Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Demographic variables play an important role in outcomes following revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA). Surgical and in-patient variables as well as outcomes vary between indications for rTHA. The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of the indication for the rTHA on costs and postoperative outcomes. METHODS:This retrospective cohort analysis investigated all patients who underwent unilateral, aseptic rTHA at an academic orthopaedic specialty hospital who had at least 1-year postoperative follow-up. In total, 654 patients were evaluated and categorized based on their indication for aseptic rTHA. Demographics, direct and total procedure costs, surgical factors, postoperative outcomes, and re-revision rates were collected and compared between indications. RESULTS:Younger patients had the greatest leg length discrepancy (LLD) and older patients had the highest incidence of periprosthetic fracture (PPF) (P = .001). The greatest proportion of full revisions were found for LLD (16.7%) and head/polyethylene liner-only revisions for metallosis/adverse tissue reaction (100%). Operative time was significantly longest for LLD revisions and shortest for metallosis/adverse tissue reaction revisions (P < .001). Length of stay was longest for periprosthetic fracture and shortest for LLD and stiffness/heterotopic ossification (P < .001). Re-revision rate was greatest for implant failure and lowest for LLD. Total cost was highest for PPF (148.9%) and lowest for polyethylene liner wear (87.7%). CONCLUSIONS:Patients undergoing rTHA for indications such as PPF and aseptic loosening were associated with longer operative times, length of stay and higher total and direct costs. Therefore, they may need increased perioperative attention with respect to resource utilization, risk stratification, surgical planning, and cost-reducing measures. LEVEL III EVIDENCE/METHODS:Retrospective Cohort Study.

AIMS/OBJECTIVE:Navigation devices are designed to improve a surgeon's accuracy in positioning the acetabular and femoral components in total hip arthroplasty (THA). The purpose of this study was to both evaluate the accuracy of an optical computer-assisted surgery (CAS) navigation system and determine whether preoperative spinopelvic mobility (categorized as hypermobile, normal, or stiff) increased the risk of acetabular component placement error. METHODS:< 10°) spinopelvic mobility contributed to increased error rates. RESULTS:The paired absolute difference between CAS and postoperative imaging measurements was 2.3° (standard deviation (SD) 2.6°) for inclination and 3.1° (SD 4.2°) for anteversion. Using a target zone of 40° (± 10°) (inclination) and 20° (± 10°) (anteversion), postoperative standing radiographs measured 96% of acetabular components within the target zone for both inclination and anteversion. Multiple logistic regression analysis controlling for BMI and sex revealed that hypermobile spinopelvic mobility significantly increased error rates for anteversion (odds ratio (OR) 2.48, p = 0.009) and inclination (OR 2.44, p = 0.016), whereas stiff spinopelvic mobility increased error rates for anteversion (OR 1.97, p = 0.028). There were no dislocations at a minimum three-year follow-up. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS: 2022;3(6):475-484.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Surgeons can improve their practice by understanding potentially avoidable reasons for early revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA). The purpose of this study is to describe potentially avoidable indications for rTKA within 5 years of the index procedure. METHODS:This retrospective observational analysis utilized the rTKA database at a large, academic orthopedic specialty hospital to identify 167 consecutive rTKA from 2014 to 2019 performed within 5 years after primary TKA (pTKA). Two fellowship-trained arthroplasty surgeons reviewed the cases to classify them as potentially avoidable or unavoidable. Unavoidable indications for rTKA included infection/wound complication, arthrofibrosis, instability due to underlying collagen disease or significant weight loss, and any traumatic event leading to pTKA failure. Potentially avoidable indications included atraumatic instability, intraoperative fracture, metal allergy, and atraumatic patellar instability or maltracking. Aseptic loosening was considered avoidable if it occurred in the presence of component malpositioning or poor cementation technique. RESULTS:There were 112 (67.1%) unavoidable cases and 55 avoidable cases (32.9%). Of the unavoidable cases, there were 68 rTKA for infection or wound complications (60.7%), 23 for arthrofibrosis (20.5%), 6 for instability (5.4%), 6 for postoperative fracture (5.4%), 6 for aseptic loosening (5.4%), and 3 for extensor mechanism pathology following trauma (2.6%). Of the potentially avoidable rTKA, 24 were for aseptic loosening (43.7%), 23 for atraumatic instability (41.8%), 6 for atraumatic extensor mechanism pathology (10.9%), 1 for nickel allergy (1.8%), and 1 for intraoperative fracture (1.8%). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:These findings indicate that over 30% of early rTKA are potentially avoidable. Interventions should focus on addressing potentially avoidable causes such as short-term aseptic loosening and instability to reduce the need for costly and resource-intensive rTKA. Level of evidence III, retrospective observational analysis.

BACKGROUND:Although several techniques and implants have been developed to address bone loss in revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA), management of these defects remains challenging. This review article discusses the indications and management options of bone loss following total knee arthroplasty based on preoperative workup and intraoperative findings. MAIN TEXT/METHODS:Various imaging modalities are available that can be augmented with intraoperative examination to provide a clear classification of a bony defect. For this reason, the Anderson Orthopaedic Research Institute (AORI) classification is frequently used to guide treatment. The AORI provides a reliable system by which surgeons can classify lesions based on their size and involvement of surrounding structures. AORI type I defects are managed with cement with or without screws as well as impaction bone grafting. For AORI type IIA lesions, wedge or block augmentation is available. For large defects encompassing AORI type IIB and type III defects, bulk allografts, cones, sleeves, and megaprostheses can be used in conjunction with intramedullary stems. CONCLUSIONS:Treatment of bone loss in rTKA continues to evolve as different techniques and approaches have been validated through short- and mid-term follow-up. Extensive preoperative planning with imaging, accurate intraoperative evaluation of the bone loss, and comprehensive understanding of all the implant options available for the bone loss are paramount to success.

Purpose/UNASSIGNED:Use of dual mobility (DM) articulations can reduce the risk of instability in both primary and revision total hip arthroplasty (THA). Knowledge regarding the impact of this design on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) is limited. This study aims to compare clinical outcomes between DM and fixed bearing (FB) prostheses following primary THA. Materials and Methods/UNASSIGNED:All patients who underwent primary THA between 2011-2021 were reviewed retrospectively. Patients were separated into three cohorts: FB vs monoblock-D vs modular-DM. An evaluation of PROMs including HOOS, JR, and FJS-12, as well as discharge-disposition, 90-day readmissions, and revisions rates was performed. Propensity-score matching was performed to limit significant demographic differences, while ANOVA and chi-squared test were used for comparison of outcomes. Results/UNASSIGNED:=0.608) between the groups. Conclusion/UNASSIGNED:DM bearings yield PROMs similar to those of FB implants in patients undergoing primary THA. Although DM implants are utilized more often in patients at higher-risk for instability, we suggest that similar patient satisfaction may be attained while achieving similar dislocation rates.

BACKGROUND:Cost excess in bundled payment models for total joint arthroplasty (TJA) is driven by discharge to rehabilitation or a skilled nursing facility (SNF). A recently published preoperative risk prediction tool showed very good internal accuracy in stratifying patients on the basis of likelihood of discharge to an SNF or rehabilitation. The purpose of the present study was to test the accuracy of this predictive tool through external validation with use of a large cohort from an outside institution. METHODS:A total of 20,294 primary unilateral total hip (48%) and knee (52%) arthroplasty cases at a tertiary health system were extracted from the institutional electronic medical record. Discharge location and the 9 preoperative variables required by the predictive model were collected. All cases were run through the model to generate risk scores for those patients, which were compared with the actual discharge locations to evaluate the cutoff originally proposed in the derivation paper. The proportion of correct classifications at this threshold was evaluated, as well as the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, number needed to screen, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), in order to determine the predictive accuracy of the model. RESULTS:A total of 3,147 (15.5%) of the patients who underwent primary, unilateral total hip or knee arthroplasty were discharged to rehabilitation or an SNF. Despite considerable differences between the present and original model derivation cohorts, predicted scores demonstrated very good accuracy (AUC, 0.734; 95% confidence interval, 0.725 to 0.744). The threshold simultaneously maximizing sensitivity and specificity was 0.1745 (sensitivity, 0.672; specificity, 0.679), essentially identical to the proposed cutoff of the original paper (0.178). The proportion of correct classifications was 0.679. Positive and negative predictive values (0.277 and 0.919, respectively) were substantially better than those of random selection based only on event prevalence (0.155 and 0.845), and the number needed to screen was 3.6 (random selection, 6.4). CONCLUSIONS:A previously published online predictive tool for discharge to rehabilitation or an SNF performed well under external validation, demonstrating a positive predictive value 79% higher and number needed to screen 56% lower than simple random selection. This tool consists of exclusively preoperative parameters that are easily collected. Based on a successful external validation, this tool merits consideration for clinical implementation because of its value for patient counseling, preoperative optimization, and discharge planning. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

BACKGROUND:Isolated head and liner exchange is an appealing alternative to a more extensive revision total hip arthroplasty in patients who have well-fixed components. Despite efforts to increase femoral offset and restore soft tissue tensioning, limited component revision may be associated with higher rates of postoperative instability. METHODS:(range, 18.2-46.7). The most common indications for surgery included acetabular liner wear in 86 hips (41%), instability in 40 hips (19%), and infection in 36 hips (17%). RESULTS:increase, 95% CI 0.80-0.99, P = .046). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:In a large cohort of patients who had isolated head and liner exchange, patients who had prior instability had 7-fold elevated odds of postoperative dislocation. This risk remains significant after controlling for cup positioning outside the Lewinnek safe zone, liner type, head size, neck length, soft tissue compromise, neuromuscular disease, and dual mobility constructs. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:III, retrospective cohort study.

Background:Dual mobility (DM) bearings for total hip arthroplasty (THA) have been proposed to reduce the risk of instability in high-risk patients; however, their utility in primary THA remains relatively unexplored. No previous reports have described whether surgical approach influences outcomes associated with DM implant systems. This study aims to compare patient reported outcomes and post-operative groin pain between patients undergoing anterior approach versus posterior approach following primary THA with DM implants. Methods:We retrospectively reviewed all patients who underwent primary THA and received a DM implant between 2011-2021. Patients were stratified into two cohorts based on surgical approach (anterior vs. posterior approach). Primary outcomes included the presence of substantial postoperative groin pain as well as readmission and revision rates. Demographic differences were assessed using chi-square and independent sample t-tests. Outcomes were compared using multilinear and logistic regressions. Results:Of the 495 patients identified, 55 (11%) underwent THA via the anterior approach and 440 (89%) via the posterior approach. Surgical time (100.24 vs. 109.42 minutes, p=0.070), length of stay (2.19vs.2.67 days,p=0.072), discharge disposition (p=0.151), and significant postoperative groin pain (1.8%vs.0.7%,p=0.966) did not statistically differ between the cohorts. 90-day readmission (9.1%vs.7.7%,p=0.823) and revision rate (0.0%vs.3.0%,p=0.993) did not significantly differ as well. Specifically, readmission (p=0.993) and revision (p=0.998) for instability did not significantly differ between the cohorts. We found no statistical difference in HOOS, JR (p=0.425), VR-12 PCS (p=0.718), and VR-12 MCS (p=0.257) delta score improvement from preoperative to 1-year follow-up between the two groups. Conclusion:.