Faculty Bibliography

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.

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.

AIMS/UNASSIGNED:Revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) is a technically challenging and costly procedure. It is well-documented that primary TKA (pTKA) have better survivorship than rTKA; however, we were unable to identify any studies explicitly investigating previous rTKA as a risk factor for failure following rTKA. The purpose of this study is to compare the outcomes following rTKA between patients undergoing index rTKA and those who had been previously revised. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:This retrospective, observational study reviewed patients who underwent unilateral, aseptic rTKA at an academic orthopaedic speciality hospital between June 2011 and April 2020 with > one-year of follow-up. Patients were dichotomized based on whether this was their first revision procedure or not. Patient demographics, surgical factors, postoperative outcomes, and re-revision rates were compared between the groups. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:= -0.102; p = 0.251). CONCLUSION/UNASSIGNED:Multiply revised TKA had worse outcomes, with higher rates of facility discharge, longer operative times, and greater reoperation and re-revision rates compared to index rTKA.

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.

Total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in the setting of a previous ipsilateral hip fusion/arthrodesis is an uncommon and challenging procedure. There is little information available in the literature on the challenges and techniques available to perform TKA in these patients. For a traditional TKA procedure, the patient is placed in the supine position and various knee-positioning devices are used to allow for adequate knee and hip flexion, which is required for surgical exposure and tibia preparation. Ipsilateral hip arthrodesis presents two major challenges: (1) Hip flexion is crucial for adequate knee flexion while the patient is supine during the TKA procedure, and (2) the use of advanced technology, specifically computer navigation and robotic-assisted surgery techniques, is limited due to the inability to acquire the hip center of rotation during surgery, due to the lack of hip motion. Therefore, equipment and positioning must be adjusted by the surgeon to facilitate TKA in these patients. This article reports the case of a 72-year-old male patient with a long-standing, painless right hip arthrodesis, presenting with end-stage osteoarthritis of the right knee, leg-length discrepancy, and an 11.6° difference between the mechanical and anatomical axes of the femur. We describe the unique surgical planning as well as the surgical positioning options that allow for adequate knee flexion and proper surgical exposure. Furthermore, we describe a novel method of computer-assisted navigation for intra-operative planning and execution utilizing a reflected tibia as a template for the distal femoral cut.

BACKGROUND:Chronic prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is most frequently treated with 2-stage revision in conjunction with antibiotic treatment. The aims of this study were 1) to investigate the characteristics of patients who have recurrent infection following 2-stage revision for PJI and 2) to identify risk factors associated with treatment failure. METHODS:A multicenter retrospective review of 90 total knee arthroplasty (TKA) patients who underwent 2-stage revision for treatment of PJI from March 1, 2003 to July 31, 2019, and had recurrent PJI was conducted. The minimum follow-up was 12 months (median follow up of 2.4 years). Microorganisms, subsequent revision, PJI control status, and final joint status were collected. The infection-free survival after initial 2-stage revision was plotted utilizing the Kaplan-Meier method. RESULTS:Mean survival time to reinfection was 21.3 months (range, 0.3 to 160.5). There were 14 recurrent infections that were acute PJIs treated with debridement, antibiotics, and implant retention (DAIR), while 76 were chronic and treated with repeat 2-stage revision. The most common pathogen identified for both index and recurrent PJI was coagulase-negative Staphylococci. Pathogen persistence was observed in 14 (22.2%) of recurrent PJIs. In total, 61 (67.8%) patients possessed a prosthetic reimplantation at their most recent follow-up, and 29 (35.6%) patients required intervention following repeat 2-stage. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Overall, 31.1% of the patients obtained infection control after treatment of a failed 2-stage revision due to PJI. The high rate of pathogen persistence and the relatively low survival time to recurrence suggests a need to more closely monitor PJIs cases within 2 years.

Background: National projections of future joint arthroplasties are useful in understanding the changing burden of surgery and related outcomes on the health system. The aim of this study is to update the literature by producing Medicare projections for revision total joint arthroplasty procedures from 2040 through 2060.
Method(s): The study uses 2000-2019 data from the CMS Medicare Part-B National Summary and combines procedure counts using CPT codes for revision total joint arthroplasty procedures. In 2019, revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) and revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA) procedures totaled 53,217 and 30,541, respectively, forming a baseline from which we generated point forecasts between 2020 and 2060 and 95% forecast intervals (FI).
Result(s): On average, the model projects an annual growth rate of 1.77% for rTHAs and 4.67% for rTKAs. By 2040, rTHAs were projected to be 43,514 (95% FI = 37,429-50,589) and rTKAs were projected to be 115,147 (95% FI = 105,640-125,510). By 2060, rTHAs was projected to be 61,764 (95% FI = 49,927-76,408) and rTKAs were projected to be 286,740 (95% FI = 253,882-323,852).
Conclusion(s): Based on 2019 total volume counts, the log-linear exponential model forecasts an increase in rTHA procedures of 42% by 2040 and 101% by 2060. Similarly, the estimated increase for rTKA is projected to be 149% by 2040 and 520% by 2060. An accurate projection of future revision procedure demands is important to understand future healthcare utilization and surgeon demand. This finding is only applicable to the Medicare population and demands further analysis for other population groups.
Copyright

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.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:The purpose of the current study was to determine if differences exist between cruciate-retaining (CR) and posterior-stabilized (PS) implant articulations for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) with regards to early post-operative pain. METHODS:We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent primary TKA, with the same TKA implant design, at our institution between January 2018 and July 2021. Patients were stratified based on whether they received a CR or non-constrained PS (PSnC) articulation and propensity score matched in a 1:1 ratio. A sub-analysis matching patient who received a constrained PS implant (PSC) to those undergoing CR TKA and PSnC TKA was also carried out. Opioid dosages were converted to morphine milligram equivalents (MME). RESULTS:616 patients after CR TKA were matched 1:1 to 616 patients with a PSnC implant. There were no significant differences between demographic variables. There were no statistically significant differences in opioid usage measured by MME on post-operative day (POD) 0 (p = 0.171), POD1 (p = 0.839), POD2 (p = 0.307), or POD3 (p = 0.138); VAS pain scores (p = 0.175); or 90-day readmission rate for pain (p = 0.654). A sub-analysis of CR versus PSC TKA demonstrated no significant differences in opioid usage on POD0 (p = 0.765), POD1 (p = 0.747), POD2 (p = 0.564), POD3 (p = 0.309); VAS pain scores (p = 0.293); and 90-day readmission rate for pain (p > 0.9). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Our analysis demonstrated no significant difference in post-operative VAS pain scores and MME usage based on implant. The results suggest that neither the type of articulation or constraint used for primary TKA has a significant impact on immediate post-operative pain and opioid consumption. LEVEL III EVIDENCE/METHODS:Retrospective Cohort Study.

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.