Faculty Bibliography

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.

OBJECTIVE:To develop evidence-based consensus recommendations for the optimal timing of hip and knee arthroplasty to improve patient-important outcomes including, but not limited to, pain, function, infection, hospitalization, and death at 1 year for patients with symptomatic and radiographic moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis or advanced symptomatic osteonecrosis with secondary arthritis of the hip or knee who have previously attempted nonoperative therapy, and for whom nonoperative therapy was ineffective, and who have chosen to undergo elective hip or knee arthroplasty (collectively referred to as TJA). METHODS:We developed 13 clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, outcomes (PICO) questions. After a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to rate the quality of evidence (high, moderate, low, or very low), and evidence tables were created. A Voting Panel, including 13 physicians and patients, discussed the PICO questions until consensus was achieved on the direction (for/against) and strength (strong/conditional) of the recommendations. RESULTS:The panel conditionally recommended against delaying TJA to pursue additional nonoperative treatment including physical therapy, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, ambulatory aids, and intraarticular injections. It conditionally recommended delaying TJA for nicotine reduction or cessation. The panel conditionally recommended delay for better glycemic control for patients who have diabetes mellitus, although no specific measure or level was identified. There was consensus that obesity by itself was not a reason for delay, but that weight loss should be strongly encouraged, and the increase in operative risk should be discussed. The panel conditionally recommended against delay in patients who have severe deformity or bone loss, or in patients who have a neuropathic joint. Evidence for all recommendations was graded as low or very low quality. CONCLUSION:This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations regarding the optimal timing of TJA in patients who have symptomatic and radiographic moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis or advanced symptomatic osteonecrosis with secondary arthritis for whom nonoperative therapy was ineffective to improve patient-important outcomes, including pain, function, infection, hospitalization, and death at 1 year. We acknowledge that the evidence is of low quality primarily due to indirectness and hope future research will allow for further refinement of the recommendations.

OBJECTIVE:To develop evidence-based consensus recommendations for the optimal timing of hip and knee arthroplasty to improve patient-important outcomes including, but not limited to, pain, function, infection, hospitalization, and death at 1 year for patients with symptomatic and radiographic moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis or advanced symptomatic osteonecrosis with secondary arthritis of the hip or knee who have previously attempted nonoperative therapy, and for whom nonoperative therapy was ineffective, and who have chosen to undergo elective hip or knee arthroplasty (collectively referred to as TJA). METHODS:We developed 13 clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, outcomes (PICO) questions. After a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to rate the quality of evidence (high, moderate, low, or very low), and evidence tables were created. A Voting Panel, including 13 physicians and patients, discussed the PICO questions until consensus was achieved on the direction (for/against) and strength (strong/conditional) of the recommendations. RESULTS:The panel conditionally recommended against delaying TJA to pursue additional nonoperative treatment including physical therapy, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, ambulatory aids, and intraarticular injections. It conditionally recommended delaying TJA for nicotine reduction or cessation. The panel conditionally recommended delay for better glycemic control for patients who have diabetes mellitus, although no specific measure or level was identified. There was consensus that obesity by itself was not a reason for delay, but that weight loss should be strongly encouraged, and the increase in operative risk should be discussed. The panel conditionally recommended against delay in patients who have severe deformity or bone loss, or in patients who have a neuropathic joint. Evidence for all recommendations was graded as low or very low quality. CONCLUSION:This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations regarding the optimal timing of TJA in patients who have symptomatic and radiographic moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis or advanced symptomatic osteonecrosis with secondary arthritis for whom nonoperative therapy was ineffective to improve patient-important outcomes, including pain, function, infection, hospitalization, and death at 1 year. We acknowledge that the evidence is of low quality primarily due to indirectness and hope future research will allow for further refinement of the recommendations.

OBJECTIVE:To develop evidence-based consensus recommendations for the optimal timing of hip and knee arthroplasty to improve patient-important outcomes including, but not limited to, pain, function, infection, hospitalization, and death at 1 year for patients with symptomatic and radiographic moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis or advanced symptomatic osteonecrosis with secondary arthritis of the hip or knee who have previously attempted nonoperative therapy, and for whom nonoperative therapy was ineffective, and who have chosen to undergo elective hip or knee arthroplasty (collectively referred to as TJA). METHODS:We developed 13 clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, outcomes (PICO) questions. After a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to rate the quality of evidence (high, moderate, low, or very low), and evidence tables were created. A Voting Panel, including 13 physicians and patients, discussed the PICO questions until consensus was achieved on the direction (for/against) and strength (strong/conditional) of the recommendations. RESULTS:The panel conditionally recommended against delaying TJA to pursue additional nonoperative treatment including physical therapy, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, ambulatory aids, and intraarticular injections. It conditionally recommended delaying TJA for nicotine reduction or cessation. The panel conditionally recommended delay for better glycemic control for patients who have diabetes mellitus, although no specific measure or level was identified. There was consensus that obesity by itself was not a reason for delay, but that weight loss should be strongly encouraged, and the increase in operative risk should be discussed. The panel conditionally recommended against delay in patients who have severe deformity or bone loss, or in patients who have a neuropathic joint. Evidence for all recommendations was graded as low or very low quality. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:This guideline provides evidence-based recommendations regarding the optimal timing of TJA in patients who have symptomatic and radiographic moderate-to-severe osteoarthritis or advanced symptomatic osteonecrosis with secondary arthritis for whom nonoperative therapy was ineffective to improve patient-important outcomes, including pain, function, infection, hospitalization, and death at 1 year. We acknowledge that the evidence is of low quality primarily due to indirectness and hope future research will allow for further refinement of the recommendations.

The Food and Drug Administration has only approved mobile-bearing unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (MB-UKA) to be performed with a hanging leg holder. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of a supine knee position on MB-UKA performance.In total, 16 cadavers were randomized so that either the right or left knee was placed in the flexed or supine positions. One board-certified orthopaedic surgeon and three adult reconstruction fellows that attended the required Oxford partial knee instructional course performed four operations in each position. The primary outcome was final knee balance. Secondary outcomes included procedure duration, timing of individual surgical steps, implant sizes, range of motion, implant alignment, and fracture. A Students t-test was used to examine differences between positions with significance set at p < 0.05. Secondary analyses using two one-sided tests were conducted to explore equivalence between the two positions.There was no significant difference in mean final balance between supine (1.7 mm ± standard deviation [SD] = 1.5 mm) and flexed (1.3 ± 1.3 mm) positions (p = 0.390). There were also no significant differences between positions for procedure time (p = 0.497), tibia coronal alignment (p = 0.614), tibial slope (p = 0.194), femoral component sagittal alignment (p = 0.091), and fractures (n = 0). Exploratory equivalence analyses indicated that the positions were equivalent for final balance (p = 0.002).MB-UKA performed in the supine position is not significantly different from the flexed position in terms of ligament balance, overall procedure time, and radiographic appearance. These initial safety data warrant further clinical investigations and support the expansion of the surgical technique to include performing MB-UKAs in the supine position.

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 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.