Faculty Bibliography

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:The importance of identifying how patients choose their healthcare providers has grown with the prevalence of consumer-centric health insurance plans. There is currently a lack of studies exploring the factors associated with how patients select their hip and knee joint arthroplasty surgeons. The purpose of this study was to determine how patients find their arthroplasty providers and the relative importance of various arthroplasty surgeon characteristics. METHODS:An electronic mail survey was sent to 3522 patients who had visited our institution for an arthroplasty surgeon office visit between August 2022 and January 2023. The survey consisted of multiple-choice questions, which aimed to inquire about the patients' referral sources for their current arthroplasty surgeon. In addition, patients were requested to rate the significance of 22 surgeon-related factors, on a scale of 1 (Not Important At All) to 5 (Very Important), in choosing their arthroplasty surgeon. RESULTS:Of the 3522 patients that received the survey, 538 patients responded (15.3%). The most common referral sources were physician referral (50.2%), family/friend referral (27.7%), and self-guided research (24.5%). Of those that were referred by a physician, 54.4% of respondents were referred by another orthopaedic provider. Patients rated board certification (4.72 ± 0.65), in-network insurance status (4.66 ± 0.71), fellowship training (4.50 ± 0.81), bedside manner/personality (4.32 ± 0.86), and facility appearance (4.26 ± 0.81) as the five most important factors in picking an arthroplasty surgeon. Television (1.42 ± 0.83), print (1.50 ± 0.88), and online (1.58 ± 0.93) advertisements, along with social media presence (1.83 ± 1.08), and practice group size (2.97 ± 1.13) were rated as the five least important factors. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Patients are most likely to select an arthroplasty surgeon based on referral from other physicians, namely orthopedic surgeons, in addition to board certification status, in-network insurance, and fellowship training. Overall, these findings highlight the importance of physician credentials and reputation within the orthopaedic community in order to attract and retain patients.

BACKGROUND:Isolated acetabular component revision is an effective treatment for revision total hip arthroplasty patients who have well-fixed femoral implants. We aimed to evaluate the modes of acetabular failure following primary total hip arthroplasty and to identify factors associated with increased morbidities and postoperative outcomes. METHODS:We conducted a retrospective analysis and identified 318 isolated aseptic acetabular revisions. We separated patients by ≤90 days, 91 days to 2 years, and >2 years for acetabular revisions and compared demographics, reasons for revision, 90-day readmissions, rerevisions, and postrevision infections. Revisions ≤90 days, 91 days to 2 years, and >2 years accounted for 10.7, 19.2, and 70.1% of revisions, respectively. Revisions ≤90 days, 91 days to 2 years, and >2 years had their primary total hip arthroplasty at a mean age of 66, 63, and 55 years (P < .001), respectively. RESULTS:Revisions within 90 days were mainly indicated for dislocation/instability (58.8%) or periprosthetic fracture (23.5%) while revisions over 2 years were indicated for polyethylene wear/osteolysis (37.2%). Patients with revisions past 90 days were more likely to require rerevision compared to patients with revisions within 90 days (P < .001). There were no differences in readmissions (P = .28) or infection rates (P = .37). CONCLUSIONS:Acetabular revisions within 90 days were more commonly indicated for instability and periprosthetic fracture, while those over 2 years were indicated for polyethylene wear. Revisions past 90 days were more likely to require subsequent rerevisions without increased 90-day readmissions or infections. LEVEL III EVIDENCE/METHODS:Retrospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Multiple surgical approaches are used for primary total hip arthroplasty (pTHA) and revision total hip arthroplasty (rTHA). This study sought to investigate prevalence of discordance of pTHA and rTHA surgical approaches and to evaluate the impact of approach concordance on postoperative outcomes. METHODS:A multi-center retrospective review of patients who underwent rTHA from 2000 to 2021 was conducted at three large, urban academic centers. Patients who had a minimum one-year follow-up post-rTHA were included and grouped based on whether they received pTHA via a posterior (PA), direct anterior (DA), or laterally-based (DL) approach, and by concordance of index rTHA approach with their pTHA approach. Of the 917 patients studied, 839 (91.5%) were included in the concordant cohort and 78 (8.5%) in the discordant cohort. Patient demographics, operative characteristics, and postoperative outcomes were compared. RESULTS:Discordance was most prevalent in the DA-pTHA subset (29.5%), compared to the DL-pTHA subset (14.7%) or PA-pTHA subset (3.7%). Discordance varied significantly between primary approaches among all revisions, with DA-pTHA patients having the highest discordance rate for patients revised for aseptic loosening (46.3%, P<0.001), fracture (22.2%, P<0.001), and dislocation (33.3%, P<0.001). There were no differences between groups in dislocation rate, re-revision for infection, or re-revision for fracture. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The results of this multicenter study showed patients who received pTHA via the DA were more likely to receive rTHA via a discordant approach compared to other primary approaches. Since approach concordance did not impact dislocation, infection, or fracture rates after rTHA, surgeons can feel reassured using a separate approach for rTHA.

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.

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.