Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:Robotic assistance (RA) is increasingly used in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) for more accurate bony resection and balancing. However, the impact of robotic TKA (RATKA) on clinical outcomes and patient-reported measures (PROMs) remains unclear. This study aims to compare RATKA and conventional TKA (CTKA) using a novel robotic system. METHODS:A retrospective review was conducted on 10,031 patients who underwent TKA from February 2021 to October 2024. 289 RATKAs were performed with a hand-held robotic system. These RATKA cases were 1:1 propensity-score matched to CTKA for patient demographics, surgeon, implant system, and articulation design. Postoperative and clinical outcomes including surgical time, length of stay (LOS), discharge disposition, 90-day emergency department (ED) visits, manipulation under anesthesia (MUA), debridement, reoperations and revisions were collected and analyzed. Patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) included Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores (KOOS, JR) and Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS) scores. RESULTS:RATKA demonstrated significantly shorter LOS (30.04 vs. 51.91 hours, p < 0.001, respectively) compared to CTKA. There was no difference in surgical time (107.18 vs. 106.22 minutes, p = 0.349). Although there was no statistical difference in 90-day ED visits, the majority of the CTKA revisits were due to surgery-related causes when compared to the RATKAs (1.38% vs. 0.34%, p = 0.239). While RATKAs had higher incidence of MUAs (2.07% vs. 0.34%, p = 0.201), CTKAs had more reoperations (1 vs. 0, p = 0.369) and more revisions than the RATKAs (6 vs. 0, p = 0.117). In terms of PROMs, both RATKAs and CTKAs showed similar improvements in KOOS, JR and PROMIS pain scores following TKA, with no significant differences in the magnitude of improvement at early postoperative timepoints. However, at the one-year follow-up, RATKA demonstrated significantly greater reduction in PROMIS pain intensity (Δ-9.12, p = 0.032) compared to CTKAs. CONCLUSIONS:This retrospective analysis showed that the novel RATKA resulted in reduced length of stay, fewer reoperations, and greater reduction in one-year PROMIS pain intensity compared to CTKAs, despite having a higher incidence of MUA rates. Further research is needed to clarify these differences clinically and enhance patient outcomes.

BACKGROUND:Arthrofibrosis is a debilitating complication of total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and may benefit from arthroscopic lysis of adhesions (LOA) to improve range of motion and decrease pain. However, the rates of periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) and of the need for future revision TKA (rTKA) have only been studied in a limited capacity in the literature. In this study, we aimed to compare PJI and revision outcomes in patients who had undergone TKA between those who subsequently underwent arthroscopic LOA and those who did not undergo arthroscopic LOA. METHODS:The PearlDiver database was utilized to identify patients who had undergone primary TKA between 2016 and 2021. ICD-10 (International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision) and CPT (Current Procedural Terminology) codes were then used to identify patients who underwent LOA for arthrofibrosis. The rates of PJI and rTKA were compared between patients who did and did not undergo LOA. Multivariable logistic and Cox regressions, controlling for age, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index, tobacco use, and a body mass index of >30 kg/m2, were performed to compare the rates of PJI and revision between the LOA and no-LOA groups. RESULTS:A total of 383,143 patients were identified, of whom 703 had undergone arthroscopic LOA. Patients who underwent LOA had higher overall rates of PJI (2.7% versus 1.3%; p = 0.001) and all-cause revision (9.8% versus 1.8%; p < 0.001) than those who did not. Patients who underwent LOA had significantly higher odds of PJI (odds ratio [OR], 2.00; p < 0.014), aseptic loosening-related revision (OR, 3.31; p = 0.002), and all-cause revision (OR, 5.32; p < 0.001) within 1 year after the initial TKA. There was no significant difference in 1-year PJI-related revisions between the groups (OR, 1.71; p = 0.193). In a time-to-event analysis, patients undergoing LOA had significantly higher risks of PJI (p = 0.003) and all-cause revision (p = 0.001) but not PJI-related revision (p = 0.322) or aseptic loosening-related revision (p = 0.111). CONCLUSIONS:Arthroscopic LOA after primary TKA was associated with higher rates of PJI and subsequent revision surgery. Surgeons should consider the results of these studies when counseling patients on the importance of early rehabilitation and improving modifiable risk factors after TKA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Therapeutic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

AIMS/UNASSIGNED:The aim of this study was to assess the variations in the positioning of components between sides in patients who underwent staged bilateral total hip arthroplasty (THA), and whether these variations affected patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). METHODS/UNASSIGNED:A retrospective review included 207 patients who underwent staged bilateral THA between June 2017 and November 2022. Leg length, the height and anteversion of the acetabular component, and the coronal and sagittal angles of the femoral component were assessed radiologically and compared with the contralateral THA. The effect of the surgical approach and the technology used on this variation was also assessed. Linear regression was used to investigate the variations between the two THAs and the PROMs. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Between the two sides, the mean leg length varied by 4.6 mm (0.0 to 21.2), the mean height of the acetabular component varied by 3.3 mm (0.0 to 13.7), the mean anteversion varied by 8.2° (0.0° to 28.7°), the mean coronal alignment of the femoral component varied by 1.1° (0.0° to 6.9°), and the mean sagittal alignment varied by 2.3° (0.0° to 10.5°). The use of the direct anterior approach resulted in significantly more variation in the alignment of the femoral component in both the coronal (1.3° vs 1.0°; p = 0.036) and sagittal planes (2.8° vs 2.0°; p = 0.012) compared with the use of the posterior approach. The posterior approach generally led to more anteversion of the acetabular component than the anterior approach. The use of robotics or navigation for positioning the acetabular compoment did not increase side-to-side variations in acetabular component-related positioning or leg length. Despite considerable side-to-side variations, the mean Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome, Joint Replacement (HOOS JR) score was not affected by variations in the postioning of the components. CONCLUSION/UNASSIGNED:Staged bilateral THA resulted in considerable variation in the positioning of the components between the two sides. The direct anterior approach led to more variations in anteversion of the acetabular component and sagittal alignment of the femoral component than the posterior approach. The use of computer navigation and robotics did not improve the consistency of the positioning of the components in bilateral THA. Variations in the positioning of the components was not associated with differences in PROMs, indicating that patients can tolerate these differences.

The efficacy of "Expanded Gram-Negative Antimicrobial Prophylaxis" (EGNAP) in preventing postoperative infections has been previously reported in total hip arthroplasty (THA). However, it remains unclear as to whether these benefits extend to total knee arthroplasty (TKA). This study investigated whether adding EGNAP to our institution's preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis protocol would affect periprosthetic joint infection (PJI) risk in TKA patients. We retrospectively reviewed 10,666 elective, unilateral, primary TKA cases performed at a single-specialty tertiary academic hospital from 2018 to 2022. Before June 2021, all patients received 2 g of cefazolin for 24 h as part of the prophylactic antibiotic protocol. After June 2021, gentamicin or aztreonam (EGNAP) was added to the protocol for all TKA patients. Patients were grouped based on whether they received EGNAP or not (control group) before surgery. The groups were propensity score-matched in a 2:1 ratio. PJI and nephrotoxicity (using RIFLE criteria) risk was compared. After matching, the final study population consisted of 3007 patients in the non-EGNAP group and 1503 patients in the EGNAP group. There was no significant difference between the EGNAP and no EGNAP groups in the overall incidence of PJI (1.9% vs. 2.0%; p = 0.111) or the incidence of Gram-positive PJIs (0.3% vs. 0.8%; p = 0.103). The incidence of Gram-negative PJIs was 0.5% in the EGNAP group and 0.4% in the no EGNAP group, which was also not different between the groups (p = 0.692). There were no differences in nephrotoxicity between groups (p = 0.521). The addition of EGNAP to the antibiotic prophylactic protocol prior to TKA had no effect on overall or Gram-negative PJI risk in TKA patients. The findings of this study suggest that while EGNAP is safe to use and has minimal nephrotoxic effects, its prophylactic benefits do not extend to the primary TKA population. This may be attributed to the generally low rate of Gram-negative infections in TKA patients, where adding EGNAP does not provide a clear advantage in reducing the risk of such infections, unlike its potential benefits in primary THA population. This study investigates the effects of using prophylactic Gram-negative antibiotics prior to TKA and shows that though it is safe to use, Gram-negative bacterial coverage may have no impact on postoperative infection incidence.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Previous studies have identified perioperative gastric aspiration events as a contributor to varying outcomes following orthopedic trauma patients. However, current literature does not report on the effect an aspiration event has on outcomes for patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA), nor do current studies identify risk factors for perioperative aspiration events. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:We retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent primary, unilateral total joint arthroplasty (TJA) from May 2011 to December 2021. Patients undergoing primary THA/TKA for fracture and oncological indications were excluded. A total of 35,108 patients were stratified according to no aspiration event (35,077 patients) or perioperative aspiration event (intraoperative, day zero, to day seven, 31 patients). Patient demographics and clinical outcomes data were collected and compared. RESULTS:The perioperative aspiration group had a higher average Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) (4.03 vs. 2.96, p = 0.008). The aspiration group was more likely to be placed in a lateral decubitus position (54.8% vs. 30.5%, p = 0.003). Patients experiencing an aspiration event had a longer length of stay (LOS) (5.74 vs. 2.66, p < 0.001) and lower rates of home discharge (58.1% vs. 82.5%; p < 0.001). No difference in adverse outcomes such as rate of readmission, revision, and mortality were observed between groups. Multivariable regressions did not show significantly higher odds of aspiration based on surgery type, positioning, or any other demographic factors. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:This study demonstrates that patients experiencing a perioperative aspiration event during or immediately following TJA do not incur higher rates of readmission, revision, or mortality if treated in a timely manner. However, they do incur longer LOS and higher non-home discharge rates. Further research can explore non-demographic risk factors for perioperative aspiration.

BACKGROUND:Two-stage revisions for chronic periprosthetic joint infections (PJIs) often include antibiotic-loaded cement spacers to control for infection and preserve function. While studies have reported on complications (dislocations, readmissions, and reoperations) after static versus articulating spacer types, there is a paucity of evidence about whether the degree of spacer constraint in articulating spacers affects these complications. This study aims to address a key gap in understanding as to whether the level of spacer constraint affects complications in two-stage revision THA utilizing articulating spacers. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES/OBJECTIVE:(1) Among patients receiving nonconstrained versus constrained articulating antibiotic spacers during first-stage revision THA for PJI, are there differences in major complications, such as dislocation, loosening, periprosthetic fracture, reinfection, and unplanned revisions? (2) After second-stage reimplantation, do patients who received a nonconstrained versus constrained liner during the first stage show differences in the risk of complications, reoperations, and readmissions? METHODS:This is a retrospective review of 539 patients who underwent two-stage revision THA for PJI at a single-specialty, urban academic referral center between July 2011 and March 2023. Of these 539 patients, 72% (388) were excluded for undergoing a full component revision (femoral or acetabular) for any reason before their first stage, 3% (15) for receiving static spacers, and 6% (35) for receiving prefabricated femoral mono-block stems as part of their first stage. Those who underwent only liner exchange were not excluded. The remaining 19% (101 of 539) of patients were included in the final analysis and categorized by degree of liner constraint: 32 were in the nonconstrained group and 69 were in the constrained group. All surgeons included in this study specialize in adult reconstruction and are fellowship trained, and the selected level of constraint was solely based on their routine practice for articulating spacer construct. Baseline characteristics and clinical data, including age, self-reported gender, race, BMI, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, smoking status, surgical history, and perioperative details, were collected. There were no differences in baseline characteristics between the groups except for smoking status. A priori power analysis determined that 150 patients (75 per group) would be needed to detect a statistical difference in the risk of dislocation between groups, assuming a 20% dislocation risk for the constrained group, at a 0.05 alpha level, and 80% power. RESULTS:Between patients receiving nonconstrained versus constrained liners, there were no differences in complications after the first stage of revision. Three percent (1 of 32) of the nonconstrained liners developed dislocations compared with 3% (2 of 69) in the constrained group (relative risk [RR] 1.1 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09 to 12.3]; p > 0.99). Three percent (1 of 32) of the nonconstrained group developed periprosthetic fractures compared with 7% (5 of 69) in the constrained group (RR 0.4 [95% CI 0.05 to 3.69]; p = 0.72). Similarly, 3% (1 of 32) versus 7% (5 of 69) had persistent infection (RR 0.4 [95% CI 0.05 to 3.69]; p = 0.72). One incident of loosening occurred in the constrained group. There were also no differences in spacer revision incidence: 10% (3 of 32) of the nonconstrained group and 10% (7 of 69) of the constrained group underwent an unplanned revision after the first stage (RR 1.0 [95% CI 0.29 to 3.91]; p = 0.91). For the second stage, dislocation was 14% (3 of 21) in the nonconstrained group and 10% (5 of 52) in the constrained group (RR 1.1 [95% CI 0.2 to 5.9]; p > 0.99). When comparing periprosthetic fractures, 10% (2 of 21) of the nonconstrained group developed periprosthetic fractures compared with 4% (2 of 52) in the constrained group (RR 2.2 [95% CI 0.3 to 16.6]; p = 0.78). Nineteen percent (4 of 21) in the nonconstrained group had persistent infection compared with 12% (6 of 52) in the constrained group (RR 1.5 [95% CI 0.39 to 5.74]; p = 0.81). The occurrence of readmission after the second stage was 19% (4 of 21) in the nonconstrained group compared with 15% (8 of 52) in the constrained group (RR 1.1 [95% CI 0.3 to 3.9]; p > 0.99). Twenty-four percent (5 of 21) of patients in the nonconstrained group required a surgery-related emergency department visit compared with 13% (7 of 52) in the constrained group (RR 1.6 [95% CI 0.4 to 5.6]; p = 0.64). The incidence of reoperation was 14% (3 of 21) in the nonconstrained group and 13% (7 of 52) in the constrained group (RR 0.9 [95% CI 0.2 to 3.8]; p > 0.99). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Our results indicated no differences in the risk of dislocations, reinfections, reoperations, and readmissions between patients undergoing constrained versus nonconstrained articulating spacers for two-stage revision THA. Because constrained liners are typically preferred in patients at higher risk of instability, our findings suggest that their use does not necessarily increase the risk of complications. However, because of the small sample size, larger studies are needed to demonstrate whether there is superiority of liner constraint in this patient population. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Level III, therapeutic study.

BACKGROUND:Optimal femoral stem alignment and femoral canal fill have been associated with improved osteointegration in patients undergoing cementless total hip arthroplasty (THA). Direct anterior approach (DAA) has become more popular among new surgeons, and the ability to achieve appropriate stem alignment and canal fill due to limited surgical exposure may pose added risks. To mitigate these concerns, several modern tissue sparing stem designs have been designed. This study aimed to compare implant canal fill and alignment between two of the leading DAA-friendly femoral stems available. METHODS:This was a multi-center, retrospective study of patients who underwent DAA THA with either A (n = 149) or B stem (n = 85) between 2021 and 2023 and had a minimum one-year follow-up. Radiographic measures of proximal femoral morphology, including canal calcar ratio (CCR), Morphological Cortical Index (MCI), and Dorr Class (based on the CCR), as well as postoperative measures including femoral canal fill ratio (CFR), signs of osteointegration and stem alignment were analyzed and compared between stem types. RESULTS:, p = 0.082). Spot weld formation was significantly higher in stem A group (59.7% vs. 37.6%, P = 0.001). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:For patients with similar femoral morphology undergoing DAA THA, the stem A group demonstrated superior anatomical fit in the metaphyseal region, as evidenced by CFR, spot weld formation and implant positioning. Further longer follow up research is needed to elucidate these findings and their correlation to clinical outcomes.

BACKGROUND:Methylene blue (MB), a phenothiazine dye with antimicrobial activity, is used to stain soft tissues and guide thoroughness of debridement during revision total knee arthroplasty (rTKA) for periprosthetic joint infection (PJI). The purpose of this study was to determine if instillation of MB prior to arthrotomy impacts culture yield in TKA PJI. METHODS:We retrospectively reviewed 266 patients diagnosed with TKA PJIs according to the 2018 International Consensus Meeting (ICM) criteria from January 2018 - March 2023 at a single academic hospital. Demographics, perioperative outcomes, and preoperative and intraoperative culture positivity were compared between patients who received intraoperative MB (MB group; n = 26) and those who did not (nMB group; n = 241). A record of detected organisms was included in the analysis. RESULTS:There was no difference in preoperative aspiration culture positivity between groups. However, the MB group had a higher percentage of preoperative to intraoperative culture concordance (89.5 vs. 69.9%; P = 0.04). Although the overall rate of intraoperative culture positivity did not differ significantly between groups, the MB group had more intraoperative cultures obtained per patient (4.9 vs. 4.5; P = 0.02) and higher numbers of positive intraoperative cultures per patient. Concordance rates for patients in both groups with positive preoperative and negative intraoperative cultures were similar (10.5 vs. 16.5%, P = 0.50). Among patients with negative preoperative cultures, intraoperative culture positivity was more discordant in the MB group (0 vs. 18.8%; P = 0.03). There was no difference in the number of patients that received antibiotics following aspiration (68.4 vs. 49.6%; P = 0.12). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:While MB use did not affect overall culture positivity, it could interfere with intraoperative pathogen detection in patients with negative preoperative cultures. In these cases, MB should be avoided to decrease inaccuracies in intraoperative culture yield. If preoperative cultures are positive, MB may improve surgical debridement and likelihood of infection eradication.

BACKGROUND:High body mass index (BMI) is a risk factor for tibial baseplate loosening following total knee arthroplasty (TKA) but may not adequately correlate with stresses at the tibial baseplate. In this study, we aimed to determine an optimal cutoff of a weight-to-tibial baseplate surface-area ratio (weight/SA) for predicting aseptic tibial baseplate loosening. We further examined whether tibial stem extensions have a protective effect. METHODS:We identified 16,368 patients who underwent primary, elective TKA from June 2011 to March 2023. Patient demographics, including age, sex, and race, implants used, and revision surgeries were extracted. Revisions were manually reviewed to confirm revision indications. The exact surface areas of tibial baseplates were obtained from manufacturers. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis of patients without tibial stem extensions was utilized to examine the utility of BMI and weight/SA for predicting aseptic tibial baseplate loosening. Optimal weight/SA and BMI cutoffs for predicting loosening were determined. The effect of tibial stem extensions on loosening was then examined in patients at or above (n = 7,698; 3.7% with stem extension) and below (n = 8,670; 1.3% with stem extension) the determined weight/SA cutoff. RESULTS:There were 16,368 patients in the final sample (median age, 67 years; 68.9% female; 54.1% White). Weight/SA (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.653; p < 0.001) was a better predictor of aseptic tibial baseplate loosening requiring revision compared with patient BMI (AUC = 0.624; p < 0.001). The optimal weight/SA cutoff for predicting loosening was 0.0162 kg/mm2 (sensitivity = 0.747, specificity = 0.537). Multivariable logistic regression demonstrated that being at or above the weight/SA cutoff (odds ratio [OR] = 3.17; p < 0.001) but not the BMI cutoff (p = 0.911) was a significant predictor of revision for tibial baseplate loosening in patients without stem extensions. No cases of revision for aseptic tibial baseplate loosening in patients with stem extensions occurred either at or above or below the cutoff. The rate of revision for aseptic tibial baseplate loosening in patients without stem extensions was 0.3% for patients below and 1.0% for patients at or above the weight/SA cutoff. CONCLUSIONS:The ratio of weight-to-tibial baseplate surface area was more predictive of revision for aseptic tibial baseplate loosening following TKA compared with BMI alone. For patients with obesity with small tibial baseplate sizes, utilization of a tibial stem extension may protect against tibial loosening. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

BACKGROUND:Changing from standing to sitting positions requires rotation of the femur from an almost vertical plane to the horizontal plane. Osteoarthritis of the hip limits hip extension, resulting in less ability to recruit spinopelvic tilt (SPT) while standing and requiring increased SPT while sitting to compensate for the loss of hip range of motion. To date, the effect of total hip arthroplasty (THA) on spinopelvic sitting and standing mechanics has not been reported, particularly in the setting of patients with coexistent sagittal plane spinal deformity. METHODS:A retrospective review was performed of patients ≥18 years of age undergoing unilateral THA for hip osteoarthritis with sitting and standing radiographs made before and after THA. Alignment was analyzed at baseline and follow-up after THA in both standing and sitting positions in a relaxed posture with the fingers resting on top of the clavicles. Patients were grouped according to the presence or absence of sagittal plane deformity preoperatively into 3 groups: no sagittal plane deformity (normal), thoracolumbar (TL) deformity (pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis [PI-LL] mismatch > 10° and/or T1-pelvic angle [TPA] > 20°), or apparent deformity (PI-LL ≤ 10° and TPA ≤ 20°, but sagittal vertical axis [SVA] > 50 mm). RESULTS:In this study, 192 patients were assessed: 64 had TL deformity, 39 had apparent deformity, and 89 had normal alignment. Overall, patients demonstrated a reduction in standing SVA (45 to 34.1 mm; p < 0.001) and an increase in SPT (14.6° to 15.7°; p = 0.03) after THA. There was a greater change in standing SVA (p < 0.001) among patients with apparent deformity (-29.0 mm) compared with patients with normal alignment (0.9 mm) and patients with TL deformity (-16.3 mm). Those with apparent deformity also experienced the greatest difference (p = 0.03) in postural SPT change (moving from standing to sitting) (-10.1°) from before to after THA when compared with those with normal alignment (-3.6°) and TL deformity (-1.2°). The difference in postural SVA change from before to after THA was also greatest (p < 0.001) in those with apparent deformity (32.1 mm) compared with those with normal alignment (6.5 mm) and TL deformity (17.3 mm). CONCLUSIONS:Postural changes in spinopelvic alignment vary after THA depending on the presence of TL deformity or apparent deformity due to hip flexion contracture. Patients with apparent deformity had larger changes in standing and sitting alignment than patients with TL deformity or patients with normal alignment. The assessment of global sagittal alignment findings can be used to predict the likelihood of improvement in sagittal alignment after THA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/METHODS:Therapeutic Level III . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.