.001). Multivariate logistic regressions revealed that patients given aspirin thromboprophylaxis had significantly lower odds of PJI (odds ratios (OR)=0.51, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.29 to 0.89, p=0.019) compared to non-aspirin patients. CONCLUSIONS:The use of aspirin thromboprophylaxis following primary TKA is independently associated with a lower rate of early PJIs. Arthroplasty surgeons should consider aspirin as the gold standard thromboprophylaxis in all patients in which it is deemed medically appropriate and should carefully weigh the morbidity of PJI in patients when non-aspirin thromboprophylaxis is considered.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Prior studies have demonstrated an association between time to revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) and indication; however, the impact of early versus late revision on post-operative outcomes has not been reported. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:A retrospective, observational study examined patients who underwent unilateral, aseptic rTKA at an academic orthopedic hospital between 6/2011 and 4/2020 with > 1-year of follow-up. Patients were early revisions if they were revised within 2 years of primary TKA (pTKA) or late revisions if revised after greater than 2 years. Patient demographics, surgical factors, and post-operative outcomes were compared. RESULTS:470 rTKA were included (199 early, 271 late). Early rTKA patients were younger by 2.5 years (p = 0.002). The predominant indications for early rTKA were instability (28.6%) and arthrofibrosis/stiffness (26.6%), and the predominant indications for late rTKA were aseptic loosening (45.8%) and instability (26.2%; p < 0.001). Late rTKA had longer operative times (119.20 ± 51.94 vs. 103.93 ± 44.66 min; p < 0.001). There were no differences in rTKA type, disposition, hospital length of stay, all-cause 90-day emergency department visits and readmissions, reoperations, and number of re-revisions. CONCLUSIONS:Aseptic rTKA performed before 2 years had different indications but demonstrated similar outcomes to those performed later. Early revisions had shorter surgical times, which could be attributed to differences in rTKA indication. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:III, retrospective observational analysis.

The management of acetabular bone loss during revision arthroplasty is a challenging problem. Not only are there a wide variety of potential defects, but the location of these defects can also drastically change the hip center of rotation, stability, and biomechanics. First, the assessment of the severity and location of bone loss preoperatively is highlighted as it is imperative to evaluate the acetabular bone stock remaining. It is especially important to determine how to identify a pelvic discontinuity. Various classification systems are discussed to help surgeons adequately assess and evaluate these defects. There are also numerous implants and treatment strategies available to manage the problem, all of which are determined by that preoperative assessment and classification. We review the history of managing these defects and how management has evolved into modern designs, including but not limited to structural allograft, distraction arthroplasty, jumbo cups, metal augments, cup-cages, and custom triflanges. This review then describes the up-to-date clinical results of these various techniques, highlighting the surgical execution needed to obtain a successful result. By describing the preoperative assessment, the acetabular defect classifications, and proposed evidence-based treatment algorithms, we hope that this review will enhance the understanding of these challenging reconstructions in the setting of acetabular bone defects.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Increasing age and hip fractures are considered risk factors for post-operative complications in total hip arthroplasty (THA). Consequently, older adults undergoing THA due to hip fracture may have different outcomes and require additional healthcare resources than younger patients. This study aimed to identify the influence of age on discharge disposition and 90-day outcomes of THA performed for hip fractures in patients ≥ 80 years to those aged < 80. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:A retrospective review of 344 patients who underwent primary THA for hip fracture from 2011 to 2021 was conducted. Patients ≥ 80 years old were propensity-matched to a control group < 80 years old. Patient demographics, length of stay (LOS), discharge disposition, and 90-day post-operative outcomes were collected and assessed using Chi-square and independent sample t tests. RESULTS:A total of 110 patients remained for matched comparison after propensity matching, and the average age in the younger cohort (YC, n = 55) was 67.69 ± 10.48, while the average age in the older cohort (OC, n = 55) was 85.12 ± 4.77 (p ≤ 0.001). Discharge disposition differed between the cohorts (p = 0.005), with the YC being more likely to be discharged home (52.7% vs. 27.3%) or to an acute rehabilitation center (23.6% vs. 16.4%) and less likely to be discharged to a skilled nursing facility (21.8% vs. 54.5%). 90-day revision (3.6% vs. 1.8%; p = 0.558), 90-day readmission (10.9% vs. 14.5%; p = 0.567), 90-day complications (p = 0.626), and 90-day mortality rates (1.8% vs 1.8%; p = 1.000) did not differ significantly between cohorts. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:While older patients were more likely to require a higher level of post-hospital care, outcomes and perioperative complication rates were not significantly different compared to a younger patient cohort. Payors need to consider patients' age in future payment models, as discharge disposition comprises a large percentage of post-discharge expenses. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Level III, 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.