Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:The most common treatment for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) after total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a 2-stage revision. Few studies have compared different articulating spacer constructs. This study compares the outcomes of real-component and all-cement articulating spacers for TKA PJI treatment. METHODS:This retrospective observational study examined the arthroplasty database at 3 academic hospitals for articulating spacers placed for TKA PJIs between April 2011 and August 2020. Patients were categorized as receiving a real-component or an all-cement articulating spacer. Data on demographics, surgical information, and outcomes were collected. RESULTS:One-hundred sixty-four spacers were identified: 72 all-cement and 92 real-component spacers. Patients who received real-component spacers were older (67 ± 10 vs 63 ± 12 years; P = .04) and more likely to be former smokers (50.0% vs 28.6%; P = .02). Real-component spacers had greater range of motion (ROM) after Stage 1 (84° ± 28° vs 58° ± 28°; P < .01) and shorter hospital stays after Stage 1 (5.8 ± 4.3 vs 8.4 ± 6.8 days; P < .01). There was no difference in time to reimplantation, change in ROM from pre-Stage 1 to most recent follow-up, or reinfection. Real-component spacers had shorter hospital stays (3.3 ± 1.7 vs 5.4 ± 4.9 days; P < .01) and operative times during Stage 2 (162.2 ± 47.5 vs 188.0 ± 66.0 minutes; P = .01). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Real-component spacers had improved ROM after Stage 1 and lower blood loss, shorter operative time, and shorter hospital stays after Stage 2 compared to all-cement articulating spacers. The 2 spacer constructs had the same ultimate change in ROM and no difference in reinfection rates, indicating that both articulating spacer types may be safe and effective options for 2-stage revision TKA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:III, retrospective observational analysis.

BACKGROUND:Intraoperative tourniquet use in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is a common practice which may improve visualization of the surgical field and reduce blood loss. However, the safety and efficacy associated with tourniquet use continues to be a subject of debate among orthopedic surgeons. The primary purpose of this study is to evaluate the effects of tourniquet use on pain and opioid consumption after TKA. METHODS:This is a multicenter randomized controlled trial among patients undergoing TKA. Patients were preoperatively randomized to undergo TKA with or without the use of an intraoperative tourniquet. Frequency distributions, means, and standard deviations were used to describe baseline patient demographics (age, gender, race, body mass index, smoking status), length of stay, surgical factors, visual analog scale pain scores, and opioid consumption in morphine milligram equivalents. RESULTS:A total of 327 patients were included in this study, with 166 patients undergoing TKA without a tourniquet and 161 patients with a tourniquet. A statistically significant difference was found in surgical time (97.87 vs 92.98 minutes; P = .05), whereas none was found for length of stay (1.73 vs 1.70 days; P = .87), postop visual analog scale pain scores (1.73 vs 1.70; P = .87), inpatient opioid consumption (19.84 vs 19.27 morphine milligram equivalents; P = .74), or outpatient opioid consumption between the tourniquet-less and tourniquet cohorts, respectively. There were no readmissions in either cohort during the 90-day episode of care. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Utilization of a tourniquet during TKA has minimal impact on postoperative pain scores and opioid consumption when compared with patients who underwent TKA without a tourniquet.

AIMS/OBJECTIVE:As our population ages, the number of octogenarians who will require a total hip arthroplasty (THA) rises. In a value-based system where operative outcomes are linked to hospital payments, it is necessary to assess the outcomes in this population. The purpose of this study was to compare outcomes of elective, primary THA in patients ≥ 80 years old to those aged < 80. METHODS:A retrospective review of 10,251 consecutive THA cases from 2011 to 2019 was conducted. Patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores (Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS)), as well as demographic, readmission, and complication data, were collected. RESULTS:= 0.57; p = 0.048). There were no observed differences in 12-week (p = 0.518) or one-year (p = 0.511) HOOS scores. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS: 2021;2(7):535-539.

BACKGROUND:To create a safe zone, an understanding of the combined femoral and acetabular mating during hip motion is required. We investigated the position of the femoral head inside the acetabular liner during simulated hip motion. We hypothesized that cup and stem anteversions do not equally affect hip motion and combined hip anteversion. METHODS:Hip implant motion was simulated in standing, sitting, sit-to-stand, bending forward, squatting, and pivoting positions using the MATLAB software. A line passing through the center of the stem neck and the center of the prosthetic head exits at the polar axis (PA) of the prosthetic head. When the prosthetic head and liner are parallel, the PA faces the center of the liner (PA position = 0, 0). By simulating hip motion in 1-degree increments, the maximum distance of the PA from the liner center and the direction of its movement were measured (polar coordination system). RESULTS:The effect of modifying cup and stem anteversion on the direction and distance of the PA's change inside the acetabular liner was different. Stem anteversion influenced the PA position inside the liner more than cup anteversion during sitting, sit-to-stand, squatting, and bending forward (P = .0001). This effect was evident even when comparing stems with different neck angles (P = .0001). CONCLUSION:Cup anteversion, stem anteversion, and stem neck-shaft angle affected the PA position inside the liner and combined anteversion in different ways. Thus, focusing on cup orientation alone when assessing hip motion during different daily activities is inadequate.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Blood loss during and following elective total hip arthroplasty (THA) can be substantial and may require allogeneic blood transfusions which carries significant risks and morbidity for patients. Intraoperative use of tranexamic acid (TXA) has been proven to reduce the need for allogeneic blood transfusion in elective THA patients. Data regarding TXA efficacy in reducing blood loss in trauma patients undergoing non-elective primary THA is sparse, and its routine use is not well established. METHODS:This is a retrospective analysis of a consecutive cohort of patients who underwent non-elective primary THA in a tertiary medical center between January 1st 2011- December 31st 2019. The cohort was divided into two groups; one received perioperative TXA treatment while the other did not. Blood loss, blood product administration, peri and postoperative complications, readmissions and 1-year mortality were compared between groups. RESULTS:A total of 419 patients (146 males, 273 females) who underwent THA were included in this study. The "TXA" group consisted 315 patients compared to 104 patients in the "no TXA" group. TXA use reduced postoperative bleeding, as indicated by changes in hemoglobin levels before and after surgery (ΔHb= -2.75 gr/dL vs. ΔHb= -3.34 gr/dL, p<0.001) and by administration of allogeneic blood transfusions (7.0% vs. 16.3%, p = 0.004). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Similar to the known effect of TXA in elective THA patients, the use of TXA treatment in patients undergoing non-elective THA led to a significant reduction in postoperative blood loss and in the proportion of patients requiring allogeneic blood transfusions.

BACKGROUND:There is debate regarding the benefit of liposomal bupivacaine (LB) as part of a periarticular injection (PAI) in total hip arthroplasty (THA). Here, we evaluate the effect of discontinuing intraoperative LB PAI on immediate postoperative subjective pain, opioid consumption, and objective functional outcomes. METHODS:On July 1, 2019, an institutional policy discontinued the use of intraoperative LB PAI. A consecutive cohort that received LB PAI and a subsequent cohort that did not were compared. All patients received the same opioid-sparing protocol. Nursing documented verbal rating scale pain scores were averaged per patient per 12-hour interval. Opiate administration events were converted into morphine milligram equivalences per patient per 24-hour interval. The validated Activity Measure for Postacute Care (AM-PAC) tool was used to evaluate functional outcomes. RESULTS:Six hundred thirty eight primary THAs received LB followed by 939 that did not. In the non-LB THAs, BMI was higher (30.06 vs 29.43; P < .05). Besides marital status, the remaining baseline demographics were similar between the two cohorts (P > .05). The non-LB THA cohort demonstrated a marginal increase in verbal rating scale pain scores between 12 to 24 hours (4.42 ± 1.70 vs 4.20 ± 1.87; P < .05) and 36 to 48 hours (4.49 ± 1.72 vs 4.21 ± 1.83; P < .05). There was no difference in inpatient opioid administration up to 96 hours postoperatively (P > .05) or AM-PAC functional scores within the first 24 hours (P > .05). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:A small statistical, but not clinically meaningful, difference was observed in subjective pain scores with LB PAI discontinuation. Opioid consumption and postoperative AM-PAC functional scores were unchanged after LB PAI discontinuation.

BACKGROUND:The use of perioperative adductor canal blocks (PABs) continues to be a highly debated topic for total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Here, we evaluate the effect of PABs on immediate postoperative subjective pain scores, opioid consumption, and objective functional outcomes. METHODS:On December 1, 2019, an institution-wide policy change was begun to use PABs in primary elective TKAs. Patient demographics, immediate postoperative nursing documented pain scores, opioid administration events, and validated physical therapy functional scores were prospectively collected as part of the standard of care and retrospectively queried through our electronic data warehouse. A historical comparison cohort was derived from consecutive patients undergoing TKA between July 1, 2019 and November 30, 2019. RESULTS:405 primary TKAs received PABs, while 789 patients were in the control cohort. Compared with controls, average verbal rating scale pain scores were lower among PAB recipients from 0-12 hours (2.42 ± 1.60 vs 2.05 ± 1.60; <.001) and 24-36 hours (4.92 ± 2.00 vs 4.47 ± 2.27; <.01). PAB recipients demonstrated significantly lower opioid consumption within the first 24 hours (44.34 ± 40.98 vs 36.83 ± 48.13; P < .01) and during their total inpatient stay (92.27 ± 109.81 vs 77.52 ± 123.11; <.05). AM-PAC scores within the first 24 hours were also higher for PABs (total scores: 20.28 ± 3.06 vs 20.71 ± 3.12; <.05). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:While the minimal clinically important differences in pain scores and functional status were comparable between both cohorts, patients demonstrated a significant reduction in overall inpatient opiate consumption after the introduction of PABs. Surgeons should consider these findings when evaluating for perioperative pain management, opioid-sparing, and rapid discharge protocols.

AIMS/OBJECTIVE:The COVID-19 pandemic led to a swift adoption of telehealth in orthopaedic surgery. This study aimed to analyze the satisfaction of patients and surgeons with the rapid expansion of telehealth at this time within the division of adult reconstructive surgery at a major urban academic tertiary hospital. METHODS:A total of 334 patients underging arthroplasty of the hip or knee who completed a telemedicine visit between 30 March and 30 April 2020 were sent a 14-question survey, scored on a five-point Likert scale. Eight adult reconstructive surgeons who used telemedicine during this time were sent a separate 14-question survey at the end of the study period. Factors influencing patient satisfaction were determined using univariate and multivariate ordinal logistic regression modelling. RESULTS:A total of 68 patients (20.4%) and 100% of the surgeons completed the surveys. Patients were "Satisfied" with their telemedicine visits (4.10/5.00 (SD 0.98)) and 19 (27.9%) would prefer telemedicine to in-person visits in the absence of COVID-19. Multivariate ordinal logistic regression modelling revealed that patients were more likely to be satisfied if their surgeon effectively responded to their questions or concerns (odds ratio (OR) 3.977; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.260 to 13.190; p = 0.019) and if their visit had a high audiovisual quality (OR 2.46; 95% CI 1.052 to 6.219; p = 0.042). Surgeons were "Satisfied" with their telemedicine experience (3.63/5.00 (SD 0.92)) and were "Fairly Confident" (4.00/5.00 (SD 0.53)) in their diagnostic accuracy despite finding the physical examinations to be only "Slightly Effective" (1.88/5.00 (SD 0.99)). Most adult reconstructive surgeons, seven of eight (87.5%) would continue to use telemedicine in the future. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS: 2021;103-B(6 Supple A):196-204.

BACKGROUND:Patellar maltracking is a potential surgical complication following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and can result in anterior knee pain, recurrent patellar dislocation, and damage to the medial patellar soft tissue stabilizers. Data remain unclear as to whether the patellar button should be revised during a revision TKA (rTKA) if changing the component implant system. Our study examines whether retaining the original patellar button during an rTKA using a different implant system affects patellar tracking. METHODS:A retrospective cohort study of rTKA patients between August 2011 and June 2019 was performed at an urban, tertiary referral center. Patients were divided into 2 cohorts depending on whether their retained patella from their primary TKA was of the same (SIM) or different implant manufacturer (DIM) as the revision system used. Radiographic measurements were performed on preoperative and postoperative knee radiographs and differences were compared between the 2 groups. Baseline demographic data were also collected. RESULTS:Of the 293 consecutive, aseptic rTKA cases identified, 122 underwent revision in the SIM cohort and 171 in the DIM cohort. There were no demographic differences between the groups. No statistical significance was calculated for differences in preoperative and postoperative patellar tilt or Insall-Salvati ratio between the groups. The DIM group was found to have more lateral patellar translation (-0.01 ± 6.09 vs 2.68 ± 7.61 mm, P = .001). However, when calculating differences in the magnitude of the translation (thereby removing differences due to laterality), no difference was observed (0.06 ± 3.69 vs 0.52 ± 4.95 mm, P = .394). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:No clinically significant differences in patellar tracking were observed when the original patellar component was retained and a different revision implant system was used. Given the inherent risks of bone loss and fracture with patellar component revision, surgeons performing rTKA may retain the primary patella if it is well fixed and can still expect appropriate patellar tracking regardless of the revision implant system used. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:III, Retrospective cohort study.